[389] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
RE: ATO Incident
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex M. Hochberger)
Tue May 1 02:38:51 2001
Message-ID: <1F3774AB3688D4118B1300508BD964151D01E7@CHINA>
From: "Alex M. Hochberger" <alex@feratech.com>
To: "'Christopher Jones'" <wrjjones@MIT.EDU>, Patrick D Kane <pkane@MIT.EDU>,
"Christopher D. Beland" <beland@MIT.EDU>
Cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU, ifc-talk@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 02:38:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Is anyone else but me bothered that ATO is getting into serious trouble over
this? I won't defend ATO's behavior, shouting racial slurs from the roof of
a building is rude and inciteful. However, it is their house, they are
entitled to shout whatever they want. Last time I heard we still had some
freedom of expression in this country, but apparently not at MIT.
In 1998, the "The Freedom of Speech and Association on Campus Act" was
signed into law. A brag notice can be found here:
http://www.greekpages.com/Freedom/
"It is now the law of the land that private schools which receive Federal
funds respect the constitutional rights of their students."
I read the bill a few years ago, and it was very clear that any college
receiving Federal Funds (which MIT does last I checked) has to recognize
student constitutional rights. Students at ATO have every right to be
racists and jerks. Indeed, they can, quite literally, shout this from the
rooftops. Now, ATO as a private group can choose it's members (freedom of
association), but IFC, as a part of the MIT school, cannot do so. ATO
CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be punished for this behavior. We can all condemn
their actions, but we should all support their rights to do so. I don't
like the KKK, but I'll defend their rights to rally and march. If you value
freedom, you should too.
If someone barged into my house to start a fight, I'd fight back, and they
better hope that I'm not near a weapon. To suggest that someone should be
kicked out of their fraternity and that the fraternity should be kicked out
of their house over this is absurd. It is equally absurd to use an alcohol
incident (discovered through this behavior) to punish them. We've been
argueing for years that punishing houses for calling a hospital is
dangerous. Well, this goes beyond that. Under this belief, if you need
police protection from an intruder endangering you and your friends in your
own home, the police and city can use this as an excuse to punish you.
Do you realize what this means? Fraternities may have been "above the law"
pre-Scott Kreuger because of lack of oversite, but now we are outside the
law. We have no First Amendment rights. We have no Fourth Amendment
rights. We cannot possess means of self-defense (the second amendment)
because of a combination of school, fraternity, and city ordinances. Nor
can we turn to the police for help when attacked.
This is downright scary. People assaulted in crack houses have more rights
than we do.
This is terrifying. I HOPE that ATO brothers and the chapter press charges.
However, I'm sure that they will say nothing, taking their lickings like a
good punching back, because we're all under the mistaken belief that if we
lay low and say nothing when we get abused, that we'll be the house that
survives. Sorry ladies and gentlemen, but appeasement won't work. They'll
pick us off one-by-one, and we have now been denied our basic rights as
American citizens.
Alex Hochberger
scorpion@mit.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Jones [mailto:wrjjones@MIT.EDU]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:48 PM
To: Patrick D Kane; Christopher D. Beland
Cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU; ifc-talk@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: ATO Incident
At 06:40 PM 4/30/01 -0400, Patrick D Kane wrote:
>ATO seems to be dealing with the situation appropriately, so for all
intensive
>purposes, I hope the MIT administration allows them to handle it as they
see
>fit. In fact, it would probably be beneficial for MIT to keep it's
distance;
>blowing it out of proportion might just propagate the idea that this type
of
>racism is a widespread Institute problem.
>
>-pk
>
MIT is going to be involved because underage drinking was present at
the
same time (note wording, alcohol was present, that does not mean it was
involved in the scuffle with the band). As a result the CLC will be
reviewing the house, and MIT will have to respond. Hopefully they will keep
the two issues separate.
That said, some would argue that racism is a widespread problem. Not
that
MIT is worse than the rest of the nation, but on par with the nation is not
where we want to be. I think the administration would be remiss in not
taking a look at the issue of race at MIT. As for the indevidual brothers,
even if ATO's responce is appropiate, it may not be enough. Their power is
limited, and, depending on the exact detaials, MIT may want to take further
action.
Also, at this point only one student has been identified as having
made
inapropriate coments. The other student was involved in the scuffle.
-chris
