I'm a journalism student, and stories like this are so discouraging. Nevertheless, I'm pretty optimistic about the future of the media, because the majority of students in my communications classes are female.

Go her! And fuck them! Grr. I haven't had to deal with the journalism world, but I can't say that the technical world (I'm supposedly an "engineer") is any better. I remain optimistic, though, that the world can and will get better. The more people who speak out, the better.

This sort of thing also occurs in the male-domininated technology professions. There's a social promotion of goofballs and f-ups as long as he's a "fun guy."
A guy can perform 30% lower than a woman and still be seen as equal.

This goes to the discussion that men don't perform as well at college as women these days. Really, they don't have to for success. I'm not so much encouraged by women's great performance in college until they get the top promotions. When women get out of college, that entry level time in the job market is the time they'll experience the least sexism in their careers.

As another note - I went to the link and found this quote:
"Multiple sources also say that Mitchell, who came to the paper last August, wasn't widely liked herself."

Of course! We have to dip in and check the "likability" of the woman if she complains. It's a sin for a woman not to have high likability. If someone doesn't like her, it's her fault.

Isn't this often the case when a woman is uppity enough to complain or take leadership? Before quality of work, history, leadership, and results, you measure "is she likable?"

I can't be the only one who thought of the current season of the Wire when I read this story.

Aside from this issue, it's pretty obvious that 90% of newspapers in the US are run by old boy's club dipshits who are becoming more and more despicable as their medium becomes more and more obsolete.

Gosh, I hope she was never a copy editor.

All nitpicking aside, though, this whole situation is appalling. It's appalling that Mitchell was driven to resign from the paper, because good ol' boy clubs will never dissolve without strong women like Marilyn to fight back. And, of course, it's appalling that the editors at the paper are excusing their behavior as though the "boys will be boys" argument holds any water whatsoever, *especially* in a workplace.

Good for her, and good argument Ann, it's more the atmosphere than the specific incidents. There can be so many different in-jokes and a different "feel" to any work place, but the overall atmosphere has to be inviting for everone.

As bad as it is there, I'm betting sports media is even worse. I've only gone at it as a blogger (obviously not "real" media) and I've gotten doors literally slammed in my face when I tried to talk intelligently to teams. Ridiculous.

Re: the likability issue:

I have a friend whose father, an attorney, actually brags that most people don't like him. He attributes his professional success to his lack of likability.

How many women can say the same thing?

*hears pin drop*

"The majority of students in my communications classes are female."

I'm a media major too. Though I'm not intending on having journalism be my emphasis area, I have taken some journalism classes and noticed the same thing. I've also noted how the females are wayyy more articulate and better than the guys. They are more inquisitive and mentally progressive. they have better thinking abilities. Its made me feel that having guys in classrooms might inhibit the quality of the curriculum and progress of our academics torwards females.

GopherII-

Is that sarcasm?

"

GopherII-

Is that sarcasm?
"

God I'm hoping so

Wow.

I wrote the last bit wrong. I meant that I feel guys can inhibit the quality of classroom. In summary, if guys werent there we could have a higher quality class.

"Is that sarcasm?"

Coasttocoast, kidcharlemagne,

I hope I answered your question. I'm a bit lost by what you mean.

Well, yes Gopher.

But I kind of wish you hadn't.

I wish there was some way to get into contact with her. I had very similar things happen to me when I was in newswriting and ESPECIALLY when I was working the opinion section at daily papers. Opinion sections are even more of a boys' club. I, too, ended up leaving the business largely because of this.

What's more, we even had a survey, "totally anonymous", to tell them if there was any sexism or racism at the paper. Problem was -- they wanted to know your sex and what department you worked in. Only three women total worked in the newsroom. Everyone knew everyone's handwriting. Anonymous, my ass. The retaliation started a week after the survey went out. It was bullshit, and everyone knew it was bullshit. After the three of us wrote what we thought, we started getting teased by the male reporters about "that big glass ceiling," or saying, "we're not sexist, it's just that women can't write interesting stories!"

Seriously.

If this woman ever wants to start a group blog of opinionated former journalists, I'd be so in. Unfortunately, finding a way to contact her would probably be difficult -- I'm sure she'd get a lot of hate mail if they made contact info public.

I'm a journalism student, and stories like this are so discouraging. Nevertheless, I'm pretty optimistic about the future of the media, because the majority of students in my communications classes are female.

Hon, sadly, that's not a good sign of a profession's status when females begin to dominate.

