To the Editor:
In its last editorial, The Dartmouth Editorial Board wrote, "no institutionalized speech code exists at Dartmouth" ("Reviewing the Rhetoric of a Potential Trustee," Jan. 19). As long as anyone on campus becomes or remains to be punished for written or verbal speech, there is, in plain fact, a speech code. Zeta Psi fraternity has been recognized but is still under sanctions and must remain "dark" (all that after effectively being "dark" or at least "mostly dark" for over five years already) for another two years. Zete's violation, while not admirable, is an issue of speech, and the response should have (and actually did) "lay solely in the opinions and values of the Dartmouth student body, not Parkhurst."
As for the points expressed by Stephen Smith '88 on Dartmouth being a university versus a college, I believe the debate has two nuances. First, certain popular courses should be more available and smaller. Losing the speech professor in 2005 was a sad event given his popularity and the desperate need to teach public speaking, which is an essential asset to anyone in any field. Second is the issue of the allocation of funds toward graduate programs and the buildings that support them. Both of these issues are perfectly valid and important to Dartmouth and its future.
