To the Editor:
The Dartmouth's coverage of an anonymous fecal attack on two fraternities ["Manure dumped on two fraternity lawns," Feb. 22] raises a question as to the obscenity of the report. As defined in case law over the past 20 years, speech is obscene when it violates the community standards of decency by appealing to the "prurient interest" of the audience.
Maybe we are all adults here, and titillation is not likely to result when the S-word is used, but the frequent and unnecessary repetition of that word in the article was completely uncalled for. Resorting to repetitions of one of George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television" appeals to the "prurient interest" of the community because the word is easily substitutable. The reporter used "manure" in several other cases, and I need not supply a complete list of synonyms, but several have four letters and are NOT considered offensive. He showed that he was capable of deftly replacing her direct comments with more palatable language; why did he not? This was clearly obscenity, and an abuse of free press!
While the repetitions arose from a desire to capture the spoken word of the woman, they served only to devalue the skills and the integrity of the reporter and of The Dartmouth. The action itself, in many ways, was despicable, but the report of the incident was even further off the chart.
Consider the situation in which this unnamed '97 shared her feelings, in the same words, with those leaders who could affect a quick and appropriate reaction, i.e., the officers of the fraternities in question and the proper Residential Life and Dean of the College office figures. She would certainly be turned away as a fanatic and perhaps even reprimanded for her egregious lack of respect for the people whom she is petitioning for change.
Sadly, this did not stop the editors from printing her comments verbatim, or close to verbatim. Zeal for the story seems to have exceeded restraint and maturity in reporting, with repulsive results.
I take the editors of The D to task, then, in the grandest tradition of the ombudsman, for an irresponsible report of what could prove to be a significant incident.
The unnamed '97's feelings were unquestionably strong, as we discovered when her comments ran unedited, but the account lost much of its credibility from the writer's and editors' unwillingness to recast it in a tasteful way.