The bigger problem is that the available jobs are dwindling even as the student population expands. The less there is to go around, the less likely the privileged few are to complain.

I worked for newspapers in the 90s, and while women and men were about equal in entry-level positions at small papers, the men mostly got the good stuff, even at the small papers. And they were the ones more likely to move up to big papers, rare as that was for anyone.

P.S. When it came to sexist machismo, photographers had reporters beat hands down.

"Well, yes Gopher.

But I kind of wish you hadn't. "

I STILL dont get what youre getting at! I'm guessing you think I was being misandrist?

If thats the case, I dont give a shit. I have studies to back my case, along with countless personal examples.

"Hon, sadly, that's not a good sign of a profession's status when females begin to dominate."

According to studies posted on this site, it is.

Has anyone read the comments on the blog entry this is linked to? I was literally aching for something to punch. There were at least three comments on the woman's looks, as if that's somehow relevant to the story, one comment to how inconsiderate she was of her husband's career, several speculating that she was just an incompetent, disgruntled employee, and countless posts about how "unlady-like" her "hissy-fit" is. I'm serious. e_e

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the possibility of a lawsuit.

She sounds like she has a great case for alleging a hostile work environment and sexual harassment. At least make those good ol' boys feel some heat.

I know media watchdog groups like FAIR (Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting) and other groups and individuals have been doing good work in exposing the "old boys club" around print media. This is particularly true when it comes to Op-Ed writing which is very male dominated. I suppose the same could be said about electronic media . We all complain about Chris Matthews and other MSM sexists, but if CNBC, CNN and other outlets were more gender balanced, the "old boys" might be less inclined to spout nonsense.

I also had a lot of women in my journalism class. I've been told that the proportion of younger women in journalism is fairly high, but it drops dramatically as the women get 5-10 years older. Which could be caused by:

— More women going into journalism (I'd like to think so!)

— Women having babies and then leaving their jobs to raise them, figuring that since nonunionized low-midlevel newsroom jobs tend to pay diddly-shit with crap benefits they would be better off staying at home with the baby or finding a better job (I know several women -- and at least one man -- who have gone this route)

-Female journalists just not getting the same opportunities that male journalists do. At the paper I worked at in college I wrote the fluffiest shit you can imagine. I chalked this up to my lack of ambition to be a hard-nosed reporter, but then I went through the archives and noticed that the male students had all tended to get meatier stories than the female ones did. Oh, and it just occurred to me that the management/city/business/oped/sports desks were almost all male, while the features and general-assignment reporters were mostly female. Interesting.

"Hon, sadly, that's not a good sign of a profession's status when females begin to dominate."

According to studies posted on this site, it is.

I think Spungen's meaning the way a profession is perceived once women begin to dominate: teachers, doctors, etc. The prestige factor goes downhill now that mere *women* can do the job.

"I think Spungen's meaning the way a profession is perceived once women begin to dominate: teachers, doctors, etc. The prestige factor goes downhill now that mere *women* can do the job."

Thanks for clarifying. I was pointing out that I had seen alot of studies posted on this site that showed women typically do more for the company than men do. Wouldnt that make the profession more prestigious? I would think it would, because then the profession would be seen as overachieving and non-tolerant of half-ass results.

I work at a small, very local paper, but I've seen things happen at larger papers in our company that give me hope. Granted, we're located in a more east-coast-liberal area, and I don't know how many (for example) female assignment editors there are, but I've seen those papers make a strong effort to pay attention to issues affecting people of color, and young women my age (mid-twenties) pick up awards for their investigative work. My biggest issue isn't the newsroom, but outside it (getting called 'sweetheart' by the mayor, etc.).

All the reporters I meet seem to be smart, serious young women. I'm sure some areas are still awful, but with the number of women in newsrooms today I have hope.

I work at a small, very local paper, but I've seen things happen at larger papers in our company that give me hope. Granted, we're located in a more east-coast-liberal area, and I don't know how many (for example) female assignment editors there are, but I've seen those papers make a strong effort to pay attention to issues affecting people of color, and young women my age (mid-twenties) pick up awards for their investigative work. My biggest issue isn't the newsroom, but outside it (getting called 'sweetheart' by the mayor, etc.).

All the reporters I meet seem to be smart, serious young women. I'm sure some areas are still awful, but with the number of women in newsrooms today I have hope.

"I think Spungen's meaning the way a profession is perceived once women begin to dominate: teachers, doctors, etc. The prestige factor goes downhill now that mere *women* can do the job."

Either that or it's the other way around and the effort to save the jobs for men only goes down now that the jobs aren't considered as prestigious?

