To the Editor:
"Wright Comments on Zete Derecognition" incorrectly (and in my view, unfairly) separates the views of two alumni candidates from the rest of the candidates in the ongoing Board of Trustees election (May 4). The article begins by immediately creating a distinction between the current administration (namely, President Wright) and two of the trustee candidates, Todd Zywicki '88 and Peter Robinson '79. The polarizing issue? Free speech.
Even though the article asserts the debate between the two petition candidates and Wright centers around the derecognition of Zeta Psi fraternity, he openly admits in the second paragraph that "[a]t the heart of the controversy surrounding Zete's derecognition lies a delicate balance between free speech and holding Dartmouth students responsible for harassment." Indeed, a little fact checking affirms this: while these two candidates do indeed discuss (and support) the right to free speech, never do the two mention the derecognition of Zeta Psi.
What's so troubling about this article is that it seems to be singling out the two petition candidates as against the administration (or some such nonsense), making absolutely no mention of the Alumni Council nominated candidates' viewpoints.
As a point of fact, five of the six candidates running for election make an issue of defending free speech. Two Alumni Council nominated candidates, Curt Welling '71 Tu '77 and Gregg L. Engles '79, outright defend this right in the same vein as the two petition candidates.
Engles writes, in the Candidate Q&A section of his alumni trustee candidate information website (http://alumni.dartmouth.edu/trustee/engles.html) that "[i]f Dartmouth renews its commitment to free speech, it will continue to produce a disproportionate share of our future leaders who will be well educated, well rounded and balanced."
Welling takes an even stronger stance, asserting in his first candidate e-mail of March 22 that the First Amendment means what it says. "Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of the pursuit of the truth," and that "[s]peech codes, social or academic pressure on speech cannot be tolerated in any shape or form."
I have no idea what led The Dartmouth to separate these two candidates from the rest of the group or whether they support these candidates or not.
Indeed, the only distinction seems to be the fact that Zywicki and Robinson are petition candidates, a distinction that has, in my opinion, absolutely no bearing or importance to the election.
And while I'm not accusing this article of taking part in what has seemed a broader conspiracy to discredit the petition candidates, I do sincerely hope that it hasn't fallen victim to this effort, trying to sensationalize a political distinction where in fact there is none.
A balanced look at the stance of each candidate, while less exciting, would have been a far more interesting and appropriate article (and a little fact-checking couldn't have hurt, Zeta Psi was temporarily derecognized in 1987, not 1997).
