To the Editor,
Recent events on campus have called into question the limitations of freedom of speech at Dartmouth. It appears that the administration, along with a large portion of the student body, has adopted the position that an individual or organization's freedom of speech should be limited to instances where the speech is not abusive of people or groups on campus. I generally would agree with the notion that common courtesy and respect should serve as models of what types of speech are appropriate or inappropriate.
Vocal criticism and threats of disciplinary action have been leveled at Zeta Psi fraternity for the recently-exposed "sex papers." At the same time, however, some of the most outspoken critics of the fraternity system describe a "culture of rape," sometimes stating that half or more of the men at Dartmouth are rapists! Any reasonable person should be able to conclude that these suggestions are quite false.
In his April 19th letter to the community, College President James Wright speaks of the "insult" of the Zeta Psi "sex papers" and he appeals to "common respect" and "mutual trust." I question whether the insulting categorization of men as rapists is built upon common respect and mutual trust. Instead, the message serves the unfortunate purpose of alienating many men who support gender equality and tolerance, but who are driven to inaction by the rhetoric of a small number of people. It is disappointing that a group of individuals who purportedly want to be treated with respect find it so difficult to hold a discourse that shows some semblance of respect toward men. It is also a shame that the minority which chooses to use such inflammatory terms hampers the legitimate efforts of truly open-minded individuals, who are working hard to improve the climate on campus.
Somehow, I doubt that President Wright will address any letters to the community calling for an end to the unfair categorization of men on this campus. That is very disappointing, since this speech too is insulting and hurtful and a barrier to honest communication. I would challenge those who find it necessary to use such shameful terms to step out from behind your emotionally-charged rhetoric and to make realistic and rational suggestions about how to logically address gender issues on this campus.
