7 20 256 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/01516508d56f7f512f2a562ed212368b.jpg c7e34611bdf5a5ffcd466d4fb57bff9a https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/6c8735f0622ca13d06ce6c6e367315ed.jpg 1d2de1516ffa0f449eb7ee99832ce9f6 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/efdfe75829771fbf1f8623fd9cc4c898.jpg 70a4e638dc7f409033de84ae34fe1ebd https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/ae96fe52bda6dd9fd7c073d81f6c094d.jpg d0d07e40c16568d8915e7d99d9a0e495 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document <div style="text-align:center;">"Senate Vice President Says Constitution is a Farce"</div> <div style="text-align:left;">Reprinted from PROMETHEUS (Nov. 11 issue) By Mike Mellow The following, a taped interview, took place on October 3, 1977 in room 215 of Bushnell Dorm. Prometheus: Jim, two weeks ago you were Vice President of the Student Senate, a day student senator, and a day student judicial representative; besides that, you had plans for running for President of S. A. next year. Today, you have resigned from all your positions in S. A. and have in effect withdrawn from campus politics. What happened? Boyd: The whole thing started when Mike McCoy, who is President of the Day Student Association and a member of a committee formed by Executive Cabinet to re-write the Constitution of the Student Association, asked me to help him re-write the sections of the Constitution relating to day students. While doing so, I discovered Section 4, Article 6 of the Constitution, which deals with eligibility of students to hold office on the Executive Cabinet. That Section reads: "Eligibility for an office within the Executive Cabinet shall be dependent upon... full-time student status and the maintenance thereof throughout the tenure of office." At the beginning of the year, during registration, I was talking to Kathy Mayer who is now President of the S. A. (and who is not only a member of Executive Cabinet but presides over it) and she told me she was only taking 10 hours. Well, when I read this Article 6, Section 4, of the Constitution last week, I remembered that Kathy Mayer was only taking ten class hours. Everything that the administration has ever told the day student, in any way, shape or form, has defined a "full-time student" as one who is taking 12 semester credit hours. This is how a "full-time student" has been defined. Thus, it seemed to me that Kathy Mayer was holding office-illegally. Prometheus: What action did you take then? Boyd: I brought up the issue with two people, besides Mark, who were curious about the same situation. One of these people thought that my whole interest in the matter was a move on my part to get publicity and possible even more power: if Kathy resigned as President, Barb Stammerjohn would have become President and I would have succeeded Barb as Vice President of S. A. and President of the Senate: This person also knew that I was planning to run for President of the S. A. next year. I talked the entire situation over with my wife, who is a graduate of M. W. C., and we concluded that I had three alternatives. One was to stay on as Vice-President of S. A. and press charges in the Senate against Kathy Mayer for holding office illegally under the Constitution. I thought that I would probably lose in such an effort, mainly because G. W. would get into the middle of the argument. The second alternative I had was to stay in office, be a hypocrite and not fulfill my obligations under Article 6 Section 7 of the Constitution, under which I solemnly promised to "maintain the Constitution of the Student Association of Mary Washington College" as an officer of the S. A. The third alternative I had was to resign and to leave it in their hands to do what they saw fit. I submitted my resignation to Kathy Mayer and the rest of the Executive Cabinet as well as Mark McCoy and Cindy Heflin, Vice President of the Day Students Association, on October 27. The Executive Cabinet had a meeting that afternoon, which Mark and I attended. We all discussed the situation, and I said that the main reason for my resignation was the fact that I did not want to press the issue and if I remained on as either a Senator or as Vice President of the Senate, I would have to press it because of my oath to uphold the Constitution. A major fight in Senate over this issue would have opened up a huge sore in the S.A.'s ability to function; it would have laid a big question mark upon the validity of Kathy Mayer's holding office, no matter who won the case. Prometheus: What else happened at that October 27 meeting of Executive Cabinet? Boyd: They wanted to involve President Woodard, Dean Clement and Dean Croushore in the discussion, because Kathy was under the assumption that she was a full-time student because she had gotten permission from her faculty adviser (who happens to be on the of the assistant deans), from Dean Clement and from Dean Croushore to take the equivalent of part-time load (less than twelve hours), to remain on campus in a dorm, and to remain in the position of S.A. President. My whole point was the Constitution does not allow for any exemption in any way, shape, or form from any part of it. This was what I based my resignation on. Prometheus:Did you ever meet with members of the administration on this question? Boyd: Yes, on Friday the 28th, at about 4:30, the Executive Cabinet met with President Woodard; Dean Clement and Dean Croushore did not attend, though they were scheduled to be there. President Woodard informed us that his office, the office of the Dean, or the office of Financial Aid and Admissions, are the sole authorities of what is and what is not student status and have the right anytime, in any way, shape or form to change the status of any student as they see fit. Prometheus: But, given that, given the fact that the administration seems to be able to superceed or modify the Constitution at whim, doesn't it seem that Kathy is, in fact, holding office legally? I mean, since they modified the rules, she can't be accused of violating the OLD rules. Boyd: As far as the administration is concerned, as far as President Woodard is concerned, as far as Executive cabinet is concerned, she is holding office legally: because G.W. has declared her a full-time student. I upon learning of that fact, was asked by Executive Cabinet to take my resignation and to stay in office. I refused to do this, because I felt that if the Constitution was worth the paper it was written on, what is said was what it meant: the catalogue states twelve hours. There are no exceptions in the Constitution; therefore, I would not withdraw my resignation. Prometheus: Does the STUDENT HANDBOOK provide for any such exemptions? Boyd: The Handbook does not, neither does the Constitution. But from what President Woodard told us on the 28th of October, there are four or five exemptions, depending on how you define it, where G.W. will allow a student to take less than twelve hours and still be classified as a full-time student. One of those is if the students agrees to pay the full-time students status fee for tuition, room, board and activities fees. He also said that this goes for day students as well as residential students: if the student wanted to pay the full amount that is charged as a full-time student, he could take three hours if he wanted to and still be classified as a full-time student. An exemption might also be given if a student is handicapped, and physically cannot get around and can take but so many hours. Another is when a faculty advisor puts in writing in fact that a student is having trouble and cannot cannot handle a full load of twelve hours. Kathy was exempted for this reason: with her holding office as S.A. President, they felt that her work load would be more than she could handle if she had to carry a full class load as well. So she went to summer school and took courses so she will, in May, have enough credits to graduate. Prometheus: But, when given the fact that she could not take the full course load and hold office, why did they lower the course load rather than take away her office? Do these exemptions not undermine the whole rationale behind that Section 4 in the Constitution? Boyd: That was my thought on it. The Constitution says you must be a full-time student. To me a full-time student is one who takes twelve hours or more. Period. Kathy was given permission back last spring, when she was advised by her faculty advisor to come to summer school, because the administration likes to have at least one member of the Executive Cabinet on campus all year round. So Kathy came and took classes. She was also advised, at that same time, that she could take less than twelve hours this semester. She received this permission from her faculty advisor, from Dean Clement and from Dean Croushore. It was brought up in the meeting of October 28th that this has been common practice in times past, but it has never before been raised in quite this manner. You know how this place is: you have to dig deep to find where all the exemptions are on anything. Prometheus: So Kathy knew last spring when she was advised that she would be taking less than twelve hours? Boyd: That's correct. She didn't know that when she ran for office, though. When she ran, she expected to take a full class load. But when she was advised by her advisor on what courses to take in the following fall semester, it was brought to her attention that this practice had been used in the past, and it would be advisable for her (with the work load of the S.A. President) to take a smaller load and to come to summer school. All of this boils down to one thing: our student Constitution, which is supposedly what we're governed under, is not worth the paper it is written on. And the Student Association is, in effect, no more than a puppet of the administration because the administration has the right to veto any decision of the Senate, the judicial, or the Executive Cabinet. When the Executive Cabinet originally formed this committee to rewrite the Constitution, I thought it was a good idea: because there are a lot of contradictions and ambiguities in it. But President Woodard stated that, before it is submitted to the student body next February, he has the right to read Constitution as proposed and to make any changes he sees fit in it. So, basically he is ruling this campus as if we didn't have the Constitution: Prometheus: How does the present case involving Kathy Mayer compare with Steve Jackson's case last year? (Steve was a part-time day student who was denied the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee because he was not taking twelve hours.) Boyd: This case compares with Steve's in some respects, and in other respects it does not. Steve had graduated and was only taking three hours as a part-time student: he was paying only part-time fees. If he was paying the fees of full-time day student, they would not (according to what President Woodard told him) have declared him ineligible to hold office. So really, Steve's case isn't really comparable. A comparable case might look like this: take a day student who is taking ten hours and who is paying the full day-student fee. Let's say this student decides to run for office: it would require the permission of either the Dean's Office, or the President before that student could run. even though that student is paying full amount. President Woodard said that it is not an arbitrary decision on the part of the student status; it is up to the administration to grant such permission. The administration may declare this student "full-time" or "part-time", regardless of how many hours he is taking. It's just like a dorm student who at the beginning of the semester, is taking 16 hours and decides to drop six of them right at the end of the drop period. That student is allowed to remain in the dorms and is classified as full-time student even though he is now, at least technically, a part-time student. Whenever you come up with a rule that is supposedly in black-and-white in the Handbook, there is always an exemption or qualification to it that allows that rule to be either broken or bent or totally ignored. Prometheus: So the criteria of full-time student status seems to be the payment of the full-time fees rather than the taking a full-time class load? Boyd: That was the question I put to President Woodard, and he said that it depended on the other things I mentioned earlier. For instance, illness might be grounds for exemption. Prometheus: Do you plan to run for S.A. President next year? Boyd: I am not planning, willing, nor will I seek or accept any student elected office at Mary Washington College for the duration of my membership in its academic community due to the fact that our Constitution is a farce. Prometheus: Are you trying to "get " Kathy Mayer? Boyd: No, I am not. I think she acted in good faith. She was following what she was told by her advisor and by the dean. I disagree with the right of the dean and the President to state what is and what is not a full-time student. Prometheus: One final thought: when your resignation was read to the Senate, I understand from my Senator that the second paragraph, which read "I find that I cannot fulfill my oath (of office) because of a violation of Article VI, Section 4, by a member of the Executive Cabinet, with the full knowledge of the Executive Cabinet" was omitted. Is this true? Boyd: I did not attend the Senate meeting, so I don't know for sure. But I received the same information. Prometheus: May we have permission to print your letter of resignation in full? Boyd: Yes, you may.</div> Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Toussant, Kayla Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Senate Vice-President Says Constitution is a Farce Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Senate Vice-President Says Constitution is a Farce." The Bullet (VA), November 15, 1977. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-11-15 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 4 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Description An account of the resource Interview of former Vice President of the Student Senate at Mary Washington College, conducted by Mike Mello. The interview involved the Vice President of the Student Senate's reason for resigning after a disagreement about not following the Constitution of Student Associations at Mary Washington College. Subject The topic of the resource College student government Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA College Government College Student Constitution Student Government https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/b9d2a997244edac4ac1f8a89e35d67d8.jpg 73769b513e3e0baf9ba48e72afc153d5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Kowalewski, Carolyn Text Any textual data included in the document Letters Dear Editor, Dr. Thomas Johnson’s reiteration of his belief that THE BULLET is “anything but an example of a free press” deserves comment. His letter of January 31 makes essentially two assertions: first, that the administration, through the Board of Publications, censors THE BULLET; second, that the MWC newspaper should correct this situation by declaring its financial independence by refusing to accept any of the student activity fee and funding itself solely by advertising. This first view is patently untrue, and the second is unrealistic. Dr. Johnson does not seem to understand the role and purpose of the MWC Board of Publications. First, the Board is neither a “school administrative body” nor an “official element of the administration,” as Dr. Johnson would have us believe. The Board is composed of 15 members: the editors, business managers and the advisors of THE BULLET, BATTLEFIELD, and AUBADE, the SA Vice President, two students and one faculty member-at-large, the Comptroller, and the Director of Information Services. As a simple head count will reveal, nine members of the Board are students, three are members of the faculty, one is the editor of The Free Lance-Star and only two are members of the administration. Since most decisions of the Board require no more than a simple majority, it is clear that the Board is not a “school administrative body.” Secondly, Dr. Johnson seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Board of Publication grants THE BULLET its funding. The Board only recommends a proposed budget for the newspaper to the SA Senate Finance Committee; it is Finance, not the Board of Publications, that decides what portion of the student activities fee THE BULLET will receive each year. Needless to say, the Senate Finance Committee is composed exclusively of students and is presided over a chairman who is elected by the campus-at-large. Thirdly, Dr. Johnson is wrong to claim that THE BULLET is “censored” by the Publication Board. On the contrary, The Handbook comes closer to the truth when it states that the Board “guarantees editorial freedom for the student publications to maintain their integrity of purpose as vehicles for free inquiry and free expression.” The Board meets infrequently and never sees the layout of the BULLET prior to publication. Its Constitution does not grant it the power to veto any piece of copy for any reason. How then, may it censor? Dr. Johnson suggests that THE BULLET will never be a free press until it gains its revenue solely from “advertisers, purchasers or contributors.” As an example of such a “free press,” Dr. Johnson cites PROMETHEUS, which receives no MWC funding at all. If Prometheus can do it, then why can’t THE BULLET, asks Dr. Johnson. The absurdity of this question is underscored by a brief comparison of the two publications. PROMETHEUS prints every two weeks; the Bullet goes to press weekly. PROMETHUES prints 500 copies per issue; THE BULLET prints 3000. A standard 12-page issue of PROMETHUES costs $100; a four page BULLET costs $316; a six-page paper costs $473; an eight-page paper costs $580; a ten-page paper costs $770. One page of PROMETHEUS is 7” x 8 ½” as compared to the BULLET’S 15” x 22 ½”. In other words, an entire 12-page issue of PROMETHEUS would almost fit on two pages of