I work at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and I want to let you know that Marilyn Mitchell's problems at the newspaper don't have anything to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a bad person and poor journalist, regardless of her gender.

It's insulting to hard-working women everywhere and particularly to the ones at the newspaper who are actually good at their jobs for Mitchell to claim that she's any kind of victim. That's why I'm posting this to your blog. The editors have told us not to respond in anyway, and, frankly, I couldn't care less what the Arkansas Times thinks about us. But this is a different audience.

First off, let me say that I'm not claiming the paper is a bastion of forward-thinking and progressive thought. It most certainly is not. There are real problems (meaning real people) here that hold this paper back from being anything more than ordinary. I'm not here so much to defend the newspaper as to tell you that Mitchell is not someone you should be defending.

Mitchell appears to be an interesting dichotomy herself. Google her and you'll see she has held significant management positions at other newspapers. I don't know if what I saw here was an aberation in her behavior or maybe she just bullied her way to the top. Some of the women at the paper found her immediately abrasive and believed she has adopted that as a management technique.

What I can tell you is based on my own direct observations of her behavior, discussions I've had with reporters who worked for her, my own inquiries with my co-workers into her claims and my knowledge of how this newspaper works.

First off, Mitchell was hired over a man who also interviewed for the job. I don't know his qualifications exactly so make of that what you will. All of women in the newsroom who met and/or interviewed her for the job strongly recommended against hiring her. After she got the job, Mitchell regularly (and obnoxiously) claimed to have a close personal relationship with the managing editor and his wife - I don't know if that was true or not. (I'm guessing that friendship has gone by the wayside now.)

Secondly, the state editor job and duties were actually strengthened and expanded when Mitchell was hired. I don't know if that was the plan originally or if the powers-that-be did that for her. I do know that they were significant changes and actually gave the positioin much more authority.

Third, I don't know if you are aware of it, but a tornado killed 13 people in Arkansas last week, one of the worst storms to hit in decades. As state editor, Mitchell was in charge of the coverage. This was a big deal. They brought reporters and editors in to help cover it. Now, here's where my knowledge gets shaky, but apparently, there were some problems with the job that got done. I don't know specifically what problems management had, but from reading the paper, I certainly could find fault. Somehow that led to a shouting match between Mitchell and the city editor (male) in the newsroom. Frankly, I walked out when that happened because it was too disruptive so I don't know what exactly was said. I do know that both editors were called on the carpet and that Mitchell left in tears. I do know that responsibility for the storm coverage was reassigned - to another woman, an editor who has been at the paper for more than 20 years.

Mitchell didn't come back the next day, which was Thursday, Feb. 7. She did return on Friday, and I didn't pay much attention to her. We could tell that something was going on the first few days of this week because senior editors kept ducking into meetings - they think they're being sneaky, but they're not. Something happened on Wednesday. I don't know what, but I expect it was some kind of disciplinary action. I doubt that it was any kind of financial punishment or firing, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was going to lose some of her authority.

And that brings us to the St. Valentine's Day massacre. That has got to be the most immature resignation I've ever seen. At least, this should have the side effect of keeping Mitchell from ever working at another newspaper again. In fact, if I was an employer in any field and I found this email, I'd be reluctant to hire anyone who would quit in such a public manner. (Full disclosure: I've regularly fantasized about quitting jobs, including this one, with a well-publicized "Screw You" to the management. My continuing need to eat, keep my kids in shoes and pay my mortgage keeps me from doing so, but someday, I'm going to win the lottery, and then it's on!)

From my knowledge of the newspaper and Mitchell, I think it's mostly (if not completely) lies.

It's hard to start, but let me start with Mitchell's "likeability." No one liked Mitchell (except for maybe her husband) because she was relentlessly unprofessional. She was rude and abrasive with her reporters (I saw her make at one cry on more than one occassion) and she seemed to go out of her way to pick fights with her colleagues. Sometimes things would get so bad I'd have to leave because her remarks were so derogatory and abusive that I was embarrassed to hear them. I'm not the easiest person in the world to get along with at times, but Mitchell was unique in her apparent quest to alienate almost everyone she came in contact with. I seldom ever heard her reply to a question in what I consider a respectul tone. She should have been fired just because of her daily behavior.

The reporters I talked to who had worked for her complained that she regularly introduced mistakes into their copy, which she insisted on changing without talking to them. That's a sure sign of a poor editor, in my book.

