Tuesday night, I, along with other Zeta Psi members, received a blitz from Katie Oliviero, '01. In her blitz, she wrote:
"Thank you for altruistically reminding us that we are nothing but mere cunts, dirty holes, tits of varying cup-sizes for you to suck, to stick your purifying dicks into.
That we are rancid snatches who have no right to say NO. Who when we do, should immediately repent, bend over and present (our dirty holes) and docilely submit to: '[Brother X's] patented date rape techniques.'"
I wanted to respond in public, so that not only Katie could hear me, but also the many others who are no doubt stunned, confused, and angry at the allegations against my house, Zeta Psi.
Katie, you know me personally. We took Geography 12 together during our sophomore summer and talked many times both inside and outside of class. For my term paper, I wanted to write an essay about the "genderization of nature" and talk about how policymakers over time described the environment in many of the same terms they used to describe women -- while discriminating against both. I remember not knowing where to look for information on the subject, and I remember how you lent me several thoughtful and interesting books which proved invaluable to my eventual paper. And I also remember talking enthusiastically with you about our paper topics and life in general while visiting your apartment to pick up or return books you had lent me.
And now, knowing me, I want to ask you this. Do you believe that I would ever, ever, remain a member of an organization that thinks of women as nothing but "mere cunts, dirty holes, tits of varying cup sizes?" Do you believe that I think of you as nothing but a "rancid snatch?" Do you believe that I would ever, could ever, support a group which promoted date rape?
And I want to challenge every student, faculty member, and administrator that personally knows myself or any other Zete to ask themselves these very same questions. Because those of you who know us know that the language, content, and attitudes detailed in the newsletters described in yesterday's Dartmouth do not describe, in any way, our beliefs or our values.
The newsletters described in the Dartmouth were lewd and they were crude and they were explicit. But it is important that everyone understands that they were intended to serve as outlets of outrageous satire only. In no way would Brothers have sanctioned the truthful description of their or anyone else's private behavior as was implied by yesterday's article. Rather, the contributors to the newsletters sought to write flagrantly false stories, not to be malicious towards anyone mentioned in the stories, but only to be humorous. Those who contributed to the newsletters did not, in any way, intend for their satire to become publicly discussed or to be construed as true representations of their beliefs. They did not seek to encourage derogatory or demeaning behavior towards women. And yes, the contributors to the newsletters most certainly utilized explicit themes and language in their satire, but in a manner no different than one would expect from Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock.
The only alternative to this explanation is to believe that what was written in the newsletters represents our values; to believe that I, and the other members of my house, revel in, as one student put it, "attacking our friends and girlfriends," not to mention our own family members. I ask all of you who know us to ask yourselves which is more likely. Even the account in yesterday's Dartmouth makes it clear that the content of the newsletters is purposefully false and outrageous. Otherwise, it would have to be true that one brother in the house passes time by felching with lab rats, while others compete to be "Manwhore of the Year."
You can certainly argue that many of these subjects are not funny to you. Many of these subjects are not funny to me. But never, for even a second, did I believe upon reading the newsletter that whatever persons contributed to it had any goal in mind but attempting to be humorous. I, and many of the rest of us, may disagree with their sense of humor, but there is a sharp difference that we must draw between disagreeing with someone's sense of humor and condemning them for it.
The sequences from the newsletters reprinted in The Dartmouth are easy to condemn. They use words such as "cunt" and "tits" that both men and women find offensive. But we must consider the context in which they were written. In one passage of Katie's blitz to us, she "thanks us" for putting her and her co-writers "on (their) backs, legs spread, lips eagerly sucking (our) immense dicks blessed with the ambrosia of moral righteousness." What if I were to reprint this line out of context without the rest of her blitz? I could conceivably pass it off as anything from pornography to a sincere note of thanks for a sexual act we had participated in with her and her co-writers. And if I were to do so, Katie, what would your reaction be? You would be furious. You would be outraged. And that is exactly how members of our House feel right now as well.
Zeta Psi members have worked consistently over the last several years to change gender relations on this campus in a positive and significant manner. During almost every term , we sponsored an event with Susan Marine, who until recently coordinated the Sexual Abuse Awareness Program at Dartmouth. During these events, Brothers and Ms. Marine would consider the state of gender relations on campus as well as hold frank discussions about encouraging the prevention of sexual assault at Dartmouth. Several members of Zeta Psi today serve as Sexual Abuse Peer Advisors, actively and personally fighting sexual abuse at Dartmouth. In addition, we have long supported initiatives from the administration and the CFSC to broaden cooperation and coordination between sororities and fraternities on campus. This history provides an accurate set of insights into our beliefs and attitudes towards women. The newsletters described in The Dartmouth most certainly do not.
This is not to say that as a House, we do not bear some responsibility for this . We owe an apology to all the members of the Dartmouth community that were hurt. We owe an apology to any person, including Brothers themselves, who were named in the newsletters described in The Dartmouth.
But while I would never deny that many of you may have found the content of the newsletters described to be offensive, I would encourage you to consider the context in which they were written. In this case, a group within our house made a judgement based on their expectation that they would be writing for an audience that knew, without question, that their comments would be over-the-top, outrageous, and completely untrue. That their attempt at humor has been presented to the Dartmouth community as representative of not only their character, but the character of all members of Zeta Psi, is grossly unfair.
I may not find the newsletter described in The Dartmouth to be funny, and neither do many of you. But I would in the end urge you to consider that being guilty of a poor sense of humor is far different than being guilty of a conspiracy to perpetuate bigotry and sexism. And I would ask the many of you who know the many of us to ask yourselves which crime it is more likely that the contributors to this newsletter were guilty of.
