"Apology: noun, a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another" says Dictionary.com.
As much as I hate to begin with something so elementary, after reading Chase Carpenter '08's "apology" ("Responding to the 'Daughters,'" Nov. 9), I feel compelled to not only respond, but also to offer some definition to this discussion. An apology means expressing regret, not justifying misbehavior or attempting to place blame upon others. Although I respect Carpenter's desire to end this discussion and apologize publicly, I cannot ignore the fact that I found his response more offensive than the actual homecoming T-shirts his organization created.
According to this apology, the T-shirts were created as an attempt at humor, and not related to any stereotypes of specific organizations. If this is the case, and Lucy Stonehill '10 is in fact to blame for manufacturing this reaction to the T-shirts ("The Laurelled Sons and Daughters," Nov. 8), then why were the shirts created at all? Even as an attempt at humor, the humor clearly stems from campus-wide stereotypes. Stonehill did not draw "unsubstantiated claims" from thin air -- they were widespread reactions to the T-shirts, which very clearly depict an organization in a stereotypical fashion. Denying such a fact is denying responsibility, and therefore is not apologetic in the least. After reading this apology, I am still unclear as to the intention behind the T-shirts, and how it could possibly be an outsider's fault for how they were received.
Carpenter says that he is "deeply troubled by the recent downturn in gender relations." This downturn is far from recent, and while I am glad to hear he and his organization are troubled by the growing tensions, placing himself as an innocent bystander is far from realistic. In fact, he and his organization are the direct perpetrators of this specific action and response, and it is irresponsible to equate this behavior with passive participation. I am not trying to vilify Chi Gamma Epsilon. While it is the cause of this specific issue, it is by no means the only house to add to the demise of gender relations. But to ignore specific action and role denies the actual problem, and makes it impossible to learn and progress from this situation.
I urge Carpenter to follow his own advice. Instead of "naming and shaming," he and his organization should actually take responsibility for the destructive actions they have taken towards gender relations here at Dartmouth. The population is not offended because of the stereotypes that we, as bystanders, have placed upon the offensive object. We are offended at both the object itself, and the failure to accept responsibility for those offensive actions.
No one has called anyone an "unbridled misogynist." The T-shirts, which were viewed as a failed and pathetic attempt at humor, have been overshadowed by the even less gracious attempt at making amends. Although I am glad to see that Chi Gam does in fact see the need for an apology, I am left with the sad realization that people still do not know what that actually means.
I hope that my response is appropriate for you, Mr. Carpenter. I am not anonymous, nor am I uninformed. I am also opening up the avenue for communication, and I am more than willing to explain exactly why I take offense to your organization's T-shirt, but even more so to your organization's "apology." Let's converse.