the BULLET. As Fate would have it, the BULLET is presently an example of a free press, even by Dr. Johnson’s strict definition. Due to the incompetence of THE BULLET’S former business manager, the paper has completely exhausted its Finance Committee allotment for the year and is now being supported solely by advertising revenue. An intensive ad campaign has increased advertising revenue by 700 percent since the beginning of the semester (from six ads per issue to 42. But even with this intensive effort, the BULLET still had a $140 deficit for last week’s issue. There is no stronger testimony to the absurdity of Dr. Johnson’s position that THE BULLET should finance itself solely by “advertisers, purchasers or contributors.” Once again, Dr. Johnson idealism has blinded him to the real world. Dr. Johnson claims that the administration censors our campus newspaper. But if this is true, then how does THE BULLET manage to print such pieces as “Blame Enough For All” in the November 11, 1977 issue. Helen McFalls’ December 8 editorial on Kathy Mayer, and Elliott Wentz’s article on the Pam Burrows Honor Trial? Why are Gary Webb (who termed the “Westmoreland Four” trial a “Kangaroo Court”) and Thomas Vandever (who wrote that this year’s DVIR was “truly a war criminal”) both still holding positions of importance on the staff of the newspaper? The BULLET IS an example of a free press, and they are proof. Michael Mello Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters Subject The topic of the resource College student newspapers and periodicals Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978- 02-14 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 1 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Bullet Description An account of the resource Michael Mello's response to Dr. Thomas Johnson's belief that The Bullet is no an example of a free press. He believes it to be censored by the Board of Publications. https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/dddef3d40bb3614c34a3dff9a929037e.jpg 7b4b43a1c43b9ac05d3f3aab6bc2db19 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document "Backfire ERA" Editor: You (Ellie Schettino, Bullet, April 15, 1976) write: "Women have been and always will be equal to men, especially intellectually. It's about time the government recognize this." The government already has recognized it: Article VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states "That each federal department and agency shall take action to end discrimination in all programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance in any form. This action shall include termination of financial assistance." More to the point, Article VII of the same Act states "that it shall be unlawful for any employer or labor union with twenty-five or more persons after 1965 to discriminate against any individual in any fashion in employment because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall be established to enforce this provision by investigation, conference, conciliations, perfusion, and if need be, civil action in federal courts." So, economic equally is already written on the federal statue books. We do not need more legislation; if a law were the only thing needed to grant women the equality you claim they lack, there is already one. What will ERA accomplish that the 1965 Civil Rights Act did not accomplish? Further, you write "(…many married women are extremely successful career-wise). Yes, we need the freedom of choice!!" I see here a contradiction, because if many "women are successful career-wise," then the avenues to that success must already be open to them. If this is true, there already is the freedom of choice of which you speak, and we do not need ERA. I think it is most inappropriate for you to bring up the issue of women priests in an article entitled "ERA." Even if ERA were to pass, I fail to see how it would affect a church policy that was initiated in Rome. Have the pro-abortion laws in America in any way modified the Pope's stand on abortion. Also, although I am indeed sorry that you consider yourself cheated out of a Parrish Scholarship by your church, the U.S. Congress is not the proper body to petition with your grievance. It is purely a matter that must be settled within your church. One last observation: I find your statement "Perhaps the anti-ERA measures pushed by some women (?) are the result of male chauvinist pressures to keep women in the household" a childish slur at those women, some who may even be as excessively intelligent as yourself , who disagree with you on the ERA issue. To lump your opposition into the general rubric of "Slave" is as asinine as their labeling the fine ladies of NOW "a bunch of lesbians who are trying to destroy the family." I would suggest that you follow your own advice and not inflict your "viewpoints on the lifestyles of others." They are as entitled to their opinions of ERA as you are to yours. I am in favor of complete economic equality for women in the job market. I am not at all positive that ERA would bring us any close to that goal. We already have the necessary legislation: it is time we enforce the equality laws already in existence, rather than merely pass another one that will also go ignored. You ask "Why not ERA?" I ask "Why ERA?" Mike Mello Celeste Calude Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Ball, Shannon Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Backfire - ERA Subject The topic of the resource Equal Rights Amendment - Women's rights Description An account of the resource Editorial answering a letter written to The Bullet at Mary Washington college about women's rights needing more attention. The writer of the letter believing the Equal Rights Amendment would do that. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Backfire ERA." The Bullet (VA), April 12, 1976 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-4-12 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 1 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA editorial Equal Rights Amendment ERA https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/593a4c4bc779215f5f1aca2884c1cab6.jpg 0dc0012c2da665c3705ebc1e99e8c850 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/1fa7b10ab4ce972066150f7907be417d.jpg 1737e28adb9ee9519e893d4738358f8d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Gay Student Union at MWC For some obscure reason, a sizable number of MWC students cannot believe that a Gay Student Union exists on campus, (perhaps it would be more appropriate to say, rather that they don’t want to believe it). It is surprising that so many can expect the absolutely ridiculous—that Mary Washington, the world, would be relatively void of people with varying mindsets. It seems they seclude themselves voluntarily. It’s a weakness…a laziness, actually, to believe that everyone should be and is (unless obviously otherwise) absolutely the same. This sameness is referred to by many as “normality.” It strikes me as sad that so many invest so much of their faith in normality when so few of us fit exactly into that confining category. So, Mary Washington, the Gay Student Union does exist. We must come to grips with that fact that diversity lives (thank God) and is flourishing. The union sponsors parties, holds discussions, performs information services for the college population and the townspeople and offers support for the Mary Washington Gay Community. Happily, we have experienced little interference with our purpose or activities. We have, however, (not unlike the other organizations of diversity) been the victim of a major problem group on campus. If any of us are “trouble-makers,” these villains certainly are. The Hillel Club, the Afro-American Club, NORML, and we have all undergone suppression at the hands of the sign-ripper-downers. The Gay Student Union has recently been considering applying for Inter-Club Association approval. As the GSU has been in existence for 2 years, this possibility was seriously discussed with Debbie Love, Former ICA president, prior to the constitution controversy. Ironically, the first problem confronted in this process was with the required list of ten members by name. It has basically been decided to solicit names of uninvolved supporters rather than actual members, as few members can afford to bear the consequences of disclosure. The next GSU Party will be held on Saturday, February 11 at 8 pm. The address is 1104 William Street (Apt 812). Mandatory attendance for gays. Hall offenses will be given! Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Humphries, Kim Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Gay Student Union at MWC Subject The topic of the resource Gay rights Description An account of the resource An editorial about the Gay Student Union at Mary Washington College and the student body's reaction to it, arguing in support of the club. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Gay Student Union at MWC." Prometheus (VA), 1977. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG 400 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA gay rights LGBT support for gays https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/25139df2f8fed8a58724324908ff61b8.jpg d1dffd902d846d3aa062a6bdcd7f9c19 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/ca13d95a9e9b2939b4db09c703a386f4.jpg 6b14419bcb72f91e543002f0e0e0b36c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Are students entitled to due process of law? The Handbook provides that “all members of the College community have the right to due process in matters concerning discipline or status as members of the College community.” But Kathy Mayer has proven that the Handbook and the S.A. Constitution are essentially worthless; she has shown that even the sections of those documents which are clear and straightforward may be perverted by bizarre feats of semantic acrobatics. Joint Council last year (in the Madison case) and President Woodard this year (in the Westmoreland Four case) have indicated that the Handbook guarantee of due process is equally empty. Yet there is a somewhat more authoritative document guaranteeing us due process of law. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The question is whether Mary Washington College is bound by law to conform to these strictures. I believe that it is. Justice Bradley wrote in the Civil Rights Cases that “it is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject of the Amendment.” For example, the right to life is protected by the Amendment, but only against improper deprivation by the state. A private murder would not fit the requirements, but a lynching done under the auspices of police officers would. Thus, the emphasis here will be on an elaboration of the concept of “state action.” The Court early began the extension of the idea of state action to cover not only legislative action, but also action of the judicial and executive branches as well. And there was a vertical extension to include all of the governmental units subordinate to the State. The Court has found violators of the Amendment by the state courts (in Ex parte Virginia), legislatures (in Strouder v. West Virginia), executives (in Sterling v. Constantin), tax boards (in Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co.), boards of education (in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette), and even private enterprises that receive state aid (in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority). When any officer or employee of the state or any of its subordinate governmental units acts in pursuance of his official function, then there is state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. One facet of the problem of delineating state action appears in the classification of the private owned and managed operation which receives financial aid from the state. Is the act of such a body an act of the state or is it a private act for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment? Obviously, a categorical answer is impossible; it would be a rather absord doctrine which would consider as state agents all people on relief, unemployed persons benefitting from state compensation plans, etc. But what of enterprises that began as purely private, but which have become so enmeshed with the agencies of state government through grants or other special governmental treatment that they take on the character of state institutions? The Supreme Court established 30 years ago that these agencies are to be considered state agencies for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved the status of Enoch Pratt Free Library, in Baltimore, Maryland. Louisa Kerr, a Negro, sued for damages and injunctive relief, asserting that she was refused admission to a training course conducted by the library. She charged that the library was performing a governmental function, that she was rejected solely because of her race, and that such rejection constituted state action prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The library defended on the ground that it was a private corporation. In deciding Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free Library, the Supreme Court held that the library’s action was in fact state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parallels between Enoch Pratt Free Library and Mary Washington College are obvious; for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, both institutions are identical. This being the case, the actions of the Administration and other campus agencies in matters of discipline must conform to the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause and all that it implies. M.A.M. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. MacIndoe, Kathleen Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Due Process Of Law? Subject The topic of the resource Due process of law Due process of law-United States Description An account of the resource Newspaper article about the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause and its applicability to actions taken by state agencies. Colleges, categorized as state agencies, should conform to the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause regarding student discipline. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Bullet Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978-02-14 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA due process Enoch Pratt Free Library equal protection of the laws Fourteenth Amendment Mary Washington College https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/7e20312c7f7a22de95500ff0a5548953.jpg 51cec1395d5c18674f087da6064aeca9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Time for a Bill of Rights The SA Constitution, which is presently under revision, should contain a clear definition of the rights and privileges guaranteed to MWC students. The inclusion of a Student Bill of Rights within the Constitution would have one overwhelming advantage over the present situation by making explicit the rights which we already have. Present ambiguities in crucial aspects of MWC life would be clarified. This Bill of Rights should include the following provision: A. Free inquiry, expression and assembly are guaranteed to all students and shall not be abridged. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the institution subject only to requirements for maintenance of order. B. The right of students, living in residence halls, to be secure in their persons, living quarters, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be abridged. C. Students have the right to due process of law in all matters concerning discipline or status as members of the College community. No disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on any student without notice to the accused of the nature and cause of the charges, and a fair hearing which shall include confrontation of witnesses against him. D. Organizations may be established within the institution for any legal purpose. Affiliation with an extramural organization shall not, in itself, disqualify the institution branch or chapter from institution privileges. Membership lists shall be confidential and solely for the use of the organization except that names and addresses may be required as a condition of access to College funds. E. The student media is to be free of censorship. The editors and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student, faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial policy or content. This freedom entails a corollary obligation under the cannons of responsible journalism and applicable regulations of the FCC. F. Students have the same rights of privacy as any other citizens and surrender none of these rights by becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy extend to residence hall living. The institution is neither arbiter nor enforcer of student morals. Social morality, not in violation of a public law, is of no disciplinary concern to the institution. These provisions were presented to the MWC student body in November, 1970. The Bill of Rights was based on an American Bar Association/Law Student Division report. It was ratified by the students by a vote of 1,447 to 43, only to be shelved by Chancellor Grellet Simpson. The time has come for a re-introduction of a Student Bill of Rights. M.A.M. H.M.M Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Kowalewski, Carolyn Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "Time for a Bill of Rights" Subject The topic of the resource Student activities College student newspapers and periodicals--Law and legislation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 1 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context mello:39 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978-02-21 Description An account of the resource Letter to the editor advocating for a Student Bill of Rights at MWC. