Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/04/22/whither_the_speech_code.php
Friday, April 22, 2005
The waters surrounding Dartmouth's speech restrictions have grown even murkier following recent ambiguous comments from President Wright. In a front-page Daily Dartmouth story entitled "Ivies Confront Free Speech Uproar" [4/7/05], Wright is quoted as purporting to "stand by the statements that this is a community where we value each member."
The "statements" to which he refers are those in a May 10, 2001, letter in which Wright wrote that "speech has consequences for which we must account" and claimed that the 'right' to exercise it freely does not "trump the rights, feelings, and consideration of others." This letter is one of the foundational documents that led the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) to give the College its worst rating for free speech.
However, the status of this letter as official college policy is uncertain. As we reported last issue, it and one other letter, from Dean of the College James Larimore, were mysteriously removed from Dartmouth's website in mid-March. Moreover, contrary to the claims of Daily D reporter Rebecca Rombom that President Wright "stands by the assertions in the letter," the President merely commented that "free speech does not mean that you're free from criticism for what it is that you said." This, of course, is self-evident, and "criticism" is very different from punitive action, which Zeta Psi fraternity received in the form of permanent de-recognition following the incident which triggered the letter.
The meaning of Wright's comments became even more uncertain (if that is possible) following an April 18 op-ed in the Daily D by Robert Donin, the College's general counsel, which ostensibly responded to a April 14 op-ed from Richard Roberts '83, President Emeritus of Zeta Psi's Alumni Association.
Echoing what has been written in these pages and echoed by FIRE for years, Roberts explained how Zete's de-recognition on the bogus grounds of harassment and violating internal rules punished the free exercise of speech by its members in the name of community (which, of course, Dartmouth is entitled to do as a private institution, but not if it simultaneously purports to allow free speech; see TDR 6/11/01).
Donin wrote in the Daily Dartmouth that students
Do not have the right to single out other individuals for demeaning and humiliating treatment. The harm created by such conduct—distinct from any 'message' the speaker may be seeking to covey—is not protected by the First Amendment.
This is non-responsive to the issue at hand, according to David French, the President of FIRE, because "statements about individuals," the crime for which Zete was ostensibly de-recognized, "are expression and not conduct." While the contents of Zete's internal newsletter were impolitic, to the say the least, they simply do not rise to the level of action, Dean Redman's claims about harassment not withstanding (one who fishes negative comments about oneself from a dumpster is not the passive recipient of harassment).
In the portion of his column that is responsive, Donin attempts to minimize the importance of Wright's and Larimore's letters by noting that they were written in response to a specific incident. However, French observes that, despite the particularity of their origin, these missives could justify the punishment of speech generally.
Donin further notes that the letters "express the writers' personal convictions about racist, sexist and homophobic behavior and the effect of such behavior on the college community" and are not "official 'policies'…per se," whatever that means. (One can only hope Donin was speaking for the College, and not merely himself, in making this statement).
French expresses skepticism at this remark in light of the prominent place afforded the letters on the website until they were removed. He also asserts that only a formal revocation of the policy set in President Wright's March 10, 2001, letter, or a statement indicating clearly that this letter is not College policy, coupled with a reversal as all punishments meted out based upon its contents, e.g. the de-recognition of Zeta Psi, will cause FIRE to improve Dartmouth's free speech rating. In the meantime, the cascading ambiguity (and occasional disappearance) of official statements make the nature of the College's restrictions on speech a deepening mystery.