Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!harpo!decvax!dartvax!scot From: scot@dartvax.UUCP (Scot Drysdale) Newsgroups: net.college Subject: Re: ``Dartmouth on Trial'' Message-ID: <1715@dartvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-May-84 15:38:34 EDT Article-I.D.: dartvax.1715 Posted: Tue May 29 15:38:34 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 08:02:21 EDT References: <539@dual.UUCP> Organization: Dartmouth College Lines: 99 <> I had hoped not to get involved in this, but since a request was made for comment from someone at Dartmouth, here goes. I am a CS faculty member. The Wall Street Journal article is somewhat selective in its details and in my opinion rather biased. Two of their "facts" are in fact incorrect. First, Miss Polenz's case has been indefinitely postponed. Second, the New Hampshire District Attorney's office is actively investigating the case. (The school has postponed any action to avoid prejudicing state criminal action.) The diabolical discipline committee is the Committee on Standing, and is a student, faculty, and administrative committee charged with trying violations of the Dartmouth Honor Code and Principles of Community. The Principles of Community states, "The life and work of a Dartmouth student should be based on integrity, responsibility, and consideration. In all activities each student is expected to be sensitive to and respectful of the rights and interests of others and to be personally honest. He or she should be appreciative of the diversity of the community as providing an opportunity for learning and moral growth." I assume that any disciplinary action would be for violation of this principle rather than for violation of state law. The COS, like all other Honor Code committees that I know, is not set up with a judge, jury, prosecutor, and supeona powers. Student appearing before it, however, have brought lawyers, witnesses, asked questions of other witnesses, etc. Perhaps the committee should be a more formal "legalistic" system, but I think that this is another question. The meeting in question was a discussion group sponsored by the Gay Students Association. It was advertised as a confidential forum where students could discuss their homosexuality or questions about their homosexuality. It began with a pledge of confidentiality. (Accounts differ as to whether each participant made an explicit pledge or the leader of the group made some general question about "Does everyone agree that what is said in this room will not leave this room?" and nobody disagreed. I expect the latter is the case.) The reporter presented herself as a women with questions about her sexuality. She did NOT identify herself as a reporter, and did NOT explain that she was secretly taping the meeting. She later published a partial transcript of the meeting. Fortunately, most (but not all) names were deleted. Unfortunately, enough personal details remained that some closet gays are identifiable. (This is gleaned from various articles rather than direct knowledge of what happened.) This is a big improvement over a couple of years back, when the Review stole the membership list from the Gay Student Association office and published part of it. The legal situation is as follows. There is a New Hampshire law against wiretapping, etc. which forbids the taping of private conversations or meetings without the knowledge of the participants. The legal question is whether a publicly advertised meeting with an understanding that the discussion would be confidential constitutes a private meeting. The second question is whether the reporter's actions violate the Principles of Community quoted above. My personal opinion is that her actions were morally repugnant and violate the Principles of Community. I do not know if they were legal. A further question is whether the editor of the paper violated a law in assigning the reporter to tape the meeting. (The editor originally denied, and later admitted, assigning the reporter to the meeting.) Again, I do not know. The Review is a self-styled "conservative" paper that attempts to use "humor" to deflate liberal balloons. It tries to do outrageous things to get national publicity. The final sentence of a Review editorial on this issue was, "Dartmouth, welcome back to the limelight." (Approxiate quote - don't have the paper here.) The last time the Review made national news was noted by another person in this DL, but the details were a bit confused. The article was not on welfare, but affirmative action. (The Review is against affirmative action, Women's Studies, Afro-American Studies, homosexuality, liberals, "excessive" spending on computers in an attempt to create "Dartmouth Tech", and a number of other things. They support the return of the Indian symbol for Dartmouth athletic teams (eliminated in the early 70s because of Native American students' objections), a Western Civ "core course" requirement, ROTC, and conservative causes.) The article was supposedly a letter from a Black Dartmouth student to his family. In part it read, "And who be mouthin' 'bout us not bein' good read? I be practicly knowin' "Roots" cova to cova, till my mind be boogying to da words! An I be watchin' the Jeffersons on TV 'til I be blue in da face." My own opinion of the Review is not very high. Some of its positions I agree with. For others I can see reasonable arguments. However, the yellow journalism, personal attacks, and derisive "humor" like that quoted above and the quote, "The question is not whether women should be educated at Dartmouth, but whether they should be educated at all" make it hard to take them seriously. They have attacked and deeply hurt a number of people on campus (students, faculty, and administration). Their antics tend to make me resist their arguments even when I agree with their conclusions, which I must admit is not often. As for this particular case, the Wall Street Journal article strikes me as very biased. I certainly believe the Review has a right to publish and to oppose student money going to the GSA. They certainly have the right to do investigative journalism and to object to how GSA funds are spent. But for a reporter to mis-represent herself as a student who is worried that she is gay to tape-record a confidential support group meeting without the knowledge of the participants and to then publish painfully personal details about students at the meeting is certainly immoral and in my opinion violates the Principles of Community that she agreed to on matriculating. Scot Drysdale (scot@dartmouth) ({decvax, cornell, linus}!dartvax!scot)