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Bullet https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/8c776b372f7152ddc50d827b8442c9ba.jpg 328a8a0152cfe30c341eb5e10f33bbf5 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/7f17b03f2b47fd5038e10c77e661c6a5.jpg 8b57de46a173e0e76f4955ff15d71332 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/cd1692ccabebac207b733b666e5414e6.jpg dc4ca7cd2f4318eee35eb24d7a57daa1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Bostaph, Emily Text Any textual data included in the document President Woodard was correct when, last Sunday at the DVIR address, he said that “Secretary of State Rusk guided and administered the foreign policy of our nation,” between 1961-1969. No matter what direction that foreign policy took and no matter what one’s assessment of it, Rusk bears a large measure of responsibility for it. The major focus of American foreign policy effort, attention, and resources for the last four years of Rusk’s term was concentrated upon war in Southeast Asia: if certain of the policies were “criminal,” as defined by universal morality as embodied in international law, then the Secretary of State must surely bear a measure of liability. I believe that at least five policies embodied by the U.S. in Vietnam were criminal by these two standards. 1) The massive destruction of crops by the use of chemicals. Rusk claimed time and again that only military targets had been targeted for destruction in Vietnam, yet the Defense Department reported that 505,000 acres of crops and 4,560,000 acres of forest were defoliated between 1962-1968. Studies concluded that these chemicals caused birth defects; further, the destruction of families’ livelihood often drove them into wretched refugee centers. 2) The use of “search and destroy” missions that entailed, in effect, the total destruction of entire villages. 3)”Free fire zones.” 4) The almost universal use of torture on prisoners of war, suspected enemy sympathizers and dissidents in general. 5) The aerial bombing of civilians. Rusk stated (in Prof. Fickett’s class), he had always been skeptical about the bombing; Rusk further said that it was his responsibility as Secretary of State to carry out the decisions of the president, even if he personally disagreed with those decisions. He claimed, in effect, that he was “just following orders”: a concept which was specifically denied by the Nuremburg Tribunal. Rusk said that he had always been skeptical about the bombing. But he was never “skeptical” enough to write any memorandums or to initiate any correspondence to that effect—as his colleague George Ball continually did. His “skepticism” did not prevent him from defending the B-52 raids before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1966. And he was never so “skeptical” about the bombing that he resigned his post in protest—as his colleague Eric Goldman did. It is perhaps true that Rusk never signed any orders calling for the bombing of civilians; he never formally ordered the torture of prisoners. But he also never protested the systematic and widespread use of war crimes, although his position as Secretary of State would have given his dissent a particular power. It is absurd to suggest that he was unaware of them, for they were regularly reported by firsthand observers in such publications as the NEW YORK TIMES, the LONDON TIMES and the WASHINGTON POST. It is difficult to visualize a Secretary of State failing to read these publications. Perhaps Rusk doubted the accuracy of the reports. But why did he not then initiate his own investigation as his subordinates had urged? Certainly he was aware of the bombing and defoliation, and it is difficult to believe that he is unaware of the rest. The conclusion is inescapable: although he was aware (at the very least) of the systematic policies of war crimes being practiced in Vietnam, he chose to ignore them. Rusk said in March that, “It isn’t a comfortable easy war. It is a dirty, mean struggle carried out without regard for ordinary norms of conduct by the Vietcong.” Rusk used this logic to justify search and destroy missions, free fire zones, and defoliation; he completely evaded inquires on the use of torture. Because the VC did it, we could do it. But if we use the same tactics as the enemy, are we not then as bad as the enemy? Rusk himself called the tactics of Vietnam “brutal,” “inhumane,” “criminal.” If we emulate those tactics, what does that make us? If Dean Rusk and his fellows in the highest councils of government are not the ones liable for this policy of war crimes, then who is? Is the infantryman who was drafted against his will, given 90 days of training and airlifted into a terrifying environment in which everyone but his buddies were considered the enemy? Vietnam was a war with no front lines, no demilitarized zones; it was an atmosphere that made such occurrences as My Lai all but inevitable. Are we to blame the pilots and the artillery officers, who would have been court marshaled had they refused orders under combat conditions? Are we to blame the generals and admirals who gave the pilots and artillery forces their orders? Or does the real blame for U.S. war crimes rest on the men in Washington who gave the generals their orders? They committed the greatest atrocity of all—those Lyndon Johnson, Dean Rusks, Robert McNamaras, McGeorge Bundys, who brought this country into the obscenity of Vietnam, who developed the policies and the use of the weapons that have destroyed Vietnam, that led inevitably to My Lai, that gave Cally and the other Callys the weapons and the opportunity to vent what was in them on the innocent, and who then sanctimoniously proclaimed their devotion to peace and liberty and freedom. This was the doctrine that America ratified in Europe in 1945: that when a national at war engages in a systematic program of war crimes, it is not the technicians who actually pushed the buttons in Dochau and Auschwitz that hang, rather it is the major governmental officials who initiated the policy who are liable. This was the principle adopted by the allies when they sent the major Nazi governmental officials to the scaffold. It is interesting to note that one such official was Joachim Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for foreign affairs; his job description was remarkably similar to Rusk’s. Nowhere in the volumes of evidence presented against him (which may be found in the MWC Library) was it suggested that Ribbentrop himself ever physically killed another human being. Yet he was indicted, tried, convicted and executed for, among other things, conspiring in the planning of aerial bombing of England, complicity in the systematic mistreatment of American prisoners in the Battle of the Bulge, and his complicity in turning the Warsaw Ghetto into a “free fire zone.” Ribbentrop was “skeptical” about these policies, but not skeptical enough to try to stop them. The Nuremburg Tribunal is instructive: “On 18th October, 1942, Hitler issued the Commando Order…ordering the evacuation of all persons in Northern Norway and the burning of their houses so that they could not help the Russians…Ribbentrop testifies that he was strongly opposed on moral and legal grounds, but could not refuse to pass it on…there is little evidence that Ribbentrop was actively connected with the program, and he must have concentrated on his task of strategic planning.” Exchange the word “Vietnam” for “Northern Norway,” and “Vietcong” for “Russians” and you have the strategic Hamlet Program and the search and destroy mission. Are we to apply a different standard upon ourselves than we did on Germany? Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutors at Nuremburg, agreed that this would be the epitome of hypocracy: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the U.S. does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against other which we would be unwilling to invoke against ourselves.” Of course, the implicit assumption here is that the Nuremburg concepts were valid, that “war crimes” do exist, that there exists at least a broad universal morality and code of conduct that transcends national boundaries. But a Machiavelian might argue that national self-interest is the only standard for judging foreign policy; such a person might argue that “was crimes” in Vietnam were justified because they were in the national interest. By this yardstick, rusk would not be guilty of war crimes and neither would Hitler, Himmler and Eichman. I would argue, however, that such crimes were not in America’s interest because they made it impossible for us to win the war. Vietnam was not so much a war of military objectives. It was essentially a struggle to win the “hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese people: an attempt to convince them to reject communism and embrace democracy. But one does not use napalm on villages and hamlets sheltering civilians caught between the government and the enemy if one is attempting to persuade those people of the rightness of one’s cause. One does not blast hamlets and their occupants with high explosives, defoliate a country and deform its people with chemicals if one is attempting to persuade them of the foe’s evil nature and one’s own morality. One does not declare where the people live (with nothing but a desire to be left alone) a “free fire zone” with anything and everything in it liable for destruction and death is one is attempting to persuade these people that one is fighting for their lives and liberties. If victory was defined as winning the “hearts and minds” of the people as Lyndon Johnson claimed, was this policy of atrocities the way to win? The only lasting peace we could have achieved in Vietnam was the peace of the graveyard. In the words of Tacitus in Life of Agricola, “they have made a desert, and have called it peace.” Was a desert worth 107,800,000,000 American taxpayer dollars, 303,475 Americans wounded and 55,000 Americans killed? Is this in our own “national interest?” Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Legacy of Dean Rusk: Two Views Subject The topic of the resource Vietnam War, 1961-1975 War crimes investigation Cabinet officers Rusk, Dean, 1909-1994 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael, “Legacy of Dean Rusk: Two Views.” The Bullet, November 22, 1977. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-11-22 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 3 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Description An account of the resource This is an article was written by Michael A. Mello in 1977 for the College of Mary Washington's student run newspaper, called The Bullet. Mello is arguing that the United States did indeed commit war crimes during our time in SouthEast Asia, during the Vietnam war, and that Secretary of State Dean David Rusk is the one responsible for those crimes, therefor should be held accountable. Throughout this article he often compares the "war crimes" the U.S. committed to those committed by Germany during the Holocaust. Because no one took responsibility, or even admitted that the actions were comparable to war crimes, he believes all the blame lays on David Rusk for he was the Secretary of State at the time, and was the one responsible for giving the orders. bombing Dean Rusk foreign policy Rusk Secretary of State Secretary of State Rusk The Bullet Vietnam War war crimes https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/4f18eb1686eab522c694121efc305140.jpg e9cd26b394544679e61b6adb1b249d17 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Edwin Newman, in his book Strictly Speaking, wrote that there are certain words and phrases in the English language which have been so misused and debased that their meaning has blurred to the point of uncomprehension. One such word is "radical," a word bantered about this campus with increasing frequency since the advent of Prometheus. But how many could, if questioned, really define the word? I would like to suggest that when many people use the word "radical", they really mean to say "activist". This distinction is critical because one term denotes a particular political philosophy and one does not. A radical is one who is opposed to the present social system, believes that progressive change within that system is impossible, and that the present system must be torn down and replaced with another; or, as Webster puts it, "advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political system." The key word here is "system", as opposed to particular policies advanced by components within that system. An "activist" on the other hand, is a person who believes in taking action against the things he opposes or in behalf of those he supports. He is different from the radical in that he supports the system and is willing to work within it to effect his changes. Also, the term is apolitical; and activist is not necessarily a leftist; he can be a good Republican or Democrat, he may be a member of Right-to-Life or NORML. Phyllis Schafley is as much an activist as Julian Bond, Ronald Reagan as much as Cesar Chavez. Thus, this is not a call to radicalism. It is a call to activism. Occasionally, student activism is reprehensible in its demands and objectives, such as the Filthy Speech Movement in Berkeley. But one idea is central to student activism: the belief that students have a right to participate in decisions which affect them. This concept is the core of the basic democratic ideal upon which our society is based: an active, informed citizenry is essential if democracy is to really work. When administrators tell students to shirk that responsibility and deny them a real voice in their destiny, or when students voluntarily forfeit it, this not only denies the democratic ideal, it undermines the idea of education itself. Many educators tend to feel that students should be studying rather than demanding a say in their educational treatment. But campus activism is in itself an education. I have learned more about politics through NORML and the Student Lobby than I learned in the 18 hours of Political Science I have taken here, and my dealings with Joint Council gave me an education in law and justice more valuable than an entire curriculum or pre-law courses. Studies are a student's primary responsibility, but philosophers from Socrates on have taught that the unexamined life is not worth living: that men have a moral right, an obligation to take part in the decisions that affect them. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Article Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Ivancic, Bailey Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What is a Radical? Subject The topic of the resource Political activism Student activism Description An account of the resource An opinion piece in the Mary Washington College student newspaper about the misuse of the word "radical" when used to describe political activism. Argues that while student activism is often looked down upon, it is an important part of the educational experience. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Bullet Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978-01-24 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 1 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA activism Mary Washington College radicalism student activism https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/3a502b6a9582075c770e9693f7982e29.jpg 2b2e5f59e7e7a61b38ad4333fe927ae2 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/b07d07a32dd8661ca851a4f3382ee04f.jpg d1df6368e5ef05fa0bc2b81f7c56d592 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/f75698f9988b27c9f76fd5bc8b1ece4b.jpg 3881fc1ce1f73a49e34e2018957b3c6f https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/e859c24de2d1d36b868601387eada714.jpg f7e3f9b9fd66915400e89790ba9ba663 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/9cd101d2e65558d11988ab6900bdec23.jpg 66edf801815c22203e81f6dfe8c5623c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Free Speech: Defense of an Enemy By: Michael Mello There is presently a case being litigated in Illinois that has raised one of the most basic issues in America: the right of an unpopular group to express its’ views openly. The American Nazi Party has been denied permission to stage a peaceful march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie; the case is all the more explosive because Skokie’s population is heavily Jewish and a significant number of residents are survivors of Hitler’s extermination camps. As a Jew who lost two aunts in the camps of Nazi Germany, I can understand and sympathize with the residents of Skokie; as a Jew I am shocked and revolted that there are still Nazis in 1977; as a Jew I might want to prevent Nazis from having their parade. But I am not only a Jew: I am also a citizen of the United States of America, a nation which exists by virtue of a constitution and a bill of rights. And as an American citizen, I must respect the fact that all of my fellow citizens share the same rights that I do; including freedom of speech, expression and peaceful assembly. When any group’s liberty is abridged, no one’s freedoms are safe; as Thomas Paine wrote 200 years ago, :he that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” As should already be clear, the purpose of this article is not to argue the validity of Nazism as a social or political philosophy. Rather, I wish to argue the right of every person — including Nazis — to be heard within the established framework of debate. Of course, the Constitution already provides for this in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But this is an imperfect document (for example, it originally provided for slavery) and perhaps this concept of free expression is similarly invalid. So a defense of free speech is in order and in this defense I shall rely heavily on the philosophies of John Stuart Mill (as expressed in On Liberty) and Clarence Darrow (as expressed in his Autobiography.) The first problem with the suppression of opinions is a very pragmatic one; who shall decide which points are to be permitted and which suppressed? This is no enigma when the concept involved is as apparently as fallacious as Nazism. But what of evolutionism, trade unionism, women’s and black’s rights, all of which were originally suppressed? How does one judge the truth of an opinion? There are no universal standards: it is not given to man to be