Revisiting the Story of Editor-in-Chief Marilyn Kaemmerle

On February 7, 1945, The Flat Hat newspaper released an issue containing an anonymous editorial written by Editor-in-Chief Marilyn Kaemmerle ’45. The editorial was titled “Lincoln’s Job Half-Done” and promoted the inclusive treatment and admission of Black students to the College of William and Mary in the postwar period. Twelve days later, Kaemmerle found herself removed from the paper and all but expelled from the College. How did this brief editorial result in Kaemmerle’s rapid removal from The Flat Hat and incite a slew of nationwide coverage?

Marilyn Kaemmerle was born on January 18, 1923, in Dayton, Kentucky and grew up in Jackson, Michigan. Kaemmerle attended the College from 1941-1945 and served as The Flat Hat’s 34th Editor-in-Chief. She had written regularly for the paper and was known by other students at the College as “Mac.”

For the 15th issue of the 34th volume of The Flat Hat, Kaemmerle published an unsigned editorial addressing the admission of Black students, interracial marriage, prejudice at the College, white supremacy, and Nazi Germany.

“When Lincoln freed the slaves, he undoubtedly hoped the Negroes would someday be accepted as equals by the other colors of people in this country. Today we find Negroes released from formal bondage, but not equalized,” Kaemmerle wrote. 

Kaemmerle’s intentions to publish the editorial in this particular issue were rooted in her acknowledgment of Lincoln’s birthday, celebrated nationally on February 12th. 

“We believe and know that Negroes differ from other peoples only in surface characteristics; inherently all are the same. The Negroes should be recognized as equals in our minds and hearts. For us, this means that Negroes should attend William and Mary; they should go to our classes, participate in College functions, join the same clubs, be our roommates, pin the same classmates, and marry among us,” Kaemmerle said.

Kaemmerle’s statements were moderated by the inclusion of the following statement, suggesting that despite the necessity of equal treatment and recognition of Black individuals in academic and social settings, the matter must not be rushed.

“However, this cannot and should not be done today, or tomorrow, -- but perhaps the next day. Neither they nor we are ready for it yet,” Kaemmerle said.

Kaemmerle concluded her article by placing the topic of race relations at the College in the context of World War II.

“The most important work, however, must be done in educating ourselves away from the idea of white supremacy, for this belief is as groundless as Hitler’s nordic supremacy nonsense,” she wrote. 

In his piece, “Flat Hat Democracy at William and Mary,” Robert H. Bryant provided students’ reactions from the day of the issue’s original publication. The work was featured in the April 1945 edition of “You Can Be a Delegate at the Peace Table: Creating the New World Through Government Democracy.”

“Wednesday, February seventh, seemed to me like any other day on which the student publication, Flat Hat, is released. The students could be found poring over its gossip column and other news in the corridors as they walked from class to class,” Bryant wrote.

Bryant was aware that students frequently limited their reading of the paper to the “gossip column” and other news but was shocked by the sudden onset of discussions and commentary surrounding Kaemmerle’s editorial. 

“When I first read the editorial, I was not greatly surprised by most of its proposals, because I had become acquainted with similar views held on the campus by a minority of the students … Therefore, I, like most of the other students, dismissed the article very good naturedly and expected nothing to come of it,” Bryant said. 

Though students were fairly unperturbed by the publication, the Board of Visitors expressed significant displeasure and, through President John E. Pomfret, hastened to remove Kaemmerle from her position as Editor-in-Chief.

“The president had told me that the BOV had met and wished to expel me. He then told me that he would rather resign than expel me. I was then forced to resign,” Kaemmerle said in an interview with Flat Hat Staff Writer Susan Winiecki ’87 in the newspaper’s December 5, 1986 issue. 

As documented in the minutes of the Board meeting on February 10, 1945, Pomfret informed the board that through “a lack of editorial responsibility the editor had forfeited the confidence of the College community, and, therefore, should not continue as editor.”

Pomfret also indicated his desire to “initiate some supervision over undergraduate publications, through faculty advisors or counselors.”

During this meeting, a resolution was passed stating, “The Board directs the administration and faculty to take corrective and disciplinary action as may be necessary, including the assumption of such control over approving the material in such publications as may be required.”

A Board member pushed to amend this motion with a direct reference to Kaemmerle’s removal from The Flat Hat and from the school itself; however, the additional motion was not seconded. 

Kaemmerle expressed her surprise at viewing Pomfret’s statements in the Board minutes, noting that he’d often been complimentary of her editorials and the paper as a whole.

“What he [Pomfret] said to me certainly contradicted this [the minutes],” Kaemmerle said. “It’s hard to believe that he would have taken that action independently against me.”