Regarding her husband's career, she might have ended that, too, at least in Arkansas. From what I can tell, he seemed genuinely surprised by the email, as much as anyone. One time I saw him that morning, and it looked like he had been crying. I don't know how they could keep him on or why they would want to.

Let's look at this from the paper's perspective and briefly give them the benefit of the doubt and that Mitchell is lying in her email: If she is planning a lawsuit against the paper, is her husband going to help gather material for the suit? Will he let her into the building to search for incriminating materials? Will he spy at meetings to gather information? Will he suddenly quit by emailing the entire newspaper? Would he vandalize? If he worked for me, I'd sure be curious about where his loyalties lay. Look at this from the newspaper's perspective and his employment prospects don't look to good. Hopefully, he'll at least get a decent severance package. Unfortunately for him, this comes at a time when they are actively cutting the newsroom budget.

Now, let's get to the "resignation" (A caveat: I don't attend the meetings Mitchell seems to be referring to)

"All I wanted to do at this newspaper is to do a good job. I
came here because I thought it was a good newspaper. But,
it's not. It's a good ole' boys club made up of old white males.
Nobody else has a voice."

This newspaper is run by mostly men, but I think the majority of the newsroom employees are women, excluding sports. Women hold significant editor positions throughout the newsroom, and most of the top reporters are women. That's not to say that there aren't any elements of the boys' club, but it's in decline. There is one guy who has been a problem, but he's been disciplined and that most recent incident was months ago, probably even before Mitchell came to work here in September, from what I can tell.

"This is a newspaper in which: The city editor can verbally abuse another editor in the presence of the managing editor and nothing is done."

Oh kettle, thou are black, sayeth the pot. I don't know if Mitchell has ever savaged anyone verbally in front of the ME, but I wouldn't doubt it. He's not really the most attentive to that sort of behavior. And from what I hear, some strong disciplinary action is in the works.

"The managing editor in a news meeting slugs a potential 1A story as blonde bombshells - a story in which bombs were strapped on two retarded foreign women and sent into a crowd."

Doubtful, but possible. Usually the slugs are written by the female international editor, but this could be true. Anyone who works at a paper knows there's a lot of gallows humor. Is this the best she can do?

"Male editors are allowed to talk about penis size during
news meetings."

I couldn't find any female editor who remembered anything like this since Marilyn worked at the newspaper. I know there are people at these meetings who wouldn't tolerate this kind of discussion.

"Editors call Hispanics wetbacks in news meetings
Editors are proud to call blacks n-----s in news stories."

Can't address the wetback comment directly, but if it came up, I'd attribute it to the gallows-humor school. I've never heard anyone at the paper "proudly" use the N-word, but I do know that it has been used in stories and the paper has written rules to govern it's use.(For the record, let's be clear that Mitchell wrote out the full word in her email)

"A city editor gets his feelings hurt over coverage of a story and I'm penalized for it. The managing editor is a bald face liar and the executive editor doesn't give a damn. So to "the glass," I resign effective immediately."

Let me just say that Mitchell's email has been personally embarrasing to me. Over the weekend, I've been questioned repeatedly about what goes on in the newsroom. Well, if Mitchell's description was accurate, I'd no longer be working there. I'm not going to tolerate racism, sexism or juvenile bathroom speech. That's not the way I was raised.

But now I've been unfairly tarred with Mitchell's brush. It's hard to deny that you're a racist, sexist pig - when that representation goes against everything I believe in. I just have to trust that the people who know me really do know me.

Let me address Bill Simmons' response now. Simmons has been at the paper for 30-40 years, and if there's an old boy at the Dem-Gaz, it's Simmons. That man has seen and heard it all at the paper, including, I'm sure, penis talk and the casual use of racial slurs. Maybe he's even indulged in that behavior in the past, but I've certainly never heard or seen him behave the way that Mitchell describes. However, it's folly for him to address the editor meetings since I do know that he doesn't go to them.

I'm writing this not so much with the hope of changing anyone's mind here on this blog. You are free to believe Mitchell. Heck, I'd probably believe her if I just stumbled across this post. I just wanted to give you an insider's perspective, and encourage you to remember the journalist's maxim, "There are two sides to every story."

I'm probably risking my job if the bosses see this message and figure out who has written it. Like I said before, I don't care too much what the Ark Times and its readers care about the Democrat-Gazette. The Times has had a long time vendetta against the paper and all of that is a matter of public record.

But I hate to think that Mitchell's rant is floating around the Internet without any serious rebuttal. I would hate to think that any woman would be discouraged about working at this paper or entering the journalism field because of Mitchell's lies and distortions.

