[618] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Dartmouth and Zeta Psi
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Prez H. Cannady)
Sat May 12 15:57:25 2001
Message-Id: <200105121957.PAA04739@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:56:57 -0400
To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <200105121937.PAA03627@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 03:37 PM 5/12/01 , Sourav K. Mandal wrote
>
>What does the US Constitution have to do with a private university?
That's an interesting frame, but irrelevent. The question is
what does the US Constitution have to do with a private
university that claims tolerance and adherence to human rights?
If a liberal university rejects the US Constitution -- something
not unexpected by morally deplorable on their part -- then
how can they honestly claim to protect free discussion.
>The First Amendment exists to protect the _right_ to free speech; free
>speech _privileges_ on campuses exist to bolster rational discourse for
>the educational benefit of university affiliates.
They also exist, apparantly, to shape discussion to fit
one ideology over another. In Dartmouth's case, they're
poorly framed. What's next? Crackdown on any party
that plays hip hop because it "degrades women," "promotes
racial stereotypes," and "advocates criminal behavior?"
>That said, universities must guard against a slippery slope towards
>counter-productive censorship by tolerating the occasional instance of
>nonsense -- I agree that political correctness is one of the worst
>phenomena to hit America's campuses. However, this little bit of
>speech by Zeta Psi @ Dartmouth clearly violated the right to privacy of
>fellow students, as well as promoted an act of violence, crossing the
>line from tastelessness, annoyance and hurt feelings to objective harm.
> Dartmouth acted appropriately in shutting down the frat.
I'm not gonna argue about the right to privacy, but
how does a publication violate that? If a municipal
newspaper were to report on an incident with witnesses
who freely gave statements to them, they can publish
any name that the witness brings up. They are not
required by any law to suppress any material so long
that it is freely given by the witness. These kids
decided they were going to air out their dirty laundry
and went ahead and did it. If it's true, then they
can't even be held liable for damages by the "victims."
What's tasteful for one individual is crap to the next;
you need look no further than the proliferation of
pornography on this campus. Promoting an act of
violence in the absence of conspiracy is not
criminal activity -- I can legally advocate rape, murder,
and whatnot and the only thing you could do is
argue against.
Dartmouth acted incorrectly by seeking total punishment
for all members of the house and for even seeking punishment
in the first place. What Zeta Psi did was despicable at
best, but illegal by no means and hardly harmful.
Rev Prez
* * *
Presley H. Cannady, Class of 2002, Electrical Engineering
Acting Chairman, College Republicans
CR Website <http://web.mit.edu/republicans/www/>
<Personal>-----------------------<"It's The Militia" - Freddie Foxx>
<revprez@mit.edu>--------<http://web.mit.edu/revprez/www/resume.pdf>
<410 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02139>-----------<(617) 225 8420>
<"Reality drops like atomics strapped to gravity bombs" - Rev Prez>
<ThE fLoW>-------<"Word is bond, son....heed the warnin: - Rev Prez>
Platinum Playa Productions------------------<Site Comin Soon, dunnz>
Rev Prez "The G.O.D. Rhymez v.3"--------<http://www.mp3.com/revprez>
<------REMIX and the Central Region Freestylin Alliance------------>
<"You got below average intelligence and poor penmanship" - Canibus>
