Dear Editor
Dublin Core
Title
Dear Editor
Subject
Student protesters
Description
A letter to the editor of the Bullet from several leaders of a student protest, criticizing Mike Mello's reporting of their student protest.
Creator
Schlimgen, Steven P.
Kirby, Randal V.
Hawke, Paul
Source
The Bullet
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1978-04-18
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
Dear Editor:
Bullet we got to hand it to you... Thanks for the royal screw. Where do students voice their opinions anymore? We want to commend you for your sensationalism and your success in twisting the facts to fit your fancy. We're glad you've won your awards for journalism- Now, how about working on the reporting that gives you such inappropriate headlines and unfactual articles. We hope you feel a little bit of guilt somewhere in your paper heart concerning the way you've misrepresented the facts, the students, and the administration lately. We thought you'd learn your lesson the first week you misrepresented a story with an outlandish headline that ruined a perfectly good story, but you evidently enjoy "misrepresentation of the truth." (Student Handbook). Let us correct some of your statements since you insist on relying on your own ideas when writing your articles, rather than involving adequate student input ( the people your writing for remember).
Do we have a representative sample of students on our Bullet staff?
We at Madison are growing "weary of our lonely struggle and are beginning to show signs of buckling in the face" of the distorted coverage you've been granting us. Schlimgen and Thompson did not try and "persuade other dormatories to follow the Madison Plan." First of all, there is no "Madison" plan- only one for all the students of MWC. There is no mention of Madison in the entire proposal that you printed up in your last edition. Secondly, we suppose your concept of "persuading" other dorms to follow our example is equal to several of our dorm members visiting several other dorms on campus to explain the proposal and make students aware of its implications.
We were willing to sacrifice our visitation in order to get our point across and we didn't want to see any other dorm suffer for the same reasons. We made it clear to the administration for the beginning that we wanted to open the problem up to consideration and not hide it away in the corner somewhere.
The residents of Madison did not "falter in their support of the new proposal"- they simply feel that passive resistance and the proper channels are the correct, mature and responsible method of dealing with problems of this nature involving a combination of administrative and student legislatures. Kathy Mayer neither took away or gave back our visitation, Cindy Reeves did both. Miss Mayer was consulted on the matter as any leader is consulted before one of his or her cabinets takes any action. Your "most valuable staffer" also made a blunder in his editorial where he states that Woodard "decides upon the proposal" because Woodard's vote is only one of eight from the administrative board. Agreed, your article is one of opinion and not of facts since it is classified as an editorial, but opinions also need facts to back them up. We also don't think we're talking about "power" in our protests, Mr. Vandever, only cooperation (in our minds) will solve anything in an educative atmosphere. Keep it up Bullet, you're helping to perpetuate the idea that college students are in fact inferior, incompetent, power-hungry immature little kids.
Steven P. Schlimgen, Randal V. Kirby, Paul Hawke & and the Madison 34+1
Bullet we got to hand it to you... Thanks for the royal screw. Where do students voice their opinions anymore? We want to commend you for your sensationalism and your success in twisting the facts to fit your fancy. We're glad you've won your awards for journalism- Now, how about working on the reporting that gives you such inappropriate headlines and unfactual articles. We hope you feel a little bit of guilt somewhere in your paper heart concerning the way you've misrepresented the facts, the students, and the administration lately. We thought you'd learn your lesson the first week you misrepresented a story with an outlandish headline that ruined a perfectly good story, but you evidently enjoy "misrepresentation of the truth." (Student Handbook). Let us correct some of your statements since you insist on relying on your own ideas when writing your articles, rather than involving adequate student input ( the people your writing for remember).
Do we have a representative sample of students on our Bullet staff?
We at Madison are growing "weary of our lonely struggle and are beginning to show signs of buckling in the face" of the distorted coverage you've been granting us. Schlimgen and Thompson did not try and "persuade other dormatories to follow the Madison Plan." First of all, there is no "Madison" plan- only one for all the students of MWC. There is no mention of Madison in the entire proposal that you printed up in your last edition. Secondly, we suppose your concept of "persuading" other dorms to follow our example is equal to several of our dorm members visiting several other dorms on campus to explain the proposal and make students aware of its implications.
We were willing to sacrifice our visitation in order to get our point across and we didn't want to see any other dorm suffer for the same reasons. We made it clear to the administration for the beginning that we wanted to open the problem up to consideration and not hide it away in the corner somewhere.
The residents of Madison did not "falter in their support of the new proposal"- they simply feel that passive resistance and the proper channels are the correct, mature and responsible method of dealing with problems of this nature involving a combination of administrative and student legislatures. Kathy Mayer neither took away or gave back our visitation, Cindy Reeves did both. Miss Mayer was consulted on the matter as any leader is consulted before one of his or her cabinets takes any action. Your "most valuable staffer" also made a blunder in his editorial where he states that Woodard "decides upon the proposal" because Woodard's vote is only one of eight from the administrative board. Agreed, your article is one of opinion and not of facts since it is classified as an editorial, but opinions also need facts to back them up. We also don't think we're talking about "power" in our protests, Mr. Vandever, only cooperation (in our minds) will solve anything in an educative atmosphere. Keep it up Bullet, you're helping to perpetuate the idea that college students are in fact inferior, incompetent, power-hungry immature little kids.
Steven P. Schlimgen, Randal V. Kirby, Paul Hawke & and the Madison 34+1
Editor's Note:
If Madison's attempt was not to seize power, and thus influence an administrative decision, the entire episode must be classified as a pointless prank. If Madison residents feel that "proper channels" are appropriate, why weren't these channels explored and exhausted before the existing procedures were so dramatically scorned? Anyone who claims that President Woodard is bound by a vote of the administrative board certainly is not aware of the "facts," and would do well to read the description of the President's powers in Mike Mello's article, "The function of the BOV" (Bullet, April 1, 1978).
Further, Madison did indeed "grow weary of its lonely struggle." The dorm residents originally voted 36-1 to sign in "guest #1, guest #2, etc.," but as their visitation rights became threatened, the vote to continue the struggle dropped to only a 14-11 margin. Twenty-two supporters "buckled" under pressure. Also Kathy Mayer took full responsibility for both revoking and restoring Madison's visitation. It would seem that the only "misrepresentation" of which The Bullet is guilty, is one of not presenting the protesters in the favorable light they desire.
T.J.V. AND G.P.W.
If Madison's attempt was not to seize power, and thus influence an administrative decision, the entire episode must be classified as a pointless prank. If Madison residents feel that "proper channels" are appropriate, why weren't these channels explored and exhausted before the existing procedures were so dramatically scorned? Anyone who claims that President Woodard is bound by a vote of the administrative board certainly is not aware of the "facts," and would do well to read the description of the President's powers in Mike Mello's article, "The function of the BOV" (Bullet, April 1, 1978).
Further, Madison did indeed "grow weary of its lonely struggle." The dorm residents originally voted 36-1 to sign in "guest #1, guest #2, etc.," but as their visitation rights became threatened, the vote to continue the struggle dropped to only a 14-11 margin. Twenty-two supporters "buckled" under pressure. Also Kathy Mayer took full responsibility for both revoking and restoring Madison's visitation. It would seem that the only "misrepresentation" of which The Bullet is guilty, is one of not presenting the protesters in the favorable light they desire.
T.J.V. AND G.P.W.
Original Format
Newspaper
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Schlimgen, Steven P., Kirby, Randal V. , and Hawke, Paul , “Dear Editor,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/51.