After her removal from The Flat Hat in 1945, publications were suspended at the order of Pomfret. Successors of Kaemmerle reached an eventual agreement with the College to allow consultation with faculty on any controversial issues prior to publication, and The Flat Hat resumed printing as normal. Ruth Weimer, The Flat Hat’s Managing Editor, was promoted to the role of Editor-in-Chief as Kaemmerle’s replacement on February 19, 1945.

“I have not been an agitator. I haven’t been angry. I haven’t initiated any of this. I’ve been hurt. But I also have this strong sense of ambivalence and the sense that the College itself is not living up to its own best ideals,”  Kaemmerle said in the 1986 interview.

Kaemmerle’s disappointment in the College changed her relationship with the campus in the years that followed. She graduated from the College in 1945 with a Bachelor’s Degree in English and Home Economics. In her two returns to campus, once in 1980 and once in 1986, she noted feeling uncomfortable after the Board’s actions.

“Knowing that the Board of Visitors of your own college even considered expelling you doesn’t make you feel very welcome,” Kaemmerle said in a February 21, 1995 interview with The Virginian-Pilot. 

Kaemmerle wrote a letter to College President Tom Graves after her visit in 1980, asking the Board of Visitors to “disavow the action that it took in 1945.” She emphasized in her interview with Winiecki that she hadn’t used the word “apologize” in this request. Though Rector Edward Brickell did respond to her letter, he supposedly told her that the Board would not be notified of this request.

“With William and Mary’s glorious history, it’s hard to believe it would not leave its own record untouched,” Kaemmerle told Winiecki.

In an opinion piece published on November 14, 1986, Flat Hat staff called for the College to issue a formal apology to Kaemmerle for their actions in 1945.

“When we contacted present Board’s Rector, Anne Dobie Peebles, about a possible apology, she said that she believes it is ‘not appropriate for current Boards to judge the actions of previous Boards.’ She couldn’t be more wrong. The case is painfully straightforward: the editorial was neither slanderous nor libelous, yet it cost Kaemmerle her job and this newspaper its editorial freedom,” the unsigned opinion piece read.

As stated in the December 5, 1986 editorial titled “The Kammerle Affair,” the Student Association Council pushed for the Board to apologize to Kaemmerle. They succeeded, with an approved resolution calling for the Board to “make amends” for the incident in 1945 as “an acknowledgement of current attitudes towards desegregation and minority enrollment.”

After the apology from the Board in December, Peebles wrote a letter to Kaemmerle, noting that the College “continues to attract people with courage and vision, and [she] would be gratified at the changes on campus over the past 40 years.”

“As an individual, I feel personally reconciled with my alma mater,” Kammerle said in a December 6, 1986 article from Associated Press News.

After her time at the College, Kaemmerle began her career at the Freedom House in New York City. Kaemmerle later became the Director of Mass Communications for the National Conference of Christians and Jews and eventually stepped up to the role of television producer for the National Broadcast Company. She was awarded the Peabody Award for her work in television. 

In 1950, Kaemmerle married Henry Quinto, who served on multiple boards and commissions in Tucson, Arizona. In 1962, the couple moved to Tucson. Quinto was active in Democratic politics, an avid supporter of Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona, and an assistant in the formation of the Tucson Urban League. Kaemmerle supported these efforts and assisted with the foundation of the League.

“He and Marilyn dedicated their lives to bringing that sense of justice to this community. Their contributions were simply phenomenal,” said Virginia Yrun, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood.

In 2001, six years after Quinto’s death in 1995, Kaemmerle passed away. 

Kaemmerle and Quinto are survived by their son, David, a Los Angeles attorney; their daughter, Elizabeth, an architect in Portland; son-in-law, James Stamp, a biotechnologist; a grandson, Gareth; and granddaughters Emma and Carys. 

David recalled his parents’ influence on his and his sister’s upbringing, particularly in the context of their frequent efforts at inclusivity on a broad scale.

“My sister and I were deeply influenced by the examples both my parents set. Knowing that they had both stood up for morality has certainly influenced my outlook on life and has led me to attempt to lead a life they would be proud of,” David said.

When reflecting on her 1945 publication, Kaemmerle noted that she would not have written the editorial in the same manner as she had.

In a December 6, 1986 interview with the Associated Press, Kaemmerle said, “If I knew then what I know now, I most certainly would not have written the editorial in the manner that I wrote it because it’s not my style and not my intention to be confrontational. I would have wanted to have handled the content, the ideas, but I most certainly would not have wanted to do it in a way that would arouse antagonism.”

Despite these reflections, her original contention serves to exemplify activism in the College’s history.