[627] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
dartmouth, but not free speech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aram Harrow)
Sat May 12 18:02:27 2001
Message-Id: <200105122201.SAA01479@mint-square.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: "Aram Harrow" <aram@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:01:56 -0400
i think that before coming to conclusions about the dartmouth
incident, we should familiarize ourselves with a few different sides
of the story. i can't claim to be particularly well informed about
the issue, but the fraternity's response to the university gave me the
impression that things might not be as simple as some of the articles
imply.
before i continue, here are parts of the papers which they got in
trouble for:
http://www.thedartmouth.com/floater.php?pid=20010418010003
http://www.thedartmouth.com/floater.php?pid=20010418010002
it's unclear how much more there is.
and here is the fraternity's resposne
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=200105110201
the relevant excerpt is:
The Newsletters were humor, satire and parody. They were designed to
make fun of members of Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi. The Newsletters were
not intended to be seen or read by individuals who were not members of
Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi. The Newsletters were not meant to be
disclosed to members outside of Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi. They
contained private communications. One Newsletter became public after
it was stolen from Zeta Psi premises, a second alleged Newsletter was
made public when it was taken without permission from a member's room,
and a third Newsletter was destroyed by Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi and
was only made public because a Dartmouth sorority woman, not formally
affiliated with Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi, although well known to its
members, decided to comb through a dumpster to find it.
assuming that the above paragraph is not a lie, it puts the
newsletters in a completely different light. if these were published
outside the fraternity, then they would easily constitute sexual
harassment, something that is justifiably regulated in workplaces and
schools. but if they were really intended to be completely internal
to the fraternity (which their content would somewhat imply) then it
is much harder to find fault with them. the date rape joke was
probably in poor taste, but even that line, which seems like the most
sexist part of the entire set of publications, is far from
unequivocal. what if most people in the fraternity were to find date
rape morally revolting and the line was intended to humiliate a
brother who had bragged about hooking up with drunk women? this seems
rather farfetched, but the point is (as peter said about the
constitution), that the CONTEXT is vitally important to understanding
anything.
how many of you have made jokes in private settings that would be
utterly humiliating to have repeated in public? this is why it is
poor form to forward private email to mailing lists without
permission, though i will say that you should all ask rev prez if he'd
rather stub his toe or have thousands of foreigners put to death.
oh, and i lied about free speech. for your free speech rights at a
private university, see:
http://www.splc.org/resources/private.school/private.html
____________________________________________________________
Aram Harrow : aram@mit.edu : web.mit.edu/aram : 617.661.4762