certain of the truth. It was once universally accepted that women lacked the mental capabilities of men; Christians were thrown to lions; Galileo was persecuted; Socrates was killed. This is all to say that the opinion being suppressed is not necessarily wrong. The shining example of this is the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, whose opinions so offended his contemporaries that he was put to death. Socrates was not killed by a lynch mob; he was condemned by a legal tribunal of his fellow citizens. Socrates, the wellspring of all subsequent teachers of virtue and ethical philosophy, from the lofty inspiration of Plato to the utilitarianism of Aristotle, was put to death for denying Gods recognized by his state and for “corrupting the youth” of Athens. This, the Master, the source of all eminent thinkers since born, was killed by this contemporaries for holding unpopular beliefs. It is perhaps obvious that “valid” opinions such as those held by Socrates ought not be suppressed, but what if the opinion is wholly false, as those of the Nazis seem to be? To this I would answer that the truth is strong enough to withstand the challenge of falsehood in the marketplace of ideas. It is better to have ideas debated and dissected in the forum of free discussion that to drive them underground and five them the attraction of forbidden fruit. To deny one group’s right to express its opinion is to admit the doubts one may have about the validity of one’s own beliefs. Free discussion is a central theme of democracy. Socrates and Hitler are extreme examples of truth and falsehood. But it is usually the case that an opinion contains some measure of both elements. It is only through the process of free debate that thrush has any chance of becoming known. Of course, it is not the passionate ideologue or dogmatist who benefits from the collision of opinions; rather, it is the “calmer and more disinterested bystander” who gains from free debate, for he is give the opportunity to listen to all arguments and make a personal decision. It has been argued (by Samuel Johnson and Lord Devlin, among others) that the persecution of the giver of truth is a necessary test of his sincerity. Devlin believes that “in a democratic society…there will be a strong tendency to yield — not abandon all defenses so as to let in the horde, but to give ground to those who are prepared to fight for something they prize. To fight may be to suffer. A willingness to suffer is the most convincing proof of sincerity. Without law there would be no proof. The law is the anvil on which the hammer strikes.” The first problem with this position has to do with fairness; is it fair to treat the givers of new truths as criminals; must we expect such people to be martyrs as well as great thinkers? Beyond abstract fairness, there is a strong reason for rejecting Devlin’s view” he makes the implicit assumption that truth inevitably triumphs over persecution. Is this assumption necessarily true? Mill thinks not” “Persecution has always succeeded save where the heretics were too strong a party to be effectively persecuted. No reasonable person can doubt that Christianity might have been extirpated from the Roman Empire. It spread, and became predominant, because the persecutions were only occasional, lasting but a short time, and separated by long intervals of almost undisturbed propagandism. “It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error of prevailing against the dungeon and the stake. Men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error, and a sufficient application of legal penalties will generally succeed in stopping the propagation of either. The real advent age which truth has consists in the fact that when an opinion is true it may be extinguished once or twice or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its’ appearances falls on a time when from favorable circumstances it escapes persecution until has made such headway as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it.” There is much support for this view in history, which is replete with examples of what we today call truth. Perhaps the best of these is the Protestant Reformation, which broke out and was successfully suppressed at least twenty times before Luther’s break with the established Church in the sixteenth century. There was Arnold of Brescia, Fra Dolcino Savoralrola, the Albigoeris, the Lollards, and the Hussites. As Mill put it, “History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries.” There are those who would press individual liberty for the sake of a strong state. To them I would resound that a state is worth no more than the aggregate worth of the individuals that compose it. The concluding words of Mill’s On Liberty contain a message that is particularly timely in the second half of the twentieth century, when the double threat of devastating war and revolution on a world scale makes it increasingly difficult to preserve a libertarian temper in politics: “a state which dwarfs its’ men in oder that they may be more docile instruments in its’ hands for beneficial purposes will find that with such small men no great things can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which in order that the machine might work smoothly, it has preferred to banish.” Which brings us back to the American Nazi Party and a simple economics cost-benefits analysis; the Nazis may be evil and their doctrines may be dangerous, but the suppression of their rights is even more dangerous to the basic tenets of democracy. The greatest harm of persecution is not done to those who are heretics, but rather to those who are not, because the mental development of the latter is stifled by the fear of being persecuted as a heretic. In an atmosphere of cowed conformity and slavish submission there may be a few exceptional great thinkers, but not an intellectually active people. We must keep the free marketplace of ideas open to everyone, for when we silence Nazis, it is but a small step until we persecute blacks or Jews; for the precedent has been established. This point was eloquently made by Martin Niemoeller, a Lutheran minister who was imprisoned in Theresienstadt concentration camp for his opposition to the government of Adolf Hitler. 76,000 people were murdered at Theresienstadt, including 15,000 children. When Niemoeller was liberated by the Allies in 1945, he was asked how the world let the actions of the Nazis take place. He responded, “In Germany,” the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t stand up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Vol. No./Issue No. Volume and issue number for the newspaper (if available) Vol. 1, Issue 2. Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Free Speech: Defense of an Enemy Subject The topic of the resource American Nazi Party -- History -- 20th century Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. “Free Speech: Defense of an Enemy.” Prometheus, October 17, 1977, 4,9,11-12. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-10-17 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Description An account of the resource Newspaper article by Michael A. Mello which addresses the Constitutional problems of a legal case involving the prohibition of American Nazis from organizing a demonstration. Mello defends the American Nazis right to assemble under the First Amendment. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 5 JPG 300 dpi American Nazis Constitution First Amendment Freedom of speech Michael Mello Right to Assembly https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/c293dbf9a7b789cac2f276291642bf95.jpg 4bf27387003e2819d6e7d65e1ff699f0 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/c5030cb2896b37aeaf4ca384717e1486.jpg 0167ddbcd02f7d85f53d8e1ea301f9fe Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document [Photo Caption] LOBBYING AGAINST MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION, conducting local polls and obtaining guest speakers are some of the objectives of Mary Washington College's new chapter of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws. Legally marijuana is any part of the marijuana plant, except for sterile seeds and the stalks of the major plant. Hashish is marijuana. Hash oil in marijuana only if it contains less than 15 per cent tetra hydro-cannobinol. In Virginia, the penalty for possession of marijuana of a fan up to $1000 and a jail sentence up to 12 months. Possession of hash oil and other drugs such as heroin and LSD warrants up to ten years in the penitentiary. The penalty for manufacturing marijuana, hashish or hash oil is from five to 40 years in the penitentiary and a fine up to $25,000. The penalty for sale or distribution of marijuana or hash oil is from five to 40 years in the penitentiary and a fine of up to $25,000 -- unless a person proves that he was given away the drug or selling it for no profit, for which case the penalty is the same as that of possession. If a person 18 or over gives any drug, including marijuana to someone under 18 and at least 3 years younger than the donor, the penalty is a minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum of 50 years and a fine of up to $50,000. If a person is found guilty of possession of any drug and he has never been convicted of a drug-related offense before, the judge may put him on probation. After the probationary period the judge may dismiss the case. The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) would like to see these laws concerning the criminalization of marijuana changes. The recent establishment of NORML at Mary Washington College is the first attempt by any college in Virginia to have this organization on campus/. Supervised by six faculty advisers and presently headed by Acting President Michael Mello, NORML held its first meeting Thursday, September 23 in Lounge A. There was standing room only. Roy Sherrer, a registered lobbyist for the Virginians for the Study of Marijuana Laws (VSML), spoke at the meeting. Lobbyists have made possible the exclusion of drug possession as grounds for legal wiretapping, the change of sharing marijuana from a felony to misdemeanor. They have stopped attempts of search without a warrant of suspicion and they have killed attempts to raise the maximum penalty for selling most drugs to life imprisonment. MWC's NORML plans to contribute funds to the hiring of a professional lobbyist to go before the General Assembly. The original hopes to conduct surveys concerning opinions on marijuana laws, show movies to the public such as "Reefer Madness," "Marijuana: Assasin of Youth" and "Marijuana: The New Prohibition," and hopes to get several speakers including John Zwerling, head of Virginia NORML. "The biggest obstacle to pot law reform isn’t the congress in Washington, the state Legislator in Richmond or Judge Gouldman in Fredericksburg. The biggest obstacle is apathy," remarked Mello at the meeting. "So long as we continue to tolerate this prohibition, we will have it around our necks forever. But, when we let our opinions be known by our elected officials these laws will change." The next NORML meeting will be on Thursday, October 7 in ACL. Mello commented that he has heard a lot of students did not attend the first normal meeting by fear of harassment by the police or campus administrators. "There is absolutely no evidence of harassment of any member of NORML by any member of the administration," said Mello. He mentioned the progress he had made towards the decriminalization for marijuana by lobbying before the General Assembly since 1972. For further information concerning membership in NORML. contact Mike Mello at extension 422. Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Clark, Jessica N. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Notes Additional information regarding your item. This content will not be viewable in the Public View. Above the article title, there is a photo of a lit marijuana joint in an ashtray. Displayed next to the ashtray is a grinder, ZIG-ZAG wrapping papers, struck matches, and unlit marijuana joint. Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MWC Establishes Campus NORML Subject The topic of the resource Marijuana--Law and legislation Description An account of the resource The establishment of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) at Mary Washington College was the first attempt by any college in Virginia to have this organization on campus. With acting president Michael Mello, MWC NORML will contribute funds to the hiring of a personal lobbyist to go before the General Assembly and hold various meetings with the intention of overcoming apathy regarding marijuana laws. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Bullet Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-09-27 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Marijuana Law https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/ef0db917538fdaa5d78551c2e8b03352.jpg 9ab7093e0002cc9311080385dbd312f3 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/07323cd7faca59bd82f802b23c534cb1.jpg f823165bc5fb046018b3d5d7319cce13 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Like any disciplinary proceeding, the “Westmoreland Four” case has many different aspects to it. Often it is important to keep these aspects mentally separate. In particular, one must make a distinction between the ultimate verdict of punishment, and the manner in which that decision was reached-the process. The judgment and punishment in the case was justifiable: it is difficult to find fault with president Woodard’s actions here. The procedure for an Administrative Hearing deliniated on pages 28-30 of the Handbook were scrupulously followed. More importantly, the severity of the punishments may be justifiable because the Administration apparently approved its case against the four men-in both charges of the indictment. The noise count was never really in doubt; the defendants admitted that they often played their stereos too loud. The vandalism charge was more complex, since no evidence was presented at the Hearing which directly linked any of the four men to any acts of malicious vandalism; but, none was needed. A fifth student, who lives in another dorm was a frequent guest of the four Westmoreland men, had admitted committing some of the damage for which The Four were charged. And the Handbook provides that “Anyone in a residence hall to which he or she is not assigned a room by the college is considered a guest… All guests must abide by the rules and regulations of the college and the student is responsible for the conduct of his guest at all times. Any damages to property will be paid by the students and/or guest.” Thus were the Westmoreland Four indirectly tied to and liable for the vandalism for which they were charged. There was no glaring and obvious injustice in Woodard’s verdict in the case. But what truly bothers me about the whole affair is not the ultimate decision, but rather the process by which that decision was made. Specifically, the Westmoreland Four should have tried instead by President Woodard alone in an Administrative Hearing, the men were denied the due process of the law guaranteed to them by the Handbook as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is wrong to blame the decision to convene an Administrative Hearing on Woodard, for the decision to turn this case over to the College President was not made by Woodard alone; it was a joint decision made by Cindy Reeves, Judicial Chairman, Barbara Stammerjohn, and Scott Sharer, Westmoreland Judicial Representative. Ms. Reeves was most emphatic on this point. In a taped interview, I asked her “if it was the students, not the Administration, who decided to send this case to Administrative Hearing.” Her reply was a forceful “yes.” Of these three students, Ms. Reeves bears the brunt of the responsibility for the decision. This was a judicial matter and her job is to be aware of and proficient in judicial matters; such matters are her specialty within the SA. The Handbook states that she is “the official representative of the Student Association in all matters of judicial concern.” Sharer was her subordinate; she is “responsible for all Residence Hall Judicial Chairman.” Stammerjohn as SA Vice President has no official concern with judicial matters, and hence was present primarily in an advisory capacity. Thus, the person most concerned with judicial matters, the person whom we hope is as close to an expert on judicial practices and procedures that we have, the person most responsible for the decision to convene an Administrative Hearing to dispose of this case, was Cindy Reeves. Reeves based this decision on essentially four grounds. First, she said that Judicial Court or Joint Council could not handle the case because non-students were “involved”- Dean Clement, a campus police officer, and Resident Hall Advisor testified at the Administrative Hearing. But non-students, particularly campus police and dorm mothers, frequently testify at both Judicial and Joint trials, a fact which Ms. Reeves herself acknowledged. This is particularly true in visitation cases, for obvious reasons: the Handbook provides that the “Dean of Student Services, accompanied by the Residence Hall Director” should be present when a student’s room is searched for a suspected violation of a college rule or regulation. Further, “the College Police may assist in such a search.” Ms. Reeves’ principle of handling all cases, in which non-students are “involved” over to the Administration, if applied in all such cases, would mean that Woodard would be trying almost all of the cases which now are handled by Judicial Court and Joint Council. No doubt President Woodard would deal fairly with all of these cases, but his time is too valuable to waste trying Judicial and Joint Council cases; Ms. Reeves point might leave some credence if these non-students were plaintiffs in this Westmoreland Four case, but she herself stated that the charges were brought by a student: Scott Sharer. Dean Juanita Clement, Mrs. Janet Barnes, and the officer were only witnesses: as Mrs. Keel and Officer Prescott were witnesses at a Joint Council