Regardless of the Ford Foundation petition that President Wright recently signed, the leader of one of the world's most enduring academic institutions clearly does not understand how free speech works. By permanently "de-recognizing" Zeta Psi for violating its speech code, Dartmouth made it clear that it does not aspire to respect freedom of speech. Restricting any speech whatsoever may be dangerous, but one major reason speech codes are so insidious is that they inevitably require arbitrary line-drawing. These lines can be established to advance the political and other goals of those drawing the lines, lines which are explicitly intended to preserve and protect the freedom of groups and individuals in need of protection and preservation. Implicitly, however, they represent a zero-sum game, restricting the free expression of one group (if that group espouses a view contrary to the line drawer's) while furthering other competing views.
Recent press has brought a great deal of attention to alleged punishment of ideas in the classroom at Columbia. Unsurprisingly, when called upon to review the matter, the "Line Drawers" at Columbia found that their peers had committed no wrong. Perhaps a more independent review would have done a service to that university. Perhaps a more independent review would have come to a different conclusion regarding our fraternity. Although we are not at all proud of the events which resulted in the "de-recognition" of Zeta Psi four years ago this week, we fail to see how they rise to a level that has caused the College to believe that we wear a permanent stain. Certainly, other organizations with far worse levels of behavior have been rehabilitated, though perhaps not as well-located real estate.
Dartmouth's recent history is marred by egregious examples of arbitrary distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable speech. The "Community" had no problem trampling Zetes' rights to freely associate when a trespasser found and re-assembled a torn private document in the fraternity's trash; but there was no thought of "de-recognizing" a Dartmouth organization which posted incendiary phrases from the Koran on its website for everyone's perusal. Similarly, the "Community" has no problem forcibly dismantling Todd Zywicki's personal website and censoring his proposed candidate email to the alumni, but then turning a blind eye to a smear campaign waged against him and Peter Robinson by a group of former Trustees and other College insiders, even when it appears that these insiders may be using College resources to aid the candidates that they support. While we are cognizant that a private institution such as the College is not bound by the letter of the First Amendment, an organization dedicated to the exchange of ideas should at least espouse its spirit. It seems hypocritical to punish acts which -- rightly or wrongly -- are considered to be defamatory by eliminating institutions which have been a part of the College's life for over 150 years. As an alternative, we suggest that the College commit some of the time and resources of its innumerable deans to engaging, teaching, and mentoring organizations that it believes need assistance.
Rather than putting forth an intellectually consistent position that would serve as a uniform guideline for future speech issues on campus, President Wright continues to muddy the waters. Although he said last fall that "Dartmouth has no speech code," he was quoted ("Ivies confront free speech uproar," April 7) as saying that "free speech does not mean that you're free from criticism for what it is that you said." In theory, those two statements could operate concurrently, but referring to Zeta Psi's excommunication as "criticism" is like referring to Hanover winters as "crisp." As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has insisted, the only way for Dartmouth to extract itself from the messy controversies its unevenly-applied policies have created is to re-recognize Zeta Psi and absolutely disavow its unconscionable speech codes. The administration has certainly tried to save face in public, but even in the Ivory Tower, actions speak louder than words.
As an organization, and individually, we consider ourselves to be loyal and contributing members of the Dartmouth community. We will continue to act in this manner, with the hope that our legitimate overtures, behavior, and goodwill may be recognized. We have had a very trying time. The danger of speech codes is that they are prone to abuse; a notion intended to protect rights can swing too far and trample on them. Though unfortunate, once these abuses see the light of reason in a well-meaning community like Dartmouth's, there is a strong possibility that the will of the community that itself created (perhaps naively) rules intended to protect its members in need of protection, will continue in the same spirit, recognize unintended consequences and reverse them.
