To the Editor:
Like most of the campus, I was personally appalled by the material in "Sigma Report" and "The Zetemouth." However, I think there are several things that most people may be overlooking in this controversy.
I think it is important to realize that these "sex papers" have a sarcastic and self-deprecating tone that both the females involved and The Dartmouth have overlooked. It appears most clearly in the part where the "Sigma Report" asks where Zeta Psi brothers would pledge if they were women, "instead of (in most cases) men." Applying this tone to the title, "The Manwhore Hall of Shame," makes it an actual shame (though it doubtlessly has some misguided admiration attached to it) rather than a sort of award that brothers "compete" for, as the article in "The Dartmouth" states. However, this in no way excuses these articles' derision of women, or in anyway lessens the offensiveness. It merely clarifies that the Zeta Psi brothers are, when the articles in these two paper are reduced to their most fundamental meanings, poking fun at each other.
This is important because it means that almost nothing in "The Zetemouth" and the "Sigma Report" has not been said or implied, albeit in much less offensive and slanderous terms, by almost everyone on this campus. The way I make fun of my friends' interactions with girls from Hanover High is almost identical to the way that "The Zetemouth" makes fun of "[Brother Z]'s Cancun hookup." The only differences between Zete's statement and mine are the tone and word choice used to describe the women involved. The meaning is the same. An email I received about organizing a protest against Zeta Psi's "Sex Papers" clearly takes issue with the "attitudes involved," not with the way in which those attitudes are expressed. This focus makes me, and anyone else who has made fun of a friend based on the age, appearance or reputation of someone they have been involved with, just as guilty as the writers of "The Zetemouth."
Despite the self-righteous comments of Coed Fraternity Sorority Council President Shihwan Chung that "This kind of behavior has no part in our system" and that the CFSC "will not support any organization that fosters such behavior," there is no question that this sort of commentary, in a less extreme form, exists throughout Greek system, and the College as a whole. Rather than playing dumb and pointing fingers when an egregious example such as this one surfaces, people need to have open and fair discussions on the topic. Like every other issue on this campus, from the Student Life Initiative to "Wah-Hoo-Wah," the debate is far too clouded with emotional knee-jerk reactions to achieve any sort of resolution. Until people are given the chance to speak, where they can express their opinions openly and in full, no one will gain any insight into the viewpoint of others, and people will continue to insult each other and reduce each other to tears arguing in circles about it. I saw it outside Parkhurst Hall last week, I saw it after Psychology today, and, unfortunately, I will see it again in the future.
