Political Correctness, Revisited
To the Editor:
Sara del Nido '08's long-winded, 1200-word manifesto on what fraternities "should" and "should not" do fails to woo me towards the slightest inclination of supporting her stance ("Speaking Out, Standing Alone," Nov. 7). After finding out that someone who blitzed out offensive remarks to her friend was a member of a Greek organization, del Nido argues that this individual's fraternity has an obligation to sanction him despite the fact that the incident in no way involved his fraternity or his fraternity's views. Of course, why stop there? That individual is also a member of the Dartmouth community. Why shouldn't Dartmouth, in addition to his Greek organization, sanction him? Or, why not every other organization of which he is a member?
The answer is painstakingly obvious: because his blitz in no way implicated his organization or his organization's views. It would be utterly absurd for individual Greek organizations to sanction and monitor the daily activities and blitzes of their members to ensure that they are constantly upholding the status of their organization. Doing so would not reflect an attitude of responsibility, as del Nido suggests, but instead would border on some sort of twisted version of Orwell's "1984." Censorship is not a wise policy.
Yet again, some people would rather force their indoctrination of politically correct lunacy on campus than allow people to express themselves as they see fit. If some people choose to express themselves through "appalling" content then that's their prerogative so long as it does not constitute harassment. Fair? Perhaps not, but the alternative -- censorship -- is a far more slippery slope. As is true in this case, it obscures true feelings and serves only to further the damage to the very people and causes it aims to benefit.