This paper does have problems, including some misogyny and elitism. It regularly falls short of excellence in a manner I find both heart-breaking and discouraging.

But the paper and the people who work there don't deserve to be maligned by someone who is truly an exemplar of the worst practices of the field, no matter her sex.

Also, if you are interested in contacting her, just Google her name and Arkansas. She recently received her Realtor's license and I think her phone number is online.

For the record, I'm a white male.

Spelunky,
That was an interesting and informative post that you just made, which obviously should be given some consideration. It is definitely true that there are always two sides to every issue.
I still have some MAJOR issues with the things you did post, particularly this:
"Can't address the wetback comment directly, but if it came up, I'd attribute it to the gallows-humor school. I've never heard anyone at the paper "proudly" use the N-word, but I do know that it has been used in stories and the paper has written rules to govern it's use."
In addition to other things, but for the sake of example...
I am hugely opposed to the labeling of inappropriate conversation/jokes/decorum as "humor"of ANY sort, and while I get the point I think you were trying to make,it's offensive nonetheless and creates a hostile work environment in itself, and seems like decent grounds for a lawsuit--based on race rather than gender, obviously-- although I am keeping in mind that according to your account the comments haven't been verified. It's totally inappropriate behavior regardless of the apologist excuses people come up with to justify it. I just see red flags all over the place in your post, regardless of the side, correctly presented or not, voiced by Mitchell.
I am truly sorry, though, for the backlash against you personally as a result of this whole incident.

Even adding this to the conversation, though, and not to detract from the original post of this thread, which specifically mentions Mitchell and this incident, but the behavior alleged by Mitchell here is incredibly common and found all over the place in journalism and in many other professions [dare I say most?] as well. Even if this story is less than authentic [which I'll admit I am not willing to really comment on at this point], this is a real issue that needs to be addressed. Frankly, I think it is swept under the rug all two often using statistics about how many women are employed in any given profession, which, even though it may not be abysmal [and it often is], still says not a lot about how they are treated overall, and rhetoric about how women's equality in employment has been successful without much mention of all the work that still needs to be done. That's a HUGE problem... and obviously most people here recognize that, which I think is awesome. :)

On a side note:

"I've also noted how the females are wayyy more articulate and better than the guys. They are more inquisitive and mentally progressive. they have better thinking abilities. Its made me feel that having guys in classrooms might inhibit the quality of the curriculum and progress of our academics torwards females."

Thank you, Gopher. I attend an all-women's college and I absolutely love it specifically for this reason. I'm not going to diss non-single sex schools, since that's totally not my business, and I see the practical benefits, obviously, but I will say that from my own personal experience, I find that what you've said is overwhelmingly true. Compared to my experiences taking courses at other colleges, I really have to say that the contributions made by men in the class were less thought-out, and they seemed much less prepared to participate and add to discussions or answer questions, or to take discussions seriously. This is obviously extremely anecdotal, and it may have something to do with gender-socialized behavior such as preparation for class or study habits [maybe?], but it's my experience nonetheless. It's also extremely valuable to have an environment in which women are actively encouraged in any area of study and employment- it's truly empowering for a lot of people.
It makes me sad to see people, on Feministing of all places, criticizing you for your statement, which implies that women's colleges and single-sex environments are negative and not valuable. Blah.

My mother's a journalist, and she's experienced the same thing. Back in the seventies, the editorial staff was in the habit of calling her and the other female reporters "walking cunts."

As for the other comments, environments need to be comfortable for everyone. My father never felt comfortable when people viewed him as the strictly "male" (i.e. women's study classes for his master's in social work), and I never feel comfortable when peole view me as strictly "female." (parties, hair salons, male-dominated classes).

I'm proud of being a woman, and I love being a feminist, but it just boils down to accomodating everyone, male or female.

Oh yeah, and not calling people wetbacks, that's not cool. Who do they think they are Carlos Mencia? That guy is the LEAST FUNNY person EVER.

LlesbianLlama,

"I am truly sorry, though, for the backlash against you personally as a result of this whole incident."

Oh gimmer a break! This dude HAS NOT suffered any backlash. What "inside knowledge" or perspective would a white male have at an Arkansas newspaper accused of sexism and racism. He attributes racist slurs to 'gallows' humour. I'm sure he doesnt have the credentials to know what racism, nor sexism is. Hes just doing some spin work for the paper.

"Compared to my experiences taking courses at other colleges, I really have to say that the contributions made by men in the class were less thought-out, and they seemed much less prepared to participate and add to discussions or answer questions, or to take discussions seriously."

