Thursday, Oct. 17, the William and Mary College Republicans invited Jonathan G. Mellis, a member of the far-right Proud Boys group. Mellis was charged with assaulting law enforcement during the Jan. 6, 2021 breach on the Capitol in an attempt to interfere with the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
Mellis, also known as “J6 Jon,” posted multiple videos online during the insurrection threatening law enforcement and ultimately pleaded guilty to assaulting the officers that day.
WMCR recapped Mellis’s visit to the College in an Instagram post. Under the post, there were more than 50 comments from students and community members expressing their discontent with the group inviting Mellis.
“Last Thursday, we finally got to welcome J6 Jon! Jon, a Proud Boy, was at the capitol on January 6, and came to share his experience of what it was like!” WMCR wrote in their caption.
After receiving backlash from Instagram comments, as well as students on the anonymous platform YikYak, the group updated the post’s caption.
“William and Mary College Republicans is committed to hearing a diversity of opinions, even from those who are marginalized from the traditional political discourse. Because of this commitment, we will invite a diverse array of speakers. This does not indicate an endorsement of the thoughts, actions, or beliefs of our speakers. We will not be pressured or intimidated to stop inviting people of ALL opinions to be heard, questioned, and criticized,” they added.
Nia Bradley ’26 was one of many who commented on the post.
“Y’all are not beating the extremely racist allegations,” she wrote.
In an interview with The Flat Hat, Bradley explained her comment.
“Obviously, my comment was a bit of a somewhat of a satirization, like somewhat of a joke, a little bit, but they’ve posted consistently anti-Black rhetoric on their page for several semesters at this point,” Bradley said.
Bradley takes issue with WMCR’s actions, given Mellis’s ties to the Proud Boys, which has been classified as an “extremist group with ties to White Nationalism,” according to the FBI. She believes inviting such a figure reflects poorly on WMCR.
“It’s just flat out racist to invite somebody that is from an organization that has ties to white supremacy, also believes the election was stolen, and also was at the Capitol,” Bradley said.
Another student, Cameron Morris ’25, expressed disappointment with the administration, citing a failure to protect a student body with a diverse array of political and personal identities. She feels as though the presence of Mellis on campus made students of color, queer and Jewish students feel unsafe.
“It’s of my personal belief that his presence on this campus presented a threat to marginalized students on this campus. And I think that [College President] Katherine Rowe is responsible for maintaining a safe environment for students here. And she completely and utterly failed, or not just her, but the school itself,” she explained.
She also believed the lack of action on the part of the administration of this event demonstrates a double standard of other expressions of political beliefs. Specifically, Morris cites the changes to the College’s protest guidelines, which she thinks unfairly targets students involved in activism against the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in the Middle East.
“I think that it’s incredibly hypocritical that the school hasn’t said anything about an RSO bringing in a member of a white supremacist, openly violent terrorist organization. They haven’t condemned, they haven’t done anything about it. Yet, they specifically cracked down on protests of like left wing protesters, and introduced a lot of different new rules and regulations regarding protesters,” Morris said.
After receiving criticism from students, the College Republican Executive Board submitted a statement to The Wren Journal, a conservative magazine on campus, and The Flat Hat.
In this statement, WMCR reiterated their reasoning for inviting the speaker.
“First and foremost, the College Republicans are absolutely committed to freedom of speech, especially when it concerns conservative voices who are marginalized from the typical political discourse. We give a voice to the unheard. We invited Jon because he offered a fascinating look into the treatment of J6 political prisoners, which we believe has been a serious issue that has not gotten the attention it deserves,” the statement reads.
Additionally, the statement affirms the group’s belief that Mellis is not a white supremacist or person of hateful intent.
“Many on this campus want to make generalizations about him based on the groups that he is affiliated with. However, if we were to deprive Jon of his voice simply because of these rash assumptions, we believe that would only further divest Jon of his much deserved justice. Having met Jon, he was clearly not a White Supremacist nor in any way a hateful individual. College Republicans find that the need to address this in the first place is absurd, as we completely condemn hateful ideologies,” the executive board wrote.