trial last year and Lonnie Stuterwant was a witness at the Madison Judicial trial last year. Secondly, Ms. Reeves claims that there was a “loophole” in the section of the Handbook covering Noise Violations. Scott Sharer, who brought this “loophole” to her attention, explained: “let’s say that you’re in a room and I come and tell you its too noisy, would you please turn it down. I have to give you a warning, and if you turn it down, then that’s the end of the incident. Well, if you’re noisy the next night, I have to give you another warning; it’s treated as a separate incident. So even if I must come to your room every night and ask you to turn it down, and you do, then I can’t give you any hall offenses. That was particularly a problem here. When I asked them to turn it down, they did. But it was happening every night.” I will not argue the pros and cons of this warning requirement here, but in any case, this “loophole” does not mean that Judicial or Joint could not take this case. Ms. Reeves has stated that no hall offenses are necessary before these bodies may try a case involving a noise complaint. Noise problems are specifically in Judicial jurisdiction; further, one of the Joint Council’s jobs is to “hear cases of extreme complexity.” This noise matter seems to be such a case; this “loophole” thus is not a valid reason for taking the extreme and, to my knowledge, unprecedented step of handing a Joint Council case over to Administrative Hearing. Thirdly, Ms. Reeves asserts that a “time element” problem necessitated the convention of an Administrative Hearing; “an immediate solution was needed. A lot of people were upset.” So Ms. Reeves, Ms. Stammerjohn, and Mr. Sharer concluded that because of the immediacy of the problem, the four men should be removed from the dorm until Administrative Hearing could be convened. But the moment they did this, the “time element problem” was to the three students’ decision to convene an Administrative Hearing, how heavily it weighed on their minds. They decided that the Administration should ultimately try the case. Fourthly, Ms. Reeves claims that neither Judicial nor Joint could hear this case because vandalism was involved, an offense not specifically within the jurisdictions of those bodies. She may have a point here, but one could argue just as forcefully that vandalism is not specifically out of the realm of Judicial or Joint either particularly in light of the fact that the need must be extremely compelling before the convention of an Administrative Hearing may be justified. Further, Judicial Courts in the past have heard and passed judgment on cases involving vandalism, although the vandalism in these instances was not committed against College property. When MWC property is involved, a problem arises because only the College may assess for damages. But this problem may be solved in the following manner: Judicial or Joint Council could decide innocence or guilt and then the Administration could assess the accused student for recompance in the event of a guilty verdict. I can sympathize with Ms. Reeves’ position as she met with her two fellow students, President Woodard and Dean Clement on that Wednesday morning. With exams staring her in the face and a complicated case before her, maybe she cannot really be blamed for an error in judgment. Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most about Ms. Reeves’ decision is that she is still defending it to the hilt and worse still, she is ready to repeat it again and again. Ms. Reeves made a mistake. She should admit it. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. DeVito, Michael Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Westmoreland "4": Our Judicial System on Trial Subject The topic of the resource School discipline Description An account of the resource Four college students on trial for vandalism and noise. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael. "The Westmoreland '4': Our Judicial System On Trial." HIST298, accessed February 11, 2014. https://hist299.umwhistory.org/admin/items/add Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978-01-20 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG 300 Dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/4c76e4f5e84f0e97e197640aec94f8d0.jpg bd8d5e079554cc98218a99916fa3a894 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/21611a656a17cfb11006869473479f22.jpg 78d1f5370fd8dd43a713e63d43f6f3c6 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Dear Editor: Ms. Hayes, in her editorial “MWC Honor- A Call for a Closer Look” (Bullet Nov 15) made several accurate observations. She noted that PROMETHEUS was perfectly within its Constitutional rights when it published Elliot Wentz’s article on the MWC honor code. She was further correct in her assessment of “the absurdity of the Pam Burrows honor trial.” Yet two of Ms. Hayes’ thoughts bothered me. Firstly, she felt that Mr. Wentz “has served a severe injustice to the accuser in the trial, our SA president.” Ms. Hayes seemed troubled by “the fact that no provisions fro the rights of the accuser is made in the MWC Honor Constitution.” But Ms.Hayes fails to state precisely what these “rights of the accuser” are or should be. Do they include the right to bring false and petty charges against a fellow student? The right to make an accusation in a secret, Star-Chamber-like proceeding in which her identity is known only to the defendant, her council and the court? Is this truly an “open trial,” as demanded by the Constitution of the United States? Precisely which of Kathy Mayer’s “rights” was violated in Mr. Wentz’s article? This whole idea of accuser’s rights is a new one on me; not only is the MWC Constitution silent about the presence or absence of such “rights,” but the US Constitution is as well. Personall, I don’t feel that a citizen acquires any additional rights solely by becoming an accuser. Of course, that same person doesn’t lose any rights either; the fact of the matter is that Kathy Mayer has the same right as Mr. Wentz: the right to present her side of the issue in the campus media. If Ms. Mayer chooses to waive this right and remain silent, then that is not the fault of wither Mr. Wentz or PROMETHEUS. Secondly, Ms. Hayes is apparently critical of Mr. Wentz’s decision to disclose the identity of Pam Burow’s accuser; she suggests that this “served to deface the names of the characters concerned” and further asserts that “from all appearances it seems that the intent of the article was to put under scrutiny the names of our SA and Honor Council Presidents.” This was not the intent of the article at all, but beyond that is the question of whether Mr.Wentz should have identified the accuser in the case. I believe that he was justified: it is significant that the accuser in this “absurdity” of an honor trial, Ms. Hayes called it, is the highest student government official at MWC. The person who brought this trial about was not a first-semester freshman who may have been unfamiliar with the purpose of the honor code or unaware of its ramifications; the accuser is a Senior who has been deeply involved with student government and who, to put it bluntly, should have known better. This fact was relevant to the trial, and Mr.Wentz was hence justified in noting it in his article. Michael Mello Editor’s Note In the editorial “MWC Honor- A Call for a Closer Look,” I in no way intended to defend Kathy Mayer, the accuser of Pam Burrows’ honor trial (“Recent Honor Trial Shows Need for Changes”- PROMETHEUS, Nov. 11, 1977). I did feel, however, that the presentation of Elliot Wentz’s article put a clear slant on the issue, which was not made public until the forth issue of PROMETHEUS was distributed. As Mello suggested, perhaps Ms. Mayer does not deserve any rights as the accuser. Based on her testimony of shaky evidence, as reported in PROMETHEUS, I would be inclined to agree with him. The basic discrepancy in the MWC Honor Constitution, that no rights are granted the accuser in campus honor trials, concerns me. In a democratic society we should all be treated as equals. Right? Apparently not, says Mello. That the Honor Constitution does not specify any rights of the accused, particularly, as well as the accused, have any say as to how the contents of trials are distributed? I definitely feel this should be corrected before further honor trials are held. As pertains to the reference that Wentz’s article served to deface the names of the accuser in Pam Burrows’ honor trial, I would like to defend this statement. Again I recall my original assertion that “the intent of the article was to put under public scrutiny the names of our SA and Honor Council Presidents.” Upon my first reading of Wentz’s article, I detect an obvious biased report of the honor trial. Surely readers should be allowed the liberty to make up their own minds as to how they feel about controversial issues; having Wentz’s present a one-sided account of the issue definitely could sway people to his side of thinking, which is not necessarily right and just. Concerning Christie’s letter (above), and me “laundered” opinion, I hope his questions are answered in the preceding statements. The concern with the legalities of the trials was introduced to me by Janet de La Concepcion, Honor Council President, who informed me that she was consulting a lawyer about the publication of Wentz’s article. I do not support her quest for a legal battle- perhaps Mr.Christie misread this part of the editorial. I merely stated that Wentz was just in pointing out discrepancies in the MWC Honor Constitution and the leaders who are supposed to enforce it. Clearly I said that I agree with Wentz’s assertions; if, as you say, “Poor Mr. Wentz can’t win for losing,” that’s a new one on me. A.F.H. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Article Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Bowen, Nina Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to the Editor Subject The topic of the resource Honor system (Higher education) Description An account of the resource A letter to the editor in response to an article about a student on trial for an honor violation at Mary Washington College. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Letters." The Bullet, November 22, 1977. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-11-22 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/4eaf8041f3f58c810e1610558184ece9.jpg 18cceca6e25681e4dcb7f426cc6f2fe4 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/130335c6829fe0342a21a7ff9d102741.jpg 419c61b7da9e7635fa524ebb66727522 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document The 981 students who responded to the recent SA poll on 23-hour visitation indicated overwhelming support for “the creation of an experimental dormitory which would operate under a system of 23-hour visitation.” 80.1% of those returning the surveys favored the establishment of such a policy at Mary Washington College, and 58.7% indicated that they personally would live in a dormitory with 23-hour visitation. According to poll organizer Eric Wootten, the survey was distributed to the 1669 residential students at MWC. The purpose of the poll, according to its introduction, was to “determine whether students are satisfied with the present visitation policy and, if not, whether the option of twenty-three hour visitation is a desirable alternative.” These results are consistant with the findings of a similar survey conducted by the SA three years ago. 80.1% of those polled in 1975 favored extended visitation hours; this figure is exactly the same as the findings of the recent survey. The percentage of students willing to tolerate the possibility of an “increased security risk” rose 15% since 1975, from 79% to 94%. The percentage of students willing to “occasionally make other sleeping arrangements” under a policy of extended visitation also increased: from 77% in 1975 to 89% today. Other findings in the poll include: <ul> <li>65% favored and 21.2% oppressed the granting of the 23-hour option to students between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one who are financially independent. 13.3% had no option.</li> <li>70.8% favored and 21.9% opposed the granting of the option to students between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one who could secure parental consent. 7.3% expressed no opinion.</li> <li>96.6% were aware and 2.0% were not aware that “a system of 23-hour visitation could necessitate the use of…proper dress outside of your room.”</li> <li>84.1% realized and 13.3% did not realize that extended visitation might entail “sharing bathrooms with the opposite sex.”</li> <li>89.2 were aware and 8.2 were not aware that such a policy might necessitate “occasionally making other sleeping arrangements.”</li> <li>94% realized and 4% did not realize that 23-hour visitation could entail “increased security precautions.” Students had a wide range of comments on the question of 23-hour visitation. “23 hour would give us the freedom to live like the adults that the College says we are.” “It would put this school into the Twentieth Century.” “It’s totally against the whole purpose of MWC.” “We already have our morals established by the time we get to College. If students are going to have sex, they’ll have it regardless of the visitation policies.” “The visitation system is the most glaring anachronism at this school—an outdated leftover from a bygone time.” “23 hour visitation is ridiculous. We are here for an education, not a total social life.” “If a poor, neurotic girl has to have her boyfriend around 23 hours a day, let them either go to a motel, get married, or make use of Ball Circle. If offers no advantages except for whores and their clients.” “It would allow adults to make an obviously personal decision.” “My husband could visit me at any time.” “The demonstrated maturity of students on this campus does not seem to warrant mush optimism for the success of 23 hour visitation, but I think that I should be given a chance to stand or fall on its own merits.” “Dorm life is as much a part of our learning experience as are classes. We should have the option of as many lifestyles as possible.” “I have friends at schools that have 23 hour visitation, and they have little good to say about that system. Roommate friction is a big problem.” “It is absurd to say that a student is old enough to drink, vote and go to war, but not old enough to chose who should be in one’s room at any time.” “It’s worth a try.!” This recent poll was organized under the auspices of SA Whip Eric Wootten. Wootten commissioned Student Lobby Research Committee Co-Chairman Betsy Bowen in mid-September to conduct the survey. Bowen, who is also Chairman of the Special Projects Committee of the SA Senate, plans to conduct thorough research into the ramifications that 23-hour visitation would have on WMC. This research will include a study of other Virginia institutions of higher learning as well as an evaluation of the state of the Virginia law as it relates to 23-hour visitation. The results of the survey will be submitted to the Executive Cabinet later this semester for consideration. Wootten said that he plans to poll the parents of residential students, as well as alumni about the question of 23-hour visitation in the near future.</li> </ul> Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Walsh, Eily P. Notes Additional information regarding your item. This content will not be viewable in the Public View. The surveys were conducted by the SA three years prior to the article. There are also quotes from students speaking about 23-hour visitation rights. Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 569 Would Live In 23-Hour Dorm Subject The topic of the resource Dormitory Life Description An account of the resource Students of Mary Washington College give their opinions on 23-hour visitation rights. Information is based off of polls taken to see how the students feel. It tells the reader of what is soon to come based off of the negative opinions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "569 Would Live In 23-Hour Dorm." The Bullet, Tuesday, October 17, 1978, News Clippings, Box 1, April 19, 1976-October, 1979, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957-2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978-10-17 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA College Life Dorm Life Student Polls Visitation Rights https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/b2f800c69e8190c773ff0a2f435203ab.jpg 8ce8baec3aa17a5ddf17bb9c45d40bf6 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/2b1e064d60fedcb1db8262a16b184bb3.jpg 01873cf051cd931d2ee27ce56e661d38 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/0565c9e4f73597433f0881311e121385.jpg df715e51265093d635df2343fd8ebeaa Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Fesak, Mary Text Any textual data included in the document “One American is raped every seventeen minutes.” –sociologist Amitai Etzioni “I was walking down Campus Drive one evening and a guy in a car pulled over to the side to ask me if there were any good parties in the neighborhood. We started talking, and to facilitate the conversation I got into the front seat of the car. We had been talking for about an hour when a security officer told us to move on, so we went to 7-11 to get some cigarettes. Afterwards I expected him to just drive me back to campus, but instead he pulled out onto the highway. I was not really scared at this point, but as we got further and further away from civilization I suggested we head back towards MWC. In answer, he turned into a side road, parked and cut off the lights. Then he attacked me… for the first time in my life I was a believer in the death penalty.” This particular kind of rape is called “casual acquaintance” assault by the police, happened to a MWC Freshman last November. The girl eventually recovered, but not before undergoing a personal hell as indescribable as the event itself. Cases such as the one presented above and how to prevent them was a subject of a presentation put on by the Fredericksburg Combined Rape Task Force last Monday in A.C.L. The Task Force showed the film Rape: A Preventative Inquiry and held a panel discussion. Panelists included Commonwealth Attorney Chichester of Stafford County, Sgt. La Salle and officer Arrington of the Fredericksburg Police Department, and Jim Tally of the Fredericksburg Crisis Center. Perhaps the most important question covered was how at least some of the estimated 160 rapes that occurred in the Fredericksburg planning district last year could be prevented. All of the panelists were in general agreement, but on several points their emphasis varied. Ms. Arrington stressed awareness as being the key element in prevention: “Be aware that it can happen to YOU… when you’re on the street, note what’s going on around you –be aware that you can be raped… there should be the fear, the awareness that this could happen to you.” More specifically, girls should avoid hitch-hiking: “When a girl gets into a car, she surrenders control –there is not a great deal she can do.” Mr. Chichester believed that the laws regarding rape should be tightened up although the penalty for rape in Virginia is from five years to life; how much time the rapist really spends in jail depends on judges, juries and parole boards: “In the last two years, I would say that 90% of rapists in Virginia were back on the street after serving only 25% of their time –because the jails are so overcrowded… parole boards are like a swinging door.” Should a girl resist rape? One police officer in the film summed up the entire question when he said “its better for the sex-crime division to have to handle a rape victim than a homicide squad to get her.” One rape victim said that “the best defense is to use your wits, keep cool; often you can talk your way out of it.” Mr. Chichester and Sgt. La Salle, however advised resistance on the part of the victim, stating that such resistance will often prevent an attempted rape from turning into a successful one. There was complete unanimity on one point: the victim should report the crime as soon as possible. Only one rape in ten ever comes to the attention of the police, and this is one reason that so many women fall victim to this atrocity every year. Further, the rape must be reported as soon after it occurred as possible: Mr. Chichester noted that “the longer you wait, the less the chances of conviction, a two week delay could reduce the chances of obtaining a conviction as much as 75%... a victim should report to the first person she sees, even if a complete stranger.” A girl who has been raped should go to the nearest hospital emergency room as soon as possible. This is necessary for two reasons: first, she may be physically injured, at the very least, she will be in shock. Emergency room personnel are specifically trained to deal with such victims and they may also notify the police about the crime if the victim has not already done so. Secondly, the hospital will be equipped to preserve any perishable evidence that is essential to the preparation of a legal case. Mr. Chichester remarked that “the only crime harder to prosecute than rape is child beating” –and for this reason the corroborative evidence obtained from the hospital examination is critical. Also, the victim is interviewed by the police at the hospital. All crimes in Virginia, including rape, are processed through a three-stage procedure. The first stage, the preliminary hearing, takes place before a General District Court Judge. If the judge finds enough evidence to support a charge, the case is referred to a grand jury. This grand jury, the second stage of the process, is composed of six citizens who decide if enough evidence exists to hand down an indictment; no lawyers are present at the hearing and everything is very informal. If the grand jury indicts, a trial, the final process, takes place. The trial may either be jury or judge, depending on the wishes of those involved. Anyone wishing to become directly involved in rape counseling should contact the Crisis Center at 1008 Prince Edward St. or phone 373-8554. The Combined Rape Task Force should also be contacted. The Task Force was created last year, and has as its goals, public education, and crisis counseling. The chairperson of the Task Force is Karen Johnson, and she may be reached at 371-2719. Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Students Discuss Rape Prevention Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Students Discuss Rape Prevention." The Bullet, March 28, 1977. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Language A language of the resource English Subject The topic of the resource Rape--Prevention Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-03-28 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 3 JPG 300 dpi Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, Virginia Description An account of the resource A newspaper article by Michael Mello on the discussion of rape prevention at Mary Washington College acquaintance rape Fredericksburg Combined Rape Task Force Fredericksburg Crisis Center rape Rape -- Virginia rape awareness rape prevention rape victim sexual assault sexual violence https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/178a16854fc5920cec062e6e3f2af928.jpg 15bf15424fba7686f5ee16468e3a0e42 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document The Constitutional Revision Committee has produced a generally excellent document. To briefly cite a few of its improvements over the present SA constitution: the Presidents of Residential Council and Day Students Association would be guaranteed access to Executive Cabinet meetings “on a regular basis”; the murky area of Senatorial districts, the subject of much confusion this year, would be clarified; the SA would have the formal power and responsibility to “study any matter affecting the welfare of the student body and the College”; the allotment of student fees would officially fall within the jurisdiction of a “special committee or committees” of the SA; a clearer demarcation between the Legislative and Executive sectors of SA would be accomplished by stipulating that Cabinet members would no longer be ex officio members of the Senate; numerous definitional ambiguities would be clarified. But all of these matters, positive and necessary as they are, come as a little surprise; most of them were expected. The truly stunning accomplishment of the committee is their recommendation that the S.A. Constitution should contain a Student Bill of Rights. In doing so, the members of the committee exhibited a degree of courage and foresight not often seen on this campus. This Bill of Rights is an enormous gift to future generations of MWC students. It shall be a searchlight whose brilliance will continue to shine long after the Westmoreland Four and full-time student status controversies have faded from memory. The idea of an MWC student Bill of Rights is not new; the essential principles embodied within the Constitutional Revisions Committee’s recommendations were first presented to the student body of this campus on April 28, 1970. That Bill, a ponderous document containing no less than 51 separate sections, was ratified by the students by a vote of 1,447 to 43, only to be vetoed by then-College Chancellor Grellet Simpson. It has taken eight years for an MWC President to agree that the rights of his students should be made explicit, but Dr. Woodard has done just that. Now it is up to the students to decide how they feel, and they will do just that in the March 28 election. For once, the choice is ours. Why do we need a written Bill of Rights? Why must we put in writing the rights we already seem to possess? These questions were well answered by Sue Cottingham, Campus Judicial Chairman in 1970, in a letter to THE BULLET: “. . . assurances from the present administration that our rights will not be abridged do not insure that this will be the case in the future. We must establish specific, written procedures to avoid misrepresentation and misunderstanding.” The Bill of Rights can do this. The Bill has certain inherent limitations, but on the whole it is a sound document, and certainly the best we can expect at the present time. It is a foundation upon which to build. Unfortunately, the phrases “student freedom” and “student rights” evoke an image in the minds of many administrators of a long-haired window smasher, while giving the student a come-and-go-as-I-please attitude that also has its extremes and excesses. Neither of these poles reflect the essence of the students’ rights issue, which is simply the attainment of the full constitutional rights due students as citizens and the matching responsibilities that must be met. The Bill of Rights will come before the campus for a vote in less than two weeks. I hope it will be ratified. Eight years ago, the students ratified the Bill and the Administration vetoed it. Would it not be a slashing irony if this year it was the Administration who embraced the Bill of Rights and the students who repudiated it? MAM Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Page, Zoe Vol. No./Issue No. Volume and issue number for the newspaper (if available) Vol. 51, Issue 8 Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Vote "Yes" on the Bill of Rights Subject The topic of the resource Student newspapers and periodicals Student government Description An account of the resource Michael Mello writes on Mary Washington College's Bill of Rights and the upcoming vote to ratify it. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Vote 'Yes' to the Bill of Rights." The Bullet, March 21, 1978. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1978-03-21 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 3 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, Virginia Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. bill of rights Mary Washington Bullet Mary Washington College Michael Mello MWC newspaper The Bullet umw University of Mary Washington https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/d01b365750fcab23e3a668280c499654.jpg fd817be1f4c3e8177b721845ba9a95d1 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/a09f6c513179d736c674ee24ba10a96a.jpg 6ff86516c606883ffa41e529f74c2220 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/225f262223a497a56b927a029bd2edf4.jpg 34ed519b882c4ac9b7fb18459466cb1b https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/6ca735b207aa5c9ee08c0572314dde66.jpg dcc4ea3bfa9febc4af217ae7292a35e4 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document <div style="text-align:center;">“Certainly, I have no sympathy for any individual who made a mistake. We have all made mistakes. But it also is a rule of life we all have to pay for our mistakes.”</div> - Richard Nixon in 1973 One could rightly ask why anyone would bother to write now in favor of amnesty for those who refused to take part in the Vietnam war. The answer is simply that the question has not yet been adequately settled, and this is as good a time as any to put it behind us. Former President Nixon assured the country in 1972 that any discussion on amnesty would be inappropriate until 1) The war was over 2) The POW’s were home 3) an accounting of the MIA’s was underway and 4) the conscription of Americans into the military against their will had ended. All of these conditions have been met for almost five years: all of Vietnam has gone Communist and the Ford Administration is considering recognizing the Hanoi government. He repatriation of the exiles remains the last great problem of the war. The academic community, indeed the world community as a whole, remembers with pride those few “good Germans” who refused to participate in Hitler’s plans for extermination. The only Germans who are today considered respectable are those who defied the government when it went mad, those who deserted their SS units rather than take part in the destruction of Liddice or the leveling of the Warsaw ghetto: it is as difficult to find a Nazi in Germany today as it is to find a hawk in America. But, while those “good Germans” are seen as patriots in the highest meaning of the word, the small army of Americans who chose exile over what history may regard as our country’s Waterloo, are vilified and hounded as cowards and still forced to stay away. We welcome South Vietnamese Army General Trang si Tan, a master torturer; we welcome Saigon Police Chief Dang Van Quang, who gained international noteriority when he summarily executed a bound Viet Cong prisoner during the 1968 Tet offensive; we welcome Ngo Cao Ky, who initiated and supervised the infamous Phoenix Program which carried out the murder of 20,000 South Vietnamese political dissidents. Yet, America’s borders are closed to Terry Samuels and Lindy Blake, whose only crime was to have a conscience when a national conscience was nonexistent. They ask not for mercy – for they have committed no wrong – but rather they ask for justice. Total, absolute, unconditional amnesty should be granted to all of those who refused to fight in America’s biggest mistake. It would not be the first time: George Washington pardoned those who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion. Perhaps more relevant to the issue before is now is Andrew Johnson’s blanket amnesty of all Southern rebels who participated in America’s most costly wart: 600,000 men died in the Civil War. Johnson issued his Universal Amnesty Declaration on Christmas Eve 1868: “I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States…do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally, and without reservation to all and to every person who directly or indirectly participated in the later insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States; or for adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all right, privileges and immunities under the Constitution.” Why, if amnesty can be granted for the serious crime of armed rebellion, should it be denied to men who are motivated by opposition to a war that they felt was unjust? There are those who would call the draft dodgers and deserters cowards, but it is never cowardly to stand on moral grounds against the general view. To leave the country of one’s birth, to place oneself in voluntary exile in a strange land with customs and language foreign to him is a difficult and painful situation. They were not cowards, even though the Pentagon tried to make us think that this was the case: “inquiries made by field commanders and research teams reveal that relatively few soldiers claim the Vietnam war as a motivating factor for desertion. The major causes of desertion, true today as they were in previous wars, are personal problems and the inability to adjust to regimented life.” This statement ignores the fact that in each successive year of the Vietnam conflict since 1967, the year of deserters leapt by tens of thousands: in in 1967, roughly 44,000; in 1968, 54,000; in 1969, 70,000; in 1970, 84,000; in 1971, 100,000. Official Pentagon figures place the total number of deserters from August 1964 to December 31, 1972, at 495,689. This figure is almost 300 per cent greater than the desertion figures of WWII and Korea combined. It is not reasonable to assume that the soldiers in Vietnam had so many more “personal problems” than did their counterparts in America’s other recent wars. Vietnam’s deserters are not cowards; the real cowards in this war are those who were involved in atrocities, who knew the grim truths, but remained silent. They are the cowards to their responsibility to humanity. There are those who do feel that to grant amnesty would somehow dishonor those who fought and died in Vietnam. This wrong party: since when is it the responsibility of the exile to offer any explanation to the wounded or the families of the dead? It is the government’s job to do that. The men in the Kennedy, Johnson and the Nixon Administrations who signed the troop increase orders and formulated the war strategy that left our fighting men so exposed to their enemy, must justify their deeds to those who paid the price for them in blood: McNamara, Lodge, Ball, Rusk, Helms. To deny amnesty would not confer any more meaning on the 55,000 American dead: amnesty would, perhaps show that there is still a shred of honor left in our system. It would commit this country to define the lessons of the war: for, until we understand these lessons, there is nothing to prevent the same thing from happening over and over again. Universal amnesty subsumes repatriation with the acceptance of responsibility for the war. Conditional amnesty offers repatriation without guilt, a return to acceptance of business as usual. Further, conditional amnesty assumes that Congress or the President or the V.A. has the moral standing to judge the conscientious decision of Vietnam’s resistors. No public official who served in the executive or legislature during the twelve years of war, has any such moral understanding. Further, to assume that those who fought are against those who didn’t is simply not borne out by the facts: for example, the most vital element in the antiwar movement during the last two years of the war were returning veterans. There was a powerful message in their protest: the special bitterness of the antiwar veteran comes from his realization that he was sent off to risk his like and kill for an illegitimate cause. Also, opponents of amnesty assume that the families of the dead, wounded and captured will be opposed to amnesty. This may or may not be true: we just don’t know. They have not been polled. But it is inappropriate to assume that they would be against amnesty; 1962 Kennedy amnesty hearings revealed some fascinating testimony: Mrs. Valerie Kushner, the wife of a prisoner held in captivity since 1968, pointed out that “POW’s and war exiles (are) both unwilling exiles. We cannot expect to make whole the body of America if we amputate from her flesh so many of her sons.” And Robert Ransom, whose son Mike was killed in Vietnam in 1968, testified “… the untenable position into which we have forced these men is responsible for their predicament today. These are our sons, and we need them back. They did not deserve what we have done to them. It would be most gratifying to me if I felt that I could have contributed