More than 300 hundred Dartmouth students and faculty met in Alumni Hall last night to discuss the meaning of freedom of speech in the context of the Dartmouth community. Megan Hitchner '01, Student Assembly's Vice President of Student Organizations, began the event, entitled "Let's Cut the Shit," by inviting people to express their differing opinions on the subject.
"Our goal is to better understand the person who lives down the hall," said Hitchner, who emphasized that the event was an open forum for discussion of a variety of potentially offensive subjects, ranging from the Zetemouth sex papers to last year's ghetto party to the use of gender specific language to Dartmouth's traditional first-year bonfire.
Frank Susa, an activist for Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender rights, was one of two keynote speakers who preceded two hours of small group discussion with a short introductory speech.
"Free speech changes not the world, but you," said Susa.
Edward Boraz, rabbi for the Roth Center, was the second keynote speaker.
Boraz asked the audience questions like: How broad can our community be? What do we do when the things we hold true, dear, right, and correct are challenged? How do we draw the line between free speech and speech that hurts?
Facilitators at each of about 20 tables began the small group discussions by asking the question, "Is it possible to be too offended?"
The student responses to this question were varied, and led to a plethora of different individual conversations, though most of the discussion focused on issues surrounding the Greek system at Dartmouth.
"People don't go out saying 'today I'm going to be offended,' it just happens and it would be unfair to say you had to control your reaction," said Soojung Rhee '04. At the same time Rhee commented, "I wonder how far political correctness can go before we can't say anything."
"I don't have a problem with people staking out extreme positions, you can be offended all you want, just don't silence me," said Matt Kenny '04.
"Why is it bad to be offended?" asked Susan Napier '04. Napier also said she thought people should, "realize the origins of words, so as to know the meaning of what you say. Inform yourself."
"Unfortunately, people deny that what they say reflects what they think ... Think about what you say, regardless of the company you're in," said Karsten Barde '04.
"I feel like the Zetemouth is institutionalized sexism, while describing the Choates as 'ghetto' is more of a gray area," said Matt Tokson '02.
"Should people be held responsible legally for what they say? I don't think so," Tokson added
"There is no action that could or should be taken by the college to prevent freedom of expression. For example, the College shouldn't say 'don't wear the Indian mascot,'" said Daniel Rothfarb '02.
On the other hand, Rothfarb added, "We have the responsibility to keep ourselves in check and not prevent free speech through cohesion. I think this is happening already with anti-Greek speech, which can come to the forefront now when it couldn't in the past."
"High level administration use these Greek incidents to cast blame, as do students, rather than reflecting on broader problems," said Alex Berger '02 on the continuing cycle of controversial Greek incidents.
"I'm curious to look at the moment when someone is challenged. Are they going to feel able to respond or feel threatened and therefore not participate," Giavanna Munafo '79, the director of the Women's Resource Center.
"Perhaps the family model can inform us ... we aren't all the same or related, but lets look at what allows a family to continue to communicate despite strong disagreement," Munafo added.
With the variety of different discussion going on, about the only thing people could agree on was the idea that a person's intention, whether or not it was malicious, mattered in determining the offensiveness of an action.
"Let's Cut the Shit" was sponsored by more than 25 student organizations, including the Student Assembly.