To the Editor:
In your editorial of February 16th, I disagree with your characterization that I am "confused." In addition, it is hardly fair to characterize my comments as "ignorant" in light of Trustee Kate Stith-Cabranes '73 quote in an article that ran the same day which read "the complete elimination of the Greek system was not something the five principles in any way require." That is exactly what I was trying to articulate to Dave Coleman '97 in my private e-mail to him. It is clear that if one were to look at the press release issued by the College and compare it to the articles running in the newspapers, there is a significant difference in the conclusions being reached. The Trustees have indeed brushed some broad strokes which leaves room for much speculation from large media outlets who want to sensationalize and sell more newspapers (the same media outlets that conjure up images of Animal House which does not exactly portray either the Greek system or Dartmouth in a positive or accurate light). Clearly, everyone who is passionate about Dartmouth would love to see the fine print. But you must recognize the impossibility of defining a system that has yet to evolve. The introduction of the five principles is the beginning of a process into which thousands of opinions will be distilled into action. I recognize the challenge we have all had as ambassadors of the College in trying to understand this complicated situation in the midst of rumor and speculation. However, The Dartmouth does the campus no service by both sharpshooting the individuals who are working to sort it all out and editorializing news articles as opposed to recognizing the enormous challenge of articulating what seems to be a great opportunity for students, faculty and alumni to define the future of Dartmouth.