in some great measure toward the granting of the broadest kind of amnesty – one without penalties and conditions. I would consider it to be my personal Mike Ransom Memorial General Amnesty Bill. That would have pleased him. It is said that amnesty would undermine the military as an institution by encouraging draft evasion and desertion in the future. But in 1971, one out of every four Americans who enlisted in the armed forces deserted, and it would be difficult to prove that the deserters were motivated by expectation of amnesty. Thus, the concept of patriotic sacrifice was destroyed by Vietnam policies long before there was any talk of amnesty. The cause might be right before men willing risk their lives for it. The U.S. Constitution provides the procedure whereby the country can be taken into a war by its leaders: by this method, the America people – via their representatives – can pass judgment on the validity of the cause and whether or not it is worth sending young men to die fighting for. The viability of the military has always been maintained – and always will continue to be maintained – so long as this Constitutional procedure is followed. The exile phenomenon arose because we were dragged secretly into war; med died under the constitutional joke of the Tonkin Gulf Revolution; men were told to die for a game theory called the domino theory. The real question concerning the draft in the future is: Draft of what? If young men are to be drafted for further Vietnams, then such a draft would be unviable. So long as the war-making procedure is followed, the military will remain sound, whether or not amnesty is granted for the Vietnam exiles. The dodgers and deserters were not evil; they were not cowards; they were ordinary citizens whose consciences could not permit them to take part in a war such as Vietnam. They broke the law, but who has been the supreme law breaker in the era? America did not declare war in Vietnam, but it was responsible for the Nuremburg Tribunal, at which it ratified a host of crimes entitled crimes against humanity – extermination, enslavement, deportation and other atrocities committed against a civilian population. After twelve ears of American involvement in Vietnam, there are over 1,000,000 civilian casualties and 6,000,000 refugees in South Vietnam. One fourth of the entire population of Cambodia was dislocated after three months of our invasion there. Laos has the honor of being the most heavily bombed country in recorded history. And to the American guilt for Hiroshima, Magasaki [Nagasaki] and Dresden, Nixon added the saturation bombing of Hanoi and Harphong on, ironically, the birthday of Jesus Christ [December 25, 1972], the Prince of Peace. Three months later, we withdrew with “peace and honor.” The tactics we employed in Southeast Asia – free-fire zones, massive bombing of highly-populated cities, system extermination of dissidents, the “Strategic body count – are crimes and violations of international law whether the U.S. does them or Nazi Germany does them, and we cannot lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we ourselves will no abide by. So let us not hear any longer this selective application for the respect of the law invoked for the exile, but not for his government. If the exiles were right and Vietnam, was wrong, then our leaders should recognize it, admit it and, of course grant amnesty. But if the dodgers were wrong and the war was right, they have suffered enough: exile in itself is a self-imposed alternative to service. For the government to add still more penalty is a cruel act of cowardice on the part of that government, an act contemptuous of the past, and proof enough that we have progressed very little since the Senate passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution by a vote of 98 to 2. In that event, our 55,000 dead have surely died in vain. I ask everyone to open your hearts to the words of Ecclesiastes: “To everything there is a season and time to every purpose under the heaven…a time for killing, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up.” We have had our time of killing, now. The leaders of the United States found it necessary to destroy much of Vietnam in an effort to break the spirit of Ho Chi Minh and other Communists in Southeast Asia. ThJ5 spirit remained unbroken despite B-52 saturation bombing, napolm-raids, free-fire zones and body counts, remained unbroken and prebailad, but the American spirit was left in shambles. In our narrow-minded attempt to interfere in a civil war, we inadvertently caused a civil war of our own. This civil war will never be over until the people of the United States decide to heal the wounds allowing everyone to come home. Only when all of the victims of the war are allowed to make the trip home will we have any semblance of a peace with honor. “The Southerners are our brethren. They are part of ourselves. They are bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh. We have come together and now, after having understood what the feud was, the great apple of discord removed, having lived under the Constitution of United States, they (the Southern rebels) have asked to live under it in the future.” – Andrew Johnson in 1866 “I had to obey the rules of war and my flag.” – Adolf Eichmann “My conscience is clear. I was simply doing my duty.” – Franz Stangel, Commandant of Treblinka Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Article Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Buyze, Gwendolynn Vol. No./Issue No. Volume and issue number for the newspaper (if available) Vol. 48, Issue 22 Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Crossfire Subject The topic of the resource Vietnam War, 1961-1975 Description An account of the resource In this article Michael Mello writes about giving amnesty to the people who refused to participate in the Vietnam War. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Crossfire." Mary Washington College Bullet, April 19, 1976, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-04-19 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 4 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Amnesty draft dodgers Mary Washington College Michael A. Mello Vietnam War https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/868e6e7921bfbe21e64a30d83b7ea4a7.png 81bad64235b0f2dd65a903d3bb0cbd61 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Dear Editor: The administration of this school does not keep records of extracurricular activities (political or otherwise) of its students, contrary to your October 4 editorial in which you wrote, "our student records contain...our extracurricular activities whether we belong to Young Americans for Freedom or NORML. Many students who intend to work with the government upon graduation or would like to attend professional or graduate school are afraid to join organizations ...Indeed their fears are justified" I defy you to present one shred of evidence, one scrap of substantiation to this charge which has done so much to fan the flames of paranoia on this campus and which has caused such grievous damage to MWC NORML. After reading your piece, I went down to GW and checked my own records there. After all, I informed Dean Clement of my intention to establish a chapter of NORML here on campus well over a month ago; I gave her a copy of our proposed club constitution and discussed the whole project with her at some length; I invited her to our first meeting- in short, of all the NORML members here at MWC, she knew all about me. So if NORML affiliation does in fact go into our records, my file would be bulging. But, my records contained nothing more than Photostats of my grades and an emergency information form which I myself completed upon application to MWC. There was not one word about my activities in NORML- not even a copy of the Constitution I gave to Dean Clement at the beginning of the semester. Four other members of the group also viewed their files and found exactly the same thing I did. I did not check to see if the Administration is any more interested in YAF than they are in NORML, but both Dean Clement and President Woodward have assured me that they are not. Clement summed it up when she said, "We have enough here to keep us busy without following students to their club meetings. We don't have the resources to do it even if we wanted to- which we don't." I do not know what possessed you to write such a damaging editorial, but in light of subsequent investigation, I respectfully suggest that you retract it. The students of this school should be encouraged to take an active part in the political system by joining such groups as Young Republicans, Young Democrats, YAF, or NORML depending on where their leanings lie. We have a Constitutional right to join whatever organizations we please. MWC does not keep the records of our extracurricular activities- and anyone who doubts this can easily find out for themselves by checking their own files. Mike Mello Editor's Notes: Indeed, I should have made my editorial more explicit. Student records contain information on extracurricular activities which the student submits to the Dean of Students. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Clay, Austin Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Paranoid Flames Description An account of the resource Mike Mello wrote to the Editor on November 1, 1976. He said that although the school claims to keep records of students' extracurricular activities, he has substantial evidence that shows otherwise. He believes that students should be able to join any college organizations. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Paranoid Flames." Mary Washington College Bullet, November 1, 1976, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-11-01 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 1 JPG Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Subject The topic of the resource Campus Life https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/08093d8c3f3f2e1be82b2e80f3dfdadb.png 75c9c59d36f73a26a5a7f0f60f410c8c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Editor: Martha Moore's letter on the campus Judicial system requires more clarification. In the case to which she referred, I served as a defense council. Although the case involved six students, I will concentrate on one: Andy Hulcher. On the evening that the incident occurred, Andy was studying in his room with a roommate and a friend. His roommate received a phone call at 9 p.m. and returned to the room with three girls. About a half an hour later, Madison's Resident Director knocked on the door. When Andy opened the door, the Resident Director saw the girls and asked them to leave, which they did. Andy, his roommate, and his friend went to trial and were given the same penalty: three weeks strict campus, four weeks loss of key privileges, and one semester social probation. On appeal, Andy's penalty was only slightly reduced and his friends penalty reversed. Andy's defense on appeal was in three stages 1). serious procedural errors occurred in the handling of his case, 2). these errors constitute an error of the "due process of law" clauses of both the Handbook and the 14th amendment, and 3). such violations are grounds for reversal. There were four violations of "due process" in the case of Andy Hulcher. First, Andy was not told that when defendants are tried together, they receive the same penalty, until after the trial. His offense was in no way as serious as that of his roommate: the girls were not his guests, and he had no prior knowledge that they were coming up to the room. Andy was no more than a spectator, yet he received the same penalty. The Joint Council ruled that this was not a violation of due process of the law. Second, the Judicial Court was particularly severe in this case relative to past cases. For example, Conrad Weiser and his roommate were caught with two female guests of Conrad's in their room after closing hours. Conrad's roommate was acquitted. Yet compare this sentence to the one the same Judicial Court gave to Andy Hulcher. The Joint Council ruled that this radical difference in penalty for the same offense does not constitute a violation of due process of the law. Third, Andy did not have time to prepare a proper defense against the charges. He had 24 hours to study the Handbook research precedents, secure council, and interview witnesses. The Joint Council ruled that failure to allow a defendant adequate time to prepare his case did not violate due process of law. Fourth, Madison's Judicial Representative failed to follow any of the investigative procedures outlined in pp. 65-66 of the Handbook. The Joint Council ruled that failure to conduct an investigation before accusation, failure to interview witnesses, and failure to advise the accused of his rights does not constitute a violation of due process of the law. Thus, there were serious errors, oversights, and irregularities in handling of Andy's case by the MWC judicial system. These errors do constitute a violation of the due process clause of the Handbook. I consulted three eminent lawyers about the case. John Zwerling, a member of the ACLU advisory board termed the actions of the Judicial court "incredible. . . a travesty." David Rosenfield, a well-known Northern Virginia attorney wrote me that "the procedural errors. . . are absolutely startling. The failure of relevant persons to follow existing written regulations regarding the administration of 'justice' on the campus. . . constitutes a clear violation of the student's Constitutional rights." The third lawyer we consulted was U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Stevens. Justice Stevens noted that "proper and set regulations must be observed by college judicial systems. A lack of procedure. . . adds to the lack of respect for the system." He further stated that had these errors occurred in a federal or state court, on appeal the verdict would be reversed. The Joint council had all this information before them and they ignored it. I asked them at the time of the trial (and received no answer) that if the above four points do not constitute an abridgement of due process, what does? I ask again: What does due process mean at MWC? Michael Mello Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What does it mean? Description An account of the resource Michael Mello writes to the Editor defending Andy Hulcher. He believes that the Joint Council did not fairly penalize Andy for being a spectator while females were in his room because he did not invite them up there or have prior knowledge that they were coming over. He believes that Andy was unfairly punished. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-02-14 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Subject The topic of the resource College Discipline Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "What does it mean?" Mary Washington College Bullet, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/814f0d8e02cb55f57ccdebc8a2b84ac4.jpg f23c77535c4a51e941eee9ede939878d https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/30e01863363776e4c2d3c8abf4c97c54.jpg bd2fe399ae9e66f4159098b0b7c2cbe5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Dear Editor: Sue Peters made several astute observations in her editorial "The Hopeless Quest for Student Power" (October 18, 1977). She proved that "economic force will not be effective in our quest for authority"; her rejection of violence is equally valid. However, I must disagree with the basic these of her piece: that having a student on the Board of Visitors would not enhance our position vis-a-vis the administration. Miss Peter's statement that "power is not totally in the hands of the administration" is incorrect. The deans of the college are the administrators that most directly affect our lives, but they are elected by the President: a B.O.V resolution of February 8, 1975 states that "the President shall be the chief executive, administrative, and academic officer of the College, and as such he hereby is authorized, directed and empowered to appoint and employ, upon such terms as he shall think best, such administrative and staff personnel as he shall deem proper- to fix their duties and functions, and to discharge and such appointee or employee." So it would seem, at first glance, that the President is the real source of power here; this is not the case, however. He exercises his powers on "behalf of the Rector and Visitors of Mary Washington College." The President himself is thus only a conduit of power: it is the Board which, according to Section 23-91.40 of the Code of Virginia, has the power to "control and expend the funds of the College... make all needful rules and regulations... appoint the President... and all teachers, and fix their salaries." And yet even the Board is not the final reservoir of campus power. Section 23-91.34 of the Code of Virginia states that the B.O.V. is "under the control of the General Assembly." The General Assembly created the Board in 1972; it defined its role and powers; it can modify that role anytime it sees fit to do so. THAT is where the final source of power is, not in Fredericksburg at all, but rather, in Richmond. There presently exists a student organization which has as its purpose the presentation of M.W.C. student views to the General Assembly: the Student Lobby. The Lobby has been extremely active since it was founded; moreover, it has met with much success in its efforts. Recall the HB547 was defeated last year. The specific concept of student representation of the B.O.V. has had its advocates some delegates in the Assembly Representative Ira Lechner introduced a Bill (HB2044) on January 24 of this year, which would have put a student on the Board of all state-supported colleges and universities. The bill provided that "the student member shall have the same powers and duties and shall be subject to the same liabilities as any other member of the Board." The bill was defeated, but perhaps if the entire network of state student lobbies concerted their efforts (as they successfully did with HB547), a similar proposal might fare better in the