In light of the series of incidents surrounding Theta Delta Chi fraternity and its members, I would like to finally speak out on behalf of the brotherhood and address the issues at hand.
We feel that our names have been misrepresented and dragged through the mud long enough and it is our hope that this editorial dispels some of the rumors that have started to spiral out of control over the past three terms.
First, I'd like to address the allegations and incidents concerning three of our brothers and their individual drug use. These three men have undoubtedly recognized and accepted the poor decisions they made concerning drugs, and their actions are in no way indicative of our fraternity as a whole.
In fact, though we value them as people, our organization condemns their abuse of drugs and any drug proliferation that they may have been involved in. Drugs were never distributed or sold in our house and their use by these three men was something kept in private, veiled in secrecy, and out of our mainstream culture.
Though we try to support our members during times of personal challenge, it is unfair to characterize the group by the actions of a select few.
I would next like to address the hazing allegations surrounding Delta Delta Delta sorority and our organization. While the college found us responsible for hazing and harassment, we'd like to make it abundantly clear that the state of New Hampshire does not concur with the school on this issue. In fact, after a very thorough investigation, the police report ultimately concludes that, "maybe this wasn't an incident to begin with." We do not create or implement pledge missions for our new members, nor do we have any interest in initiating events with Tri-Delt sisters and their pledges.
Sadly, our fraternity is only associated with this incident because it occurred in our physical plant. These pledge missions went on at several different houses on the night in question, with Theta Delt being the last stop of the night.
While three individuals in this house may have changed parts of the missions, they only made poor decisions because they were given the leeway by Tri-Delt to do so.
Furthermore, not one executive officer in the fraternity was notified about or present during these events, nor did any brother contacted by Tri-Delt make any attempt to alert the brotherhood as to what was going to take place at the house that evening. Their actions were undoubtedly wrong and the events that took place that night are in no way something we, as an organization, would have organized and endorsed.
Through our misfortune in this matter, it is our hope that this incident serves as a wakeup call and dissuades other Greek organizations from offering their houses as venues for these pledge missions to take place.
This incident goes to show that a house and its brothers' names can be tarnished, senior years can be ruined, and unnecessary college discipline can ensue from the poor decisions made by a small group of individuals.
Finally, I would like to comment on the recent indictments that resulted from a Good Samaritan call. While we cannot discuss the particulars of this case at the present time, the bottom line is that by making this call, we undoubtedly saved a student's life.
Contrary to Dean Daniel Nelson's remarks, Theta Delt has not placed a Good Samaritan call as an organization for well over six years, and in no way did this call attempt to "take advantage of the 'Good Samaritan' policy in order to blatantly or consistently break rules" ("Theta Delt faces criminal charges," Feb. 16). Simply put, we knew that someone was in danger, were worried about his safety, and in good faith called for help under the existing policy.
The house would like to thank everyone, particularly those from within the college administration, who have showed us their support and encouragement during this trying time.
Those individuals understand that upholding mechanisms such as the Good Samaritan clause are reasons why this community has been blessed enough to not have experienced a drinking-related death in quite some time. Those individuals truly care for the well-being of the Dartmouth student body and understand that the moment students and organizations begin to second-guess the sincerity of these policies, it will become drastically more difficult for them to make safe and responsible decisions.
It is our fear that, in the heat of the moment, students will begin to recall the troubles that have arisen from other people and organizations attempting to utilize the Good Samaritan policy and will forget that someone's life could be in danger.
We would go so far as to call it irresponsible and even negligent of the administration to promote such a change in community culture and/or policy.
As my brother Sean finishes up his freshman year at Dartmouth, I worry about what flouting the Good Samaritan in this instance could mean for him. I fear that his peers may cite this incident as a reason to not make the proper decision in the future and neglect providing him or any other member of our close community with the help that could potentially save his or her life.
Losing my brother or any one of his friends would devastate me, my family, and the entire Dartmouth community. It would be tragic, yet something that could have been entirely preventable with the policies currently in place.
We hope that the campus can collectively agree with The Dartmouth Editorial Board (Verbum Ultimum, Feb. 18) on these same issues and see the necessity of instruments such as the Good Samaritan policy. This campus does not need to chance losing one of its members. By supporting and looking out for one another, we save lives, strengthen the ties of an entire community, and ultimately put legitimately-questioned faith back into our administration.
