In the infancy of my journalism career at Radford University in the late ’80s, I remember so vividly one of the first editorial pieces I wrote for the school newspaper during my sophomore year, &uot;Why do students fail,&uot; the headline read.

The article questioned the university/college grading system, which in the majority of cases provides students two grading opportunities, a midterm and final.

Some students, like me who just didn’t fare well on tests without studying myself into a frenzy, had argued among ourselves that mid-term and final exams don’t comprehensively assess mastery of a subject. So I surmised that students who &uot;fail&uot; in many instances really didn’t deserve to, and that professors should utilize more opportunities throughout the semester to grade students.

I was not prepared for what would come next.

I had a vague idea of the degree to which students read The Tartan, but I had no clue that literally every professor at Radford read the paper-or this particular weekly edition anyway. Let’s just say I was thankful my picture did not run with the column to avoid being whacked across the head with briefcases as I crisscrossed campus.

Everywhere I turned, people were talking about it. But it still hadn’t entered my mind that there would be publications to follow, and ample editorial space for rebuttal letters.

They came from everywhere. Professor after professor questioning what planet was I from and why I was even in college, basically picking apart every point raised in the column. And it didn’t stop with one edition. More letters would come to such an extent that I stopped reading them because the criticism became a bit overwhelming for this raw 19-year-old journalism student.

Looking back, this was a critical crossroad. First, it raised the question of whether I was headed along the right career path. If I couldn’t stand some heat coming from within the academic community, I certainly wasn’t prepared to embark on a career that would impact far more people in the grand scheme of things.

Well, here I am today still writing, now an editor, with tough skin.

Today, I recognize that constructive criticism is an awesome personal and professional growth tool. I firmly believe this. At the very least in our field, it should force us to ask questions that in some cases have not been previously explored.

Our coverage of the eviction of six families from the Suffolk Homeless Shelter just days before Thanksgiving brings me to this stream of consciousness. Following our initial story, which I authored, and subsequent stories and editorials, the shelter’s executive director Terry Miller responded with a very eloquently written rebuttal.

Some of our readers have concluded that Miller basically &uot;one-upped&uot; us because of her succinct editorial litany, which in part questioned my reporting of the shelter evictions. Miller’s letter forced me on a personal level to look back at my coverage and ask if I should have done anything different.

After much thought on the subject, I would have basically taken the same course with minor deviations.

Just to retrace: Upon learning of the evictions, my first stop was the shelter where Miller wasn’t available. I spoke with a staff person, who did not want to be named, and asked if they had a way of getting in contact with Miller. She said she didn’t, which I found odd. Miller was, as she mentioned in her letter, in a meeting, according to the staff person. She advised me to try reaching Miller later in the evening. I found a home phone number for Miller and left a message. We have since learned that we did not have a correct phone number for Miller, so we now have good numbers, including a cellular, on file for Miller.

I started trying to contact city officials, namely City Manager R. Steven Herbert and Social Services Director Leonard Horton. Herbert returned my call and informed me of the city’s course of action, and forwarded me Horton’s email requesting that the shelter reverse its course. Another disputed point in the article was Herbert’s reference to $100,000 that the city contributes to the shelter. Technically, we’ve learned, this is not exactly the case. The money, which also comes from the federal and state governments, is simply channeled through the city, not out of the city’s wallet. The city’s part is around $30,000.

So this certainly puts me on alert that when we question news subjects about funding, we should always dig beyond the broad statements of &uot;We provide ‘x amount of funding.’&uot;

There are lessons to be learned from the professors and Terry Millers of the world, but it doesn’t mean we’re going to stop reporting the news. Everyday, except on Monday, we’ll publish the news and strive hard to ensure that we’re fair, balanced, accurate, and exploring every angle both in our news content and on the editorial page.

As we do this, a critical necessity will always be tough skin.

Luefras Robinson is managing editor of the News-Herald. She can be reached at 934-9613, or at luefras.robinson@suffolknewsherald.com.