Letters
Dublin Core
Title
Letters
Subject
Student newspapers and periodicals
Description
Letters from Mike Mellow concerning the Bullet newspaper and the PROMETHEUS newspaper and articles previously written in the Bullet.
Creator
Mello, Michael A.
Source
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
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1977-12-08
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
4 JPG
300 dp
Language
English
Coverage
Fredericksburg, VA
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
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
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
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.
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
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
Newspaper
Contributor of the Digital Item
Copperthite, Ike
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Mello, Michael A. , “Letters,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/50.