This is in response to Sean Clark's letter ("Vice president's theft jeopardizes public trust," Sept. 30). Clark made several accusations concerning theft allegations against Undergraduate Student Government (USG) Vice President Takkeem Morgan. I found this letter problematic and unfair.

To begin, Clark stated, "The unfortunate circumstance ... is that no one in [USG] or elsewhere is willing to discuss the ramifications of these charges." The Daily Collegian article on Friday to which the letter refers ("USG VP in court for theft," Sept. 26) does not insinuate that no one in USG is willing to talk about it. To clarify, the article reported, "Julie Vastyan, USG spokeswoman, said USG President Ian Rosenberger ... was unavailable for comment... [and] USG had no official comment."

The most challenging part of the piece was the declaration that was made about Morgan's certain guilt, calling the accused responsible for stealing a bike by his own admission. In fact, Morgan's statement was that he "... clearly knew it was abandoned." The assumption of culpability prior to trial and conviction is inherently problematic when we consider the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. May I add that these accusations had nothing to do with the fact that USG did not make an official comment for Friday's article? Clark began by faulting USG. How did he progress to faulting Morgan? As for public trust, that is speculation. The real issue is not about whether Morgan stole a bike. Rather, how do we construct arguments to vilify or absolve the accused, pre-trail, according to our political or moral tastes? Justice is mocked by political and personal agendas.