To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the May 2nd article in The Dartmouth, "Zete not covered by free speech," by News Editor Victoria McGrane '02.
This article should not have been written. It is ill-informed, but more importantly it completely misses the point of why Zeta Psi may be derecognized. If you are going to get into the legal details about the case, then you should realize that the whole idea of "libel" is not very relevant in this case. This newsletter was written by members of the house for those same members to read, and was very specifically not meant for anyone not in on that "inside joke." The point of the newsletter was to purposely use unrealistic and outrageously untrue statements for the sole purpose of being humorous. The participants knew the statements were untrue and none of the statements was meant to be taken seriously. Some women who appeared in the paper (members' girlfriends) had the utmost respect of the members of the house.
This, you could argue, is still worthy of "libel." If that is true, however, then you are condemning Zeta Psi for the same type of misleading data that Comedy Central airs weekly in a skit called the "Daily Show." You cannot separate the two, legally. The same laws govern both.
The legal argument falls flat on its face because that kind of argument is not what this situation is about at all. The crux of the issue, which was completely disregarded in this article, is that "The Zetemouth" was spawned from and supported by an organized institution. This was not just the independent, original effort of a hapless student with a really bad sense of humor. This was encouraged -- it was tradition.
The question is not whether Zeta Psi broke the law; it is whether these brothers would have ever felt comfortable going this far if they hadn't had the umbrella of Zeta Psi tradition.
How many things do the brothers do now, because of their fraternity, that they will look back on with shame or guilt years from now? What do they gain in return?