Exactly! one of the guys in my philosophy class acts like class is his own personal talk show. He doesnt raise his hand, and he constantly interrupts when the other students talk. He doesnt contribute any incites either. Its lame.

The females bring up some interesting topics and arguable points but then he acts like hes "master" of philosophy and has to 'educate' her on why she doesnt understand it the way the book describes it. I mean, thats the point of bringing up new ways of looking at the problem!! He and a pack of boys all sit and talk away while the teacher is explaining things. Later, after class I saw him walk up to the Prof. and shake his head and lament how he trys to show these things but not everyone gets it.

If I can find an all-female grad school it would be GREAT!

Gopher, I sincerely think it's too bad things are that way for you. I find what you say interesting. I wonder why there is a difference between men and women. Admission standards are the same for both, right? Any thoughts? My university admits on marks only and so there are a majority of girls. I have had psychology classes and language classes with 80-95% women. Even science classes are at least 50-50. I like it that way but I really have nothing else to compare to. I think I would've loved an all girls grade school though.

lyndorr,
I just think guys are told from a very early age that they are privileged in society. They are encouraged to believe they are better due to their gender, that their gender offers more. It becomes a constant source of their identity 'manna,' that they dip into to build themselves up. It insulates them from maturing, and is widely endorsed and accepted by society. In short; its sexist.

An all-female school would also bypass the sexist perspectives by the male students. I argued with one student who believed women cant be as good of leaders as men, and somehow tried to defend his sexism by saying for thousands of years women have accepted this kind of thing. He thinks Hillary a bimbo.

Whats even more aggravating is that the majority of the students are female! How 'thick' do you have to be to still carry around old sexist attitudes when they are being defied everyday?

(dont judge this as some spiteful reaction)

I think men are mentally more inhibited than women. The fact that they are more needy, or complacent to believe or need to believe women to be inferior is very telling about ones mental potential. It seems they are biologically more immature. They have subsisted for thousands of years with this pathetic outlook and have screwed society up to feed their illusions. Is it irrational to believe that?
What I see in everday life is a human animal.
I read an advice column yesterday in which a woman asked the writer how she could get her husband to do more chores around the house. The writers "advice" was that men are not hard-wired to want to do such things so in order to get him to do the chores she should offer an extra incentive; sex. This column was written by a woman, who no doubt believes many oppressive gender myths and has accepted them and an inferior female place in a sexist society. Men openly allow themselves to be seen as pigs and get privilaged for it! How I'd want to go to school with that, isnt a hard question to answer.

Gopher,

Yeah... thanks for calling me out on that. I was literally cringing as I was writing some of that. It's what I get, I suppose, when I try to throw a dude a bone and practice some half-hearted diplomacy or somesuch thing, which is unusual for me to begin with. I'm starting to remember WHY I don't usually do that. ;P

If I could find an all-female law school I'd pounce on it in half a second. I don't buy any of the assertions that single-sex education, especially in the upper levels, contributes to a lack of ability to properly function in the presence of men. I see evidence every single day that it makes me, as well as the other women at my college, more sure of ourselves academically, more convinced that we CAN do things, and ambitious without anyone to tell us women can't do it. Not that this is completely absent in a mixed-sex environment, but I feel immersed in it completely, and it feels good. Even though I'm truly disappointed by the level of student interest in feminism and "women's issues", there's no denying that the majority of students seem to feel as if the quality of their education is increased by the all women's environment. The social scene, on the other hand, seems to be a bit less popular. [I say that with sarcasm... I think people are being lazy if they can't find a dude to hang out with with all the other colleges around. Sheesh.]

In this case, Marilyn Mitchell, was a disgruntled employee who was vicious - not just with men, women too, in fact, most of her abuse was aimed at women in the newsroom. Her skills were not up to par. She routinely belittled others around her and seemed to have a special dislike for other women.

How do I know? Unlike most of the other posters on this board, I spent some time trying to find out what was going on. I talked to four newsroom employees - two women, two men. I've known three of them a long time. I trust all four.

There's no particular reason you should believe me. I'm just another anonymous voice here.

But, for those who think it smart to deal with issues based on hearing both sides of a story, I invite you to contact female members of the newspaper's staff by e-mail. That's easy enough to do since e-mail addresses appear with the bylines. It's a for-pay Web site but some stories appear in the free section. And the newspaper has a free online Web site for its Northwest edition.

Take a few moments to investigate and then decide for yourselves.