About a year ago I was asked to edit this, the newest version of the Fairmount Folio. I accepted with some trepidation, as I had no idea what would be involved in the creation of this work, but that very fact made this project interesting, challenging, and ultimately very rewarding.
The first thing I learned about this project was the need for help. Dr. Helen Hundley has assisted in several Folios to this point, and her knowledge and hard work are the primary reasons you are reading this volume. Secondly, Theresa St. Romain, the Assistant Editor, covered for me time and time again, providing help with details that I missed for one reason or another. This was especially true as I spent much of the time during the creation of this work in Toronto.
Next, I'd like to thank the Editorial Board which consisted of Dr. Jay Price, Dr. John Duram, and Ms. St. Romain. As the editor, I was allowed to watch the jury process in action and see what the jury was looking for. Being the only one who knew who wrote what, it was especially interesting for me to watch as my own paper was being judged. I would encourage any serious writer to seek such an opportunity, as this can help one see the forest instead of the trees.
Finally, I'd like to thank all those who submitted papers for this edition of the Folio. There were two ways that a paper could be accepted for the folio. The first way is that all papers who won a departmental award for best paper were included automatically. Secondly, papers received in a call for papers were reviewed by the editorial board to determine their inclusion or not. Chris Kemp's paper An Even Keel: The Judicial Example of John Marshall Harlan, by the way, deserves note for being selected in both ways.
One of the primary filters during the jury process was that accepted papers needed to be virtually ready to go. The jurors felt that students would likely not have too much time to process any editorial changes, and attempted to ensure that such changes would not detract from what needed to be their primary focus, current schoolwork. As such, there were several submissions whose ideas, research, and writing were interesting and solid, but for whatever reason needed to be edited too much for inclusion in this volume. I hope that these papers will be seen in a future Folio. In any case, while the hard work of those noted above is the reason that the Folio is here, their efforts are dependent upon the solid writing and research of Wichita State University students. The next volume will be edited by Ms. St. Romain, and I hope that even more students submit their work.
There are a few details about this volume that should be mentioned. Generally, the Fairmount Folio includes papers from one school year. However, this volume includes two works which were to have been published in a Folio a year ago. For various reasons, that Folio never made it to print, so these papers have been retained and included in this one.
One unfortunate consequence of this is that the formatting of the footnotes on the Rise of Nixon by Megan Kimbrell is not completely correct. I have attempted to clean IJP these footnotes as best as possible and publish the work nonetheless, as the reasons for the problem lay not with Ms. Kimbrell but with circumstances surrounding that Folio. As such, I felt that it was not right to exclude her work for no fault of her own and I hope the readers will excuse this imperfection.
In any case, we hope you enjoy this work.
23 August, 2003