Letter to the Editor
Dublin Core
Title
Letter to the Editor
Subject
Honor system (Higher education)
Description
A letter to the editor in response to an article about a student on trial for an honor violation at Mary Washington College.
Creator
Mello, Michael A.
Source
Mello, Michael A. "Letters." The Bullet, November 22, 1977.
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1977-11-22
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
2 JPG
300 dpi
Language
English
Coverage
Fredericksburg, VA
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
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
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.
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
Newspaper Article
Contributor of the Digital Item
Bowen, Nina
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Mello, Michael A., “Letter to the Editor,” HIST299, accessed March 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/35.