Response To Rusk Critics
Dublin Core
Title
Response To Rusk Critics
Subject
Student newspapers and periodicals
Rusk, Dean
Description
A reaction from Micheal Mello about an article he published regarding a visitor to the Mary Washington.
Creator
Mello, Micheal A.
Source
Mello, Michael A. "Response to Rusk Critics", Prometheus. Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957-2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington.
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Rights
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
1 JPG
300 dpi
Language
English
Coverage
Fredericksburg, VA
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
It has come to my attention that certain students and others were offended by the timing of November 11, 1977 Prometheus article “Dean Rusk: Guilty of War Crimes?” The article appeared the day Mr. Rush arrived on campus for his four day visit here, and some members of our academic community felt that my piece should not have appeared until after DVIR had departed Fredericksburg. Some clarification is in order:
First, the intent of my article was not to insult anyone, either Mr. Rusk himself or the people who brought him here; were this the case, we would have omitted the question mark in the headline. The sole purpose of the article was to present one student’s view of the way America, through its high governmental officials such as Mr. Rusk, chose to wage war in Southeast Asia. This view, incidentally, is shared by a number of individuals whose credentials in the academic and legal community are somewhat better than mine-for example Noam Chomsky, Richard Hammer, and Telford Taylor, the U.S. Chief Council at Nuremberg in 1945-1946.
Second, I chose for the article to appear when it did out of fairness to Mr. Rusk: so that interested students could go to Mr. Rusk and discuss the questions I raised in my article with him. This gave Mr. Rusk an opportunity to present his side of the story, to disprove my argument and to enlighten us about his version of American war crimes in Vietnam and who is responsible for them. I felt that to suggest that Mr. Rusk might be guilty of war crimes after he had already departed for Georgia would be a disservice for both our DVIR and the students of MWC.
First, the intent of my article was not to insult anyone, either Mr. Rusk himself or the people who brought him here; were this the case, we would have omitted the question mark in the headline. The sole purpose of the article was to present one student’s view of the way America, through its high governmental officials such as Mr. Rusk, chose to wage war in Southeast Asia. This view, incidentally, is shared by a number of individuals whose credentials in the academic and legal community are somewhat better than mine-for example Noam Chomsky, Richard Hammer, and Telford Taylor, the U.S. Chief Council at Nuremberg in 1945-1946.
Second, I chose for the article to appear when it did out of fairness to Mr. Rusk: so that interested students could go to Mr. Rusk and discuss the questions I raised in my article with him. This gave Mr. Rusk an opportunity to present his side of the story, to disprove my argument and to enlighten us about his version of American war crimes in Vietnam and who is responsible for them. I felt that to suggest that Mr. Rusk might be guilty of war crimes after he had already departed for Georgia would be a disservice for both our DVIR and the students of MWC.
Original Format
Newspaper
Contributor of the Digital Item
Gallagher, Caleb S.
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Mello, Micheal A., “Response To Rusk Critics,” HIST299, accessed March 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/31.