The decision to permanently derecognize the Zeta Psi fraternity was disproportionate to the administration's punishment of acts committed by other Greek and non-Greek organizations. However, Zeta Psi could hardly claim ignorance in light of their failure to make institutional improvements after their temporary derecognition in 1987. The entire incident hints at a lack of understanding of what constitutes acceptable speech and how to appropriately hold people responsible for their actions. In the wake of this derecognition, the Dartmouth community must demand a more specific codification of the range of acceptable speech, rather than continue with a set of incoherent principles and utopian goals that puts too much judicial power in the hands of a few unaccountable individuals. The best reaction to the Zeta Psi incident would be for the student body to demand the creation of additional (rather than replacement) student-controlled social life options that don't engage in discriminatory speech.
Dartmouth's Principles of Community are insufficient for curbing discriminatory behavior. Past efforts to cure this ailment through discussions, forums and candlelight vigils have not had a substantial long-term impact. Discriminatory behavior is harmful to the community because it creates an atmosphere of fear for those that it affects. For Dartmouth to become an institution that truly respects diversity, some type of adjudication of the Principles of Community is necessary. However, such adjudication must be done under specific regulations, rather than in an ad hoc way that seems to depend more on personal opinion. A new codification should more specifically define discriminatory speech and the judicial remedies that will be used against student organizations that engage in such behavior. Individual administrators do not need to enhance or amend the decisions of established organizations in charge of adjudicating Dartmouth's regulations.
There is a risk that adjudicating the Principles of Community will violate students' First Amendment rights. However, the First Amendment has never been a guarantee of absolute freedom. Restrictions on First Amendment rights are quite common (and legal) in certain contexts. For instance, within a private corporation, the sexist and degrading humor produced by Zeta Psi would certainly have been enough justification to fire whichever individuals were responsible. Dartmouth, like a corporation, has the right to demand that members of this community (living here voluntarily) adhere to certain rules in order to provide an acceptable environment for all.
Dartmouth should not have a corporate atmosphere. Private corporations have a monolithic attitude towards the constitution that stifles political protest, religious expression and other types of speech that seem essential for a discourse of ideas on a college campus. You can't hand out Bibles at the office, but you can on the steps of Thayer. You can't deride the management of a company in an office-newsletter, but you can slam Dartmouth's administration in the pages of this publication. Codification of speech limitations must consider how to treat student organizations that use their resources to provide forums for discriminatory speech. What should happen, if anything, to an organization that speaks against homosexuality (or any minority group on campus)? Should they be treated the same as a group that speaks in favor of homosexuality (or any minority groups' rights)? Given these clear differences between acceptable free speech standards for colleges and corporations, it seems essential that the students, in conjunction with faculty and administrators, come to some agreement about what the Dartmouth's future speech policies will be and how they will be enforced.
Zeta Psi certainly has the right to pursue all of their appellate and legal options to dispute the administration's decision, but such actions could drag on for years. In the meantime, I sincerely hope that the Zeta Psi national corporation will allow another undergraduate student organization to lease the property, rather than resorting to the creation of another graduate student residential structure on Webster Avenue (as currently exists in the Phi Delta structure). Anyone who truly believes in creating a better social life at Dartmouth should demand that every time the school removes a student-controlled social option, we create two new ones. These new social options' structure and function should be determined based on the preferences of the student body.
This is the way to create something better at Dartmouth. We need a better understanding of each other, a better understanding of the consequences of our words and a better response when discrimination occurs. The students must be the ones that create something better to add to the social options that we currently have. Ultimately it is the students who must live, learn and grow here, thus it is essential that we play the greatest role in determining what that better Dartmouth looks like.