Bradley expressed disagreement with the club’s belief that conservatives are marginalized.
“They want to say they’re marginalized, they’re not. They want to be marginalized. They are free and open to have as many meetings as they want, as many speakers as they want. The school is not stopping them. The school is not putting them on probation or giving them disciplinary action, or taking their budget away, or anything like that. Now, if they want to talk about the students not liking them, that’s a different situation. But that’s not marginalization,” Bradley said.
Hunter White ’27, Issues Director of the College’s Young Independents club who once identified as a Republican, also found issue with the WMCR’s decision to host Mellis.
“As a former Republican I can tell you this traitorous behavior is the exact reason I left the party. They advocate for ideological conformity and zealotry over common sense and moderation,” he said.
Additionally, in planning the debate between Young Independents and the College Republicans that took place Monday, Oct. 21, White described how the group’s history with polarizing views caused Young Independents to consider not debating with them.
“We thought about pulling the plug on the debate but wanted to provide a platform for reason, decency and moderation to overtake their extremism and apologist attitudes for treasonous behaviors,” he said.
The controversy over the event relates to a larger campus question of the accountability of groups on campus when hosting controversial figures. Recently, the government department also hosted a Chinese dissident with sexual assault allegations, which similarly drew criticism.
In an email to The Flat Hat, Director of Student Leadership Development Anne Arseneau ’89 M.A.Ed. ’92 stated that the SLD was unaware of the WMCR’s decision to invite the speaker.
“Our office is often aware on the front end if a student organization is using student fee funding to bring a speaker to campus but in this case, no student fee funding was requested or utilized by WMCR,” she stated.
On the controversy of the invited speaker, Arseneau stated how recognized student organizations have the right to host speakers at their discretion, as long as it falls under College policy.
“Recognized Student Organizations have the ability to host events with invited/outside speakers – that is a privilege of being a recognized student organization. The university respects and upholds the ideals of freedom of inquiry, thought, and expression and allows individuals and organizations the opportunity to engage in constitutionally protected expression,” she wrote.
Additionally, Arseneau stated how the controversy surrounding the group hosting Mellis is a representation of the College’s recommendation to fight speech with more speech, rather than limit speech one may disagree with.
“My understanding is that this was [a] private event for members of the student organization. For students concerned about speech they disagree with, I appreciate the advice that the best response to speech we don’t agree with is more speech,” Arseneau said.
Senior Vice President for Student Affairs and Public Safety Virginia Ambler ’88, Ph.D. ’06 has expressed similar sentiments in the past when commenting on controversies relating to the freedom of speech on campus, such as a vandalism incident that occurred last spring.
“As I emphasized in my email communication to students last semester, free speech that challenges ideas and encourages dialogue is welcome and invited in our community. Such expression is essential to both a thriving university and a healthy democracy. Practicing civil discourse is especially important in times of conflict,” Ambler wrote in an email to students Feb. 21.
Bradley stated that she did not view inviting this speaker as a form of civil dialogue.
“The Black population on this campus, which I’m a part of, is not that large, but it is large enough for people to notice when you’re saying stuff that could be perceived as racist against Black people, for example, talking about conservative Confederate monuments being taken out as a bad thing. They called the Derek Chauvin trial, who was the police officer that murdered George Floyd, a scam trial, and now we have this,” Bradley said.
Bradley reiterated her discontent with the invitation.
“Because when you have a track record of that type of stuff, like defending confederates, defending somebody who murdered someone and is in jail, and bringing somebody who’s a convicted felon who probably, definitely has some white supremacist belief because of the organization he’s a part of. It shows a track record, and it’s a track record that myself and other people on this campus don’t like,” Bradley said. “That’s my take on it.”
