Speaking For The Greeks

By Steven Menashi | Monday, May 14, 2001

Sigma Nu will withdraw from the Coed Fraternity and Sorority Council effective June 5, 2001, according to a statement the fraternity released last Thursday. 'Sigma Nu feels that the current voice of the Greek System, the Coed Fraternity and Sorority Council (CFSC), is ineffective in representing the views of the system or the organizations within,' the fraternity explained.

CFSC leaders were quick to bemoan the loss of yet another Greek organization from their synod. Yet, true to form, the CFSC leadership not only failed to respond decisively to Sigma Nu's statement; they failed even to comprehend it. 'They have shown that their individual self-interest is more important [to them] than the Greek system as a whole,' CFSC President Shihwan Chung '02 grumbled to the Daily Dartmouth. The significance of Sigma Nu's withdrawal from the Council, however, is that the CFSC itself does not advance the interests of the Greek system.

'Sigma Nu defends its right to exist as a selective, single-sex organization within the Dartmouth community,' the fraternity maintains. 'Recent student editorials, chalkings, and statements from the faculty have threatened that right by questioning the legitimacy of the system as a whole, and many of those statements have been generalizations and thoughtless stereotypes, hurtful to members in our house and every other. We view residential spaces for men to be as valid and important an undertaking as any sorority, affinity house or student organization.' That an individual fraternity house would need to uphold the legitimacy of the CFS system against public attacks speaks directly to the inadequacy of the CFSC as an advocacy body for the Greek system as a whole.

Beyond the CFSC's silence on all issues of concern to Greek organizations is the Council's periodic excoriations of its own members. The CFSC has proven itself always eager, at the slightest hint of controversy, to serve Greek societies to the lions. Putting aside the CFSC's past treatment of Chi Gamma Epsilon, Sigma Phi Epsilon, and Alpha Chi Alpha for the 'ghetto party,' 'Miami party,' and 'lu'au party,' respectively, Chung himself has been an ardent opponent of Greek houses whenever he makes public comments. On February 22, in a public letter to the campus, Chung noted that he lacked specific details about an alleged 'Wah-Hoo-Wah' chanting incident at Psi Upsilon, which had been revealed the day before. Nevertheless, Chung asserted, the behavior 'was absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated or condoned.' He promised swift punishment of Psi U by the Council. At the same time, Chung acknowledged that Psi U had not violated any rules: 'There weren't any specific rules per se in the CFSC handbook that were necessarily violated,' he told The Dartmouth Review.

On the same day that Zeta Psi's satiric in-house newsletters were revealed to the campus, before the College or anyone else mentioned any possible disciplinary action, the CFSC insisted, publicly, that the Zete newsletters 'would potentially necessitate a derecognition level hearing.' Once again, Zeta Psi violated no college policy—as evidenced by the two-week delay in announcing the College's verdict, which was explained with Residential Life Dean Martin Redman's Orwellian admission, 'We're still trying to ascertain what the organization gets charged with.' Throughout the process, however, the CFSC offered no commentary, no words on behalf of the Greek system, and refused even to observe that the Dartmouth administration could point to no provision of the Code of Conduct that Zete violated. Instead, Chung insisted, on behalf of the CFSC, 'We will not support any organization that fosters such behavior.'

It remains entirely reasonable that a Greek organization would reach the conclusion that the CFSC stands unwilling to defend the Greek system or its interests—especially since Chung seems anxious to disavow CFSC members at will.

CFSC Vice-President Lauren Lafaro '02, for her part, disagreed with Chung's interpretation of the Sigma Nu statement as self-serving. In fact, she insisted, the CFSC agrees wholeheartedly with Sigma Nu's principles: 'we've been addressing a number of the concerns and ideals which Sigma Nu raised in their letter to the Dartmouth community,' she told the Daily Dartmouth. Lafaro is only 'saddened by the fact that the brotherhood did not believe that these ideals could find a place within the CFSC.' Nevertheless, the Council continues to incorporate the ideals into the CFSC structure: 'One of the largest areas we have been looking at in our constitutional reform process,' she noted, 'has been how the CFSC can reflect the diverse views of individual Greek organizations.'

Apparently, the CFSC reflects views so diverse that the Council President and Vice-President disagree as to the meaning of Sigma Nu's statement, and so publicly present two different positions of the CFSC on the same issue. Sigma Nu, in their May 10 statement, acknowledged this institutional dysfunction, and proposed it be remedied with a new Greek Council. 'We propose the formation of a separate advocacy body for Greek organizations, the Dartmouth Greek Council, to be a principled voice for Greek societies,' the fraternity said, 'to secure stronger and more accurate representation for Greek houses on campus, and to publicize the often overlooked Greek contributions to the life of Dartmouth College.'

