;mber 27,
Suspends
Ust
by Dr. Fred Bentley
kmv G®hring brought to
Jco *he fact that one of our
i, ® Melinda Lee Wallace, resid-
li'o be
^ Huffman Dormitory, was found
possession of two joints of
U,jJ'l'‘®ria, Dr. Gehring requested
Student Court be allowed
PHvilege of trying this case so
jtbe
as to determine the guiit or inno
cence of Miss Waiiace as to the pos
session of iiiegal drugs on our cam
pus. On Wednesday, Sept. 29, the
Student Court met and Miss Waiiace
pieaded guilty to the charge of pos
session of marijuana and was found
guiity by the court of this charge.
The Justices of the Student Govern
ment Association took action to the
effect of placing Miss Waiiace on
conduct probation (judicial proba
tion) with other conditions to be at
tached. Unfortunateiy it was not
cleariy understood by the Student
Court that the Justices did not have
the jurisdiction to set forth the sanc
tion on this charge, but rather to
conduct a court that wouid in fact
determine the innocence of the ac
cused. Coilege reguiations which
were sent to every student on Nov.
3, 1970, and a copy of which was
sent to the parents of every enroiied
student as of that date specifically
state that “possession of haiiucina-
tory drugs—reported to the State
Mars Hill College
Hillrop
roi.
XLVi No.
MARS HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
33-9 lose to
^rof Examines Puffn Stuff
Whe
by George Peery
^''®sident Bentiey on Sep-
Pojj ’ suspended a student for
l[)g of marijuana, overturn-
Wlc’ Court sentence of
b'"°bation everybody iost.
'^®Presentatives were hurt and
'»Urt
’Igry,
tiillii
"sirati,
®*Pdenfs mistrusted the ad-
cis|j^^"‘°^- Student government de-
5(1(1 ^ looked castrated at worst
ini. at best. Faculty jumped
/ *'on
for
Th,
^^“•student and pro-admlnistra-
b®- That is a good score
® bait week’s work.
' 'asg Incident is a textbook
' doiig things shouid not be
) TfK
^ fiasco took piace. Peopie
I '''Sre oi'bitrarity. Reputations
Trusts were de
nary ' It was aii so unneces-
Cqi
''°Urt
did
hication broke down. The
R
®°t know the legal status
nor exactly what it was
Sy, The Dean did not
Irijg President’s position on
Sjy ®*^dse. The President didn’t
%'t L Court and the Dean
' I'how.
One can make these observations
easily. The information has been
aired publicly: at an American As
sociation of University Professors
Mars Hill Chapter meeting Friday,
October 1, and at a meeting of the
Court, Student Government and in
terested students with President
Bentley and Dean Gehring Saturday,
October 2.
Student Court was not prepared to
handle a case of this intensity. This
was the first drug offense that a
MHC Student Court had ever been
called upon to try. The visibility of
the case and student interest in the
issue placed the justices and the
council staffs under immeasurable
pressure.
Further complicating the court’s
role were two Issues which had not
been resolved as it met to hear the
case. The first was the ambiguous
relation of Student Court to the civil
authorities. Would a Student Court
decision place the defendant in
double jeopardy? Would the state
prosecute under all circumstances?
Would the state prosecute the de
fendant only if the Student Court
n the
Monday, October 11, 1971
sentence were probation, avoiding
prosecution if suspension? Members
of the court and council staffs could
get no reliable information about this
question from the county solicitor,
the Dean or from the office of the
President.
The second issue was the uncer
tainty about the latitude the Court
could exercise in hearing this case.
Was it to determine guilt or Inno
cence? Should it sentence? Neither
the defense nor the prosecution was
aware that the stated policy of MHC
was immediate suspension upon
proof of possession. The handbook
says nothing about automatic sus
pension. Further, no one on the
court had kept on file, had remem
bered or even thought about Presi
dent Bentley’s November 3, 1970
letter stating MHC’s drug policy. The
court asked but was not able to get
this information through the offices
of Student Affairs or the President.
(cont. on p. 3)
dent
Bureau of Investigation officials and
suspension from school.” There
has been no change of this regula
tion; and, therefore, the only alter
native which the Justices had was
to suspend Miss Wallace. Since they
did not fully understand this, I find
it my responsibility to enforce our
college regulations and to overrule
the action of the Student Govern
ment In giving conduct probation as
the sanction and Imposing Immediate
suspension on Miss Wallace for the
balance of this semester.
As a matter of information, I think
you should know that I perceived
three alternatives which I could
follow. They were: I could abide by
the Student Court decision and
allow Miss Wallace to remain In
school on the conduct probation
thus referring to charges of a felony
for marijuana to the County Solicitor
and to federal authorities. If this
action were to be taken. Miss Wal
lace would run the risk of being
prosecuted by the federal authori
ties and the state authorities and
could potentially receive a prison
term and a fine up to $5,000. The
second alternative was that I could
suspend Miss Wallace for a period
of time and then plead with the
state and federal officials to drop
any civil charges; therefore, not en
tering any official record of arrest,
trial, and conviction, on her civil rec
ords. The third alternative was that
I could suspend Miss Wallace there
fore enforcing college regulations
and at the same time enter an of
ficial complaint to the solicitor and
(cont. on p. 3)
Lee Wallace
Coed Tried From
in Drug Case Defense
Lee Wallace, a sophomore, was
found with marijuana in her posses
sion by her hall counselor, Gail Me-
Kiney, of second floor Huffman and
Dr. Don Gehring, Dean of Students,
on Wednesday, Sept. 27.
The following Wednesday, Sept.
29, Miss Wallace was brought before
student court on charges of posses
sion of marijuana.
Entering a plea of guilty. Miss
Wallace was defended by Ruth
Gellerstedt, a fellow student of her
own choice, who presented the case
on the grounds that marijuana was
culturally accepted by the students
of Mars Hill College.
Found guilty, it was the decision
of the court to place Miss Wallace
under strict judicial probation with
stipulation which would be stated
later.
Interview With Chief Justice
At this time we, the members of
the defense, would like to give our
views about the trial of Lee Wallace.
There have been several rumors
around campus and we would like
to clear these up.
1. We were not informed that the
letter of November 1970 was still in
effect this year. We are referring
to the letter sent to our parents stat
ing that anyone found guilty of being
in possession or using alcoholic
beverages or illegal narcotics would
be automatically suspended. Upon
asking if this letter was still In effect,
we were told that we were to go en
tirely by this year’s student hand
book which does not mention this
letter. Saturday morning, after the
trial, we met with the-administration
and found this negligence was due
to a fallacy in the communication be
tween administration.
2. We feel that the justices ful
filled their obligations in seeing that
justice was done. This can been
seen in that the justices viewed all
the facts presented to them in the
(cont. on p. 3)
Here Comes De' Judge
The following is an interview with
Frank Farrell, Chief Justice of the
Student Court, in relation to the re
cent court case.
Laine: Did, at any time. Dean
Gehring or Dr. Bentley remind the
court of the letter sent Nov. 3, 1970
stating school policy concerning the
possession of drugs and alcohol?
Frank: We discussed going to
trial with Dean Gehring and Larry
Pfaff and it was not mentioned.
Laine: Then the court was under
the impression that they were to
1) determine guilt or innocence and
2) sent the penalty?
Frank: Right, we worked on the
basis that this case was like any
(cont. on p. 3)