Dear Editor:
As a student in Dr. John Rouse's POLS 350: Public Administration class, I would like to clear up certain facts Brett Mock misrepresented in his Nov. 15 column. Dr. Rouse did not prohibit Mock from presenting the facts.
Mock spoke, uninterrupted, for an extended period of time, but all he did was complain about his grade on one paper in Dr. Wolfe's class. He was not asked to come to this setting to discuss his paper grade, but rather to talk about Students for Academic Freedom, and how that pertains to public administration.
Dr. Rouse merely told Mock he needed to address the questions at hand and that one incident does not make the entire university bad. Mock claims Dr. Rouse "did not allow me to present the facts", but the truth is Mock had no facts to present.
He continually skirted around the issue when asked specific questions about his class attendance and work (which probably played more of an important role in the grade he received than the bias he claimed Dr. Wolfe to have). Mock knew the truth would put his credibility in jeopardy.
It is ridiculous that Mock discredits professors of this university, especially in such a public venue. It is also disrespectful that Mock could not refer to Dr. Rouse, Dr. Losco and Dr. Wolfe by their correct title. These men, regardless of his views or anyone else's, deserve a certain amount of respect for the position they hold.
I am appalled by Mock's redundant columns. He has blown the situation out of proportion; most of us move on after one bad grade. As a firm conservative myself, I do not feel a bias against me in the classroom. The argument he uses is just a means for him to justify his poor performance in Dr. Wolfe's class.
Jessica England
junior