That a council of Greek organizations should be performing these functions, and that the CFSC is not, should be evident to every attentive Dartmouth student. However one feels about Zeta Psi's present discontents, it remains clear that few people, and no Greek leaders, have been willing to make their case.

But it's an easy case to make. After a painstaking hunt for some rule by which to penalize Zeta Psi, Redman settled on three: one charge of harassment and two violations of the fraternity's own local and national bylaws. Yet, as Zeta Psi's Psi Epsilon Chapter at Dartmouth noted sensibly in a public statement, 'Dartmouth College lacks jurisdiction to punish Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi for alleged violations of policies and procedures of Zeta Psi Fraternity of North America, Inc. That power rests with Zeta Psi Fraternity of North America, Inc. Likewise, Dartmouth College lacks jurisdiction to punish Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi's for alleged violations of its own rules or regulations. Such power is reserved to Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi.'

The only alleged violation based on Dartmouth policy is the charge of harassment. Standard II of Dartmouth's Standards of Conduct asserts that 'Students and student organizations must not engage in behavior that threatens the safety, security or functioning of the College, the safety and security of its members, or the safety and security of others.' Among the examples of such behavior are 'Coercion, harassment (including abusive conduct directed at an individual and repeated) or hazing. Harassment is defined as abusive behavior or conduct that is targeted at an individual or group and is ordinarily repeated.'

No one charges that Zeta Psi's production of 'The Zetemouth' threatened the safety of the College or its students. At most, the newsletters were disrespectful or degrading, as Dartmouth President James Wright charged in his April 19 letter. Dean of the College James Larimore tried to apply the College's definition of 'harassment' to Zeta Psi by insisting that the newsletters 'targeted fellow students for abusive comments.' But the newsletters didn't so much target other students as mention them in the context of a meticulous chronicle of Zete brothers' social lives. Beyond that, newsletters, as printed words, don't constitute 'behavior or conduct.'

And to commit harassment, of course, you actually need to communicate your slurs to your victim. Title 62 of New Hampshire's criminal code, in section 644:4, provides that a person is guilty of harassment, 'a misdemeanor, and subject to prosecution in the jurisdiction where the communication originated or was received, if such person: (a) Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with a purpose to annoy or alarm another; or (b) Makes repeated communications at extremely inconvenient hours or in offensively coarse language with a purpose to annoy or alarm another; or (c) Insults, taunts, or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response; or (d) Knowingly communicates any matter of a character tending to incite murder, assault, or arson; or (e) With the purpose to annoy or alarm another, communicates any matter containing any threat to kidnap any person or to commit a violation of RSA 633:4; or a threat to the life or safety of another; or (f) With the purpose to annoy or alarm another, having been previously notified that the recipient does not desire further communication, communicates with such person, when the communication is not for a lawful purpose or constitutionally protected.'

Most sensible people readily acknowledge that you can't harass someone if you never communicate with him in any way. Of course, Dartmouth administrators are renowned for their lack of sensibility. Zeta Psi didn't commit harassment. They published a newsletter for internal consumption. 'The Newsletters were not intended to be seen or read by individuals who were not members of Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi,' explained the fraternity. 'The Newsletters were not meant to be disclosed to members outside of Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi. They contained private communications. One Newsletter became public after it was stolen from Zeta Psi premises, a second alleged Newsletter was made public when it was taken without permission from a member's room, and a third Newsletter was destroyed by Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi.' That last newsletter became public only after Melissa Heaton '02 climbed into a dumpster, fished out torn-up pieces of the newsletter amidst other refuse and putrescence, and reassembled it with Scotch tape. One would be hard-pressed to argue that Zeta Psi 'harassed' Heaton.

In fact, Zeta Psi didn't threaten or harass anyone outside their house. They did communicate the content of the newsletters to their own members, who themselves were ridiculed in 'The Zetemouth.' Potentially, then, one could argue that Zeta Psi harassed its own members, who were targeted by their publications. Even then, it's difficult to contend that Zete had malicious or abusive intent—also required for harassment—in parodying their brotherhood.