future. Certainly it seems incorrect to say that "there is no reason to bring up the possibilities of student representation," as Miss Peters did. She further states that "power is never given, it must be taken." This is certainly true; none will voluntarily surrender power. But it is for this very reason that we must petition the General Assembly. The administration is not likely to give us power parity with themselves; nor is the Board. So we must raise our sights higher and take our case to the delegates in Richmond. They are the only ones who might change the power relationship here by putting a student on the B.O.V. So the possibility of getting a student on the Board, is not as Miss Peters suggests, impossible. But the question still remains: is it desirable to have a student on that body? She thinks not: "the final goal is power, specifically the power to make necessary changes in our academic environment without capricious veto by the administration. One student on a large Board of Visitors would hardly obtain this power...it would bring us no closer to the final goal of self-determination." I disagree. Having a student on the highest operational governing body of the school would greatly increase our position. It would do so in two ways. Firstly, it would guarantee that at least one student view would be heard; at present, it is too easy for the Board to simply shun student opinions (particularly during deliberation). The infrequent, limited output we now have with that body which so affects our everyday lives can be no substitute for the guaranteed continuous student input that a student member of the B.O.V. would provide. This would give us power; not the naked, coercive power of the mob, but rather the power of democracy, the power to actively take part in the decisions which affect us. When one group that has been previously totally subservient to another is allowed into the councils of its masters as co-equal, it has gained power. Secondly, a program like that proposed by Delegate Lechner would give the student member full voting privileges. There are presently 12 members on the Board; a student on the body could be the tie-breaking vote. True, we would only compose 1/3 of the total vote; but our power would still be increased from what it is now. To take an analogous example blacks compose only 11% of the population in the U.S., yet their acquisition of the vote certainly gave them increased power. Of course this principle followed by its extreme would give the students about 85% of the vote on the Board, faculty about 10% and administration about 5%. But that is a different issue altogether. Having one student on the B.O.V. would not instantly give us all that we want; it would not give us "self-determination." But it certainly would be a step in that direction. At the very least, it would give us a real voice on the largest conduit of campus power. The thing about Miss Peter's editorial that bothered me the most was that she offered no alternatives of her own. Until something better is suggested, I shall continue to support the principles embodied in HB2044. Respectfully, Michael Mello Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Perrigan, Christina Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters Subject The topic of the resource Student admittance on the Board of Visitors Description An account of the resource A letter to the editor in response to a previously written article regarding Mary Washington College students' struggles for more power. Specifically addressing the significance of students being members of the Board of Visitors. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Letters". Mary Washington College Bullet, Tuesday, November 1, 1977, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-11-01 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 2 JPG 300 dpi Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Mary Washington Bullet Mary Washington College Michael Mello student activism Student Government https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/d1ade5530d7d23b076f06cf44bedb414.jpg 78724736fd66ee4a328cfa24fc072e34 https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/f245068acaef7ec3325e554eca7c8320.jpg 29660a40c9335b998d38df5948553d7b https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/5bc3180fe96899061c544da32a60f7b1.jpg 56889b10c935d904de6ad44590cc3ecd https://hist299.umwhistory.org/files/original/fa2d1eb7e6e59d8edb0ce58e9bc88626.jpg 3f4c213947e17e2430b70bc7fd02dee5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michael A. Mello Papers, Series 1 News Clippings, Binder 1, 1976-1979 Text Text Any textual data included in the document Dear Editor: Recently, both THE BULLET and PROMETHEUS have printed articles and letters concerning injustices in the Honor System and violations of the S.A. Constitution. Serious questions were raised by the two publications-questions which should cause all MWC students to become concerned about the effectiveness of their elected representatives. Mary Washington students have been denied the benefit of an honest and open discussion of the issues; however, for neither S.A. President Kathy Mayer nor Honor Council President Janet de la Concepcion has responded publicly to the changes leveled against them. Does silence imply affirmation? If Ms. Mayer does not feel she is violating the S.A. Constitution by holding office while taking only 10 hours of classes (instead of the 12 required under Article IV, Section 4 of the S.A. Constitution, which states that a member of Executive Cabinet must be a full-time student) she should respond in either THE BULLET or PROMETHEUS. If Ms. de la Concepcion does not believe that under her leadership the Honor Council has been prone to incompetence she should respond publicly. The students have a right to know. Gary Webb Editor: In Ms. Hayes’ recent editorial “MWC Honor-A Call for a Closer Look” (THE BULLET, November 15)she began by discussing the ethics of journalism. Not trying to be picky, but if Ms. Hayes were exercising ethical journalism, she should have submitted the editorial about my article to the publication in which it was printed, Beyond ethics, a further reason why she should not have stated her ideas in The BULLET is that probably many people who read THE BULLET did not see my article at all. PROMETHEUS puts out about 500 copies per issue, allowing for “passing around” of any particular copy. Far less than one half the students of MWC actually saw my article in print. To this end, I have received many requests for a reprint of my article as a result of Ms. Hayes’ editorial. I feel that I have suffered an injustice at the hands of THE BULLET through their decision not to print my article, and at the same time to comment upon it. To help clear up any misinterpretations of my expose, I respectfully request that THE BULLET reprint my article “Recent Honor Trial Shows Need for Changes” in full so that everyone may judge my ideas for himself. In Ms. Hayes’ editorial she was able to pick out of context anything she thought significant. Speaking in Ms. Hayes terms, she has put a “slant” on the issue. Ms. Hayes’ assumption “…the intent of the article was to put under public scrutiny the names of our S.A. and Honor Council President ,” misses the mark. The article was, as stated, to inform students, and since the Honor Council President is so wrapped up in anything the Honor Council does, it is only natural that her name and actions by mentioned due to the fact that she is an Please see page three Letters (Con.) S.A. official with much power and influence. And, as Michael Mello pointed out in his Letter to the Editor of two weeks ago, the accuser “… should have known better.” These reasons do not even mention the fact that any representative of citizens has already put himself on a pedestal to be examined. I merely informed the student body about the trial of Pam Burrows in the way in which I saw it. As to defacing the names of the Characters involved should my speculations be withheld in a free community? Ms. Hayes stated in her editorial that my editorial style article was inappropriate, because a news-type article on the trials had not first been published. My article states that there should be provisions made for publishing details of all trials: “An open, public approach to the Honor and Judicial processes would serve as a check on the system and it’s implementers.” Outside the college community in courts of law, reporters are allowed to be present at most trials, and to report the details from them. The public has a right to know these details, and the same situation applies to our trial system. Ms. Hayes questioned this application to trials at MWC: “Doesn’t the accuser, as well as the accused have any say as to how the contents of the trials are distributed?” My answer to this question is that neither person has a right to decide what neither person has a right to decide what will be published. The details of the trials by right belong to the public-this is a practice entrenched in the Judicial System of the United States of America. If a person has put himself in a conspicuous enough position to warrant a trial or indeed if the person has committed an offense, the public must know who he is so that proper treatment may be affected. As for the accuser, he or she is standing up for the cherished (and legal) Judicial System: thus what possible justifiable reason could an accuser have for remaining incognito? Due to the fact that many offenses on this campus are not set down as illegal in the outside world, (an example of this is the curfew law on campus), I propose that we not rely on the unfair system under which we now live, which was devised by legally unsophisticated students of the past. We should model our trial system after a functional and long-lived set of procedure such as the United States Judicial System. Elliot Wentz Please see page four Editor: Ms. Hayes seems to have misunderstood my letter (November 22, THE BULLET). She writes that “In a democratic society, we should all be treated as equals (referring to both the accuser and defendant before the bar of justice-MM) Right? Apparently not, says Mello ….. Doesn’t the accuser, as well as the accused , have any say as to how the contents of trials are distributed?” Yet in my letter, which appeared on the page next to that statement by Ms. Hayes, I wrote: “Personally, I don’t feel that a citizen acquires any additional rights by becoming an accuser. Of course, that same person doesn’t lose any rights either. The fact of the matter is that Kathy Mayer has the same right as Wentz: the right to present her side of the issue in the campus media, if Ms. Mayer chooses to waive this right and remain silent, then that is not the fault of either Mr. Wentz or PROMETHEUS.” Ms. Hayes is still troubled by the basic discrepancy in the MWC Honor Constitution, that no rights are granted to the accuser in Honor Trials.” In fact, Ms. Hayes feels that this situation is so serious that if should be “Corrected before further Honor Trials are held.” Yet, once again, Ms. Hayes fails to say what these “rights” should be. Merely to criticize without offering possible alternatives or solutions seems to me to be idle and unproductive. As Patricia Ringle, News Editor of THE BULLET wrote editorially earlier this year: “If you desire change, it is necessary to do something more than merely expect it to occur. It is only after you offer precise suggestions and more importantly action, that you will experience the benefits of knowing what you have contributed to the improvement. Michael Mello Editor’s Note: Perhaps Michael Mello would like to have a synopsis of my last Editor’s Note BULLET-Nov. 22) which was written in response to this Letter to the Editor concerning the editorial “M.W.C. Honor –A Call for a Closer Look.” In regard to Mello’s request for the rights of an accuser in an MWC honor Trial, hopefully the following statements will clear up any confusion. It was stated last week that “perhaps Ms. Mayer does not deserve any rights as the accuser.” Maybe she doesn’t. If Mello took the time to read to the end of this paragraph he would have realized that an observation was indeed made concerning the rights of the accuser. What bothered me was that the accuser has no say as to how the contents of an Honor Trials are distributed. Isn’t this right? Perhaps the word “rights” was ambiguous –“right” would have been a better choice. It certainly seems unfair that Elliot Wentz’s article “Recent Honor Trial Shows Need for Changes” appeared in PROMETHEUS before 90% of the campus had formed an opinion or even heard about the case. The definitive slant this article put on the case, as was stated in “MWC- A Call for a Closer Look,” seems unjust. The concern with the discrepancies pf the M.W.C. Honor Code and the leaders who are supposed to enforce it was the major thesis of my editorial. If the whole editorial was not taken as a criticism of the present Honor Code and the method in which Pam Burrow’s Honor Trial was brought to public attention, then the purpose was defeated. There is definitely a need of change in the present M.W.C. Honor Code. Thanks to Wentz’s article, these discrepancies are now being studied by the Honor Council. It is enlightening to know that the Code is presently being revised. A.F.H. Dear Editor: I was particularly struck by your recent comment (THE BULLET, Nov 15) that “a free and responsible press is a vital aspect of the environment. The point is inarguable” I would certainly agree. But THE BULLET is anything but an example of a free press. A free press does not operate at the forced expense of its readers, does not use public facilities free of charge as its office of operation and does not have a Board of Publication overseeing its operation. Each student at Mary Washington is required to pay a mandatory student fee, part of which is used to cover the costs of the publication of THE BULLET. The only revenue obtained voluntarily is that gained from advertisers. To force the citizens of any community (in this case the academic community) to pay the costs involved in the publication of any newspaper is to obliterate that newspaper’s position as an example of free press. THE BULLET also uses a room in a public building-Lee Hall-fir which no rent is paid. But taxpayers have been required to provide this facility and thus subsidize the operation of THE BULLET. Forcing any citizen to subsidize in any way a newspaper is to void its position as a free press publication. And to be overseen by a Board of Publications which has the potential of stopping publication (since it is the publisher) or censoring the newspaper is to also negate the possibility of having a free press. A comparable example would be the City Council of Fredericksburg to pass a law requiring all people who come to the Fredericksburg community to pay a mandatory citizen fee, part of which would be used to pay some of the cost of the publication of THE FREE LANCE-STAR. Also City Council would provide free facilities to the town newspaper in a city-owned building and set up a Board of Publications made up of members of the City Council and prominent citizens in order to oversee the operation of THE FREE LANCE-STAR. If such conditions existed one could readily see that Fredericksburg would be lacking a free press. Unlike THE BULLET, PROMETHEUS is an example of a free press since it gains the money for its operations from voluntary contributions or from advertisers, uses its own facilities in which to work (if these are the dorm rooms they have paid rent on and does not have a Board to oversee its operations. If you recognize the need for a free press in any environment then it is high time that drastic alterations be made in the operation of THE BULLET so that it may someday become a free press publication. Thomas L. Johnson Professor of Biology Editor’s Note: We recognize that Thomas Johnson is a firm supporter of the abolition of the student activities fees. We surmise that the above letter was precipitated by Johnson’s opinions on the subject. We also realize that we are subsidized by mandatory fees and state aid and that we occupy office space in ACL provided “free of charge.” However, to assert that THE BULLET is anything but an example of a free press” is not a clear statement. During the time of our work on THE BULLET, we have maintained an open channel for publication despite controversial positions that may have been involved. We have been functioning as a free press with no overt censorship. What reasons exactly, does Johnson hold for questioning our freedom of publication? Some might feel that THE BULLET is censored covertly or subtly. Though attempts at this type of censorship might occur, THE BULLET is not required to stop the presses or retract any issues we feel are appropriately covered. We welcome Johnson’s suggestions concerning the “drastic alterations” that he advises. We are interested in his criticism and intend to pursue the matter in order to clarify the issue for ourselves and our readers. The Editorial Board Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Newspaper Contributor of the Digital Item Person submitting the digital item to the collection. Copperthite, Ike Student Editor of the Digital Item Williams, Megan Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters Subject The topic of the resource Student newspapers and periodicals Description An account of the resource Letters from Mike Mellow concerning the Bullet newspaper and the PROMETHEUS newspaper and articles previously written in the Bullet. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mello, Michael A. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mello, Michael A. "Letters". Mary Washington College Bullet, Thursday, December 8, 1977, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available HIST 298, University of Mary Washington Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1977-12-08 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource 4 JPG 300 dp Language A language of the resource English Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Fredericksburg, VA Michael A. Mello PROMETHEUS The Bullet