When it comes down to it, no Dartmouth policy prohibits Zete's newsletters, which, while potentially offensive, do not constitute threats or harassment. As Zete's critics are so fond of saying, Dartmouth College is not bound to extend First Amendment rights to its students. Dartmouth must, however, abide by its own regulations, as outlined in the Code of Conduct in the Student Handbook, which constitutes a legal contract between Dartmouth's students and the administration. In 1988, Dartmouth notoriously suspended students affiliated with The Dartmouth Review on charges of 'vexatious oral exchange.' Finding that Dartmouth had violated the procedural rights guaranteed in the Student Handbook, a New Hampshire Superior Court Judge ordered the College to readmit the students and to pay them damages for missed classtime and lost tuition. A 'private college is equally obliged not to violate any of the contractual rights of its students,' he wrote.

Dartmouth's Student Handbook provides that 'Freedom of expression and dissent is protected by Dartmouth College regulations. Dartmouth College prizes and defends the right of free speech.' James Wright confirmed the policy when he wrote, in his May 11 statement on the Zeta Psi matter, 'We do not have a speech code at Dartmouth.' Wright then continued to explain why the mere lack of a speech code will not deter Dartmouth from punishing students for the content of their speech: 'it is hard to understand why some want still to insist that their 'right' [notice the quotation marks] to do what they want trumps the rights, feelings, and considerations of others. We need to recognize that speech has consequences for which we must account.' In fact, says James Wright, Dartmouth has a de facto speech code.

Dean Larimore, in his statement, acknowledged that Zeta Psi's newsletters do, in fact, fall under the purview of Dartmouth's Principle of Freedom of Expression and Dissent. Still, Larimore chastised those who 'argue that anything that an organization can characterize as expressive conduct must be tolerated even though it violates the rules and standards of our community. They assert, in effect, that the Principle of Freedom of Expression and Dissent 'trumps' all our other rules—that it is a license for an organization to engage in any and all expressive behavior, subject to no standard whatsoever... Dartmouth has the right and the obligation to remove from its residential life system an organization that will not conform to the standards of that system.'

If the Principle of Freedom of Expression and Dissent does not allow students to dissent from the standards of their community, one naturally wonders from what, precisely, students are permitted to dissent. The notion of college-approved dissent also seems counter-intuitive. In fact, says James Larimore, Dartmouth de facto lacks a Principle of Freedom of Expression and Dissent.

Some contend, with cause, that Wright and Larimore just aren't too bright; their doublespeak might simply verify their incapacity for coherent thought. More likely, though, the obfuscatory nice-nellyism of official Dartmouth speaks to an increasing willingness to violate the contractual rights of students to further the crusade against fraternities. Dartmouth's leaders resort to some strange rhetorical contortions when they endeavor to preserve the Principle of Freedom of Expression and Dissent in policy while at the same time denying that it ever actually protects students from official discipline.

Legally, Dartmouth is not required to extend rights of freedom of expression to its students—as long as such rights are codified in the Student Handbook, however, Dartmouth is bound to respect them. When a fraternity stands accused of offending patrons of the Women's Resource Center, no one acknowledges this point. Were the Women's Council accused of offending fraternity members in their rallies and chalkings, no limits to free expression would be countenanced.

If the CFSC acted as an advocate for the Greek system, the Council might have at least mentioned that fraternity members are no less entitled to the guarantees of the Student Handbook than are other Dartmouth students. But the CFSC, for some reason, embraces Dartmouth's discrimination against Greek-affiliated students.

Fortunately, Zeta Psi appears less willing to submit to arbitrary and inequitable treatment. 'Dartmouth College has shown that it will not respect the right to free speech, particularly when some find that speech to be subjectively offensive. We find such actions by Dartmouth College incompatible with its own rules and regulations, contrary to its own educational mission and at odds with its responsibility as a preeminent institution in a free society,' the fraternity announced this week. 'At present, Psi Epsilon of Zeta Psi will consider its appeal rights and whether further legal action is merited.'

As Zeta Psi guards the legal rights of Dartmouth's Greek societies and students, Sigma Nu has concerned itself with CFS houses' moral rights. 'At the same time Sigma Nu initiates substantive change within our organization, we challenge those opposed to the Greek System to reexamine their assumptions about organizations within it,' wrote the fraternity. 'The members of Sigma Nu assert the right to exist as a privately owned, single-sex organization, and ask you to respect our effort to work for the betterment of our membership and, by extension, the Dartmouth community as a whole.' It's about time someone made the case for the Greek system at Dartmouth. The CFSC has been making the opposite case.

Speaking For The Greeks

Article Tools

Related Articles