<p>@Hunt “I agree that they are idiots, and that they should be socially ostracized. However, I have to draw the line at official punishment for speech that they exchange in private, among themselves. If that kind of speech isn’t free, then no speech is free.”</p>
<p>I think there is an important difference here between free speech, and consequence free speech.</p>
<p>For example, we are free to swear and yell at our bosses, but they are free to fire us if we do. Free speech means that you will not go to jail for what you say, but there can be consequences.</p>
<p>I do not think students should go to jail, but I see no reason a college should not be able to throw them out, as any boss might do if someone is inappropriate at the office. Being enrolled at a college is a privilege and not a right. </p>
<p>To me, the most important priority is to establish the college campus as a safe and non-threatening environment for students of any race, sex, or religion. When the rights of fraternity members collide with those rights, I think the priority has to be given to establishing a safe and non-threatening environment on campus. </p>
<p>It seems to me that as a society, we’re not willing to do what it would really take to significantly reduce underage drinking. Perhaps that’s partly because so many people don’t really support the current drinking age in the first place, and perhaps it’s because we don’t want to put a bunch of teenagers in jail. But instead we have this sort of don’t-ask-don’t-tell situation.</p>
<p>Yes, but they do have my license and might be able to connect me to what I bought. The point was more that someone is preventing me from buying an OTC drug unless I both provide my license and acknowledge I won’t violate the related law because of a perceived risk that is neglible vs. the risk of teen drinking. </p>
<p>How about liquor stores within 10 miles of a college have to scan licenses and get electronic signatures? They scan my license to buy Sudafed, it is NOT just a visual check. </p>
<p>Those song lyrics were written by John Valby at Middlebury College in the 1970s. They are not indicative of fraternities, Georgia Tech, or many of the other ills of society. They are indicative of the fact that 14 to 20 year-old boys will find forbidden lyrics amusing. Publishing them as if they were recent original creations was meant to shock people. </p>
<p>My oldest (at about 16) showed me CeeLo Green’s original video of “Forget You” from before he changed it from the other F word. He found it amusing in a way a 50 year-old would not. It does not serve as evidence one way or another of his personality.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang, I find this stuff repugnant in the extreme. But do you think that singing this stuff is limited to fraternities?I remember people I knew at Wellesley, of all places, repeating bawdy songs such as “The Freshmen Down at Yale” back in the 70s. (Not as horrible as much of this stuff, I must say.)</p>
<p>Rhandco, it is my understanding, perhaps faulty, that in Hanover right now kegs are tagged but hard liquor is not. I believe that the student proposal involves tagging hard alcohol sales.</p>
<p>They sing about violence about women, and send around email about how to commit violence against women, and then some of them go out and commit violence against women. If your fraternity contains rapists, then maybe “joking” about rape is not such a good idea. And if you want to distance yourself from your fraternity brothers who are rapists, then, again, maybe “joking” about rape is not the way to do it.</p>
<p>Sorry, but obscenity is not “protected” speech under the First Amendment. That was well settled by the Supreme Court in 1973 in the Miller case. While I doubt any sane person would question whether those lyrics fit the definition of “obscene”, the test the Supreme Court set forth is contained in the article linked below for those who care to delve that deep. Once speech or material is deemed “obscene” it no longer enjoys constitutional protection and it is up to that community to apply their own standards and values. Certainly a college community has every right to ban this sort of speech and material from their campus. </p>
<p>The fraternity brothers surely cannot claim they are willing recipients of the material as such an admission would certainly mean the dismantling of the fraternity. Such depravity is diametrically opposed to the frats stated mission which includes “exemplary character” and “ethical leadership.” The frats website also has a pledge that all brothers take to oppose sexual violence against women - not sure how that squares with those lyrics and emails.</p>
<p>Further, speech which incites illegal acts or violence also loses it protection under the constitution. Certainly the lyrics and emails do just that, and the lawsuits were instituted by 2 women who claim they were raped in circumstances similar to the instructions in the “playbook” email. The advisor to the frat who was charged with overseeing the meetings and with “risk management” is named as a defendant in the lawsuits and has disconnected both his home and work telephones. I think there is little chance of this frat being successful with any constitutional challenge to those lyrics or email even if they had the stupidity to attempt such a defense. </p>
<p>Consolation, when the Dartmouth Panhellenic Council Vice President Michelle Khare says she feels [the</a> Greek system isn’t a “safe place” for women,](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Dartmouth Student Says She Was Sexually Assaulted After Website 'Rape Guide' Named Her | HuffPost College) I conclude Dartmouth, and the fraternities in particular, have a rape problem. That doesn’t mean every fraternity member is a rapist, or most fraternity members are rapists, but some women get raped by fraternity members, and the past the few women who have been brave enough to step forward have not gotten what I would call justice. In New Hampshire, as everywhere else, it’s difficult to convict a rapist, for reasons both good and bad.</p>
<p>It sounds to me like the entire social scene at Dartmouth is so far off that the college hiring bouncers and bartenders so that fraternities can dispense beer to students, some underage, is not the solution. I would favor something more drastic.</p>
<p>@Magnetron I am sorry but there is no comparison to Cee Lo Green’s “Forget You” and the lyrics or email in question in this thread. They are not even remotely related in their repugnance. It’s beyond me how you can see any relevance there.</p>
<p>And I certainly hope you are not implying that these lyrics would be “amusing” to anyone more or less 14 to 20 year old boys. This is not something any decent adult should marginalize or attempt to chalk up to “forbidden lyrics” that boys might find amusing. </p>
<p>Yeah. Those lyrics don’t fall under the category of hey, not in mixed company. In fact, it is hate speech. If someone thinks that is fine just sub in a group of whites discussing African Americans in this way. No. </p>
<p>I like that there are outraged fathers on this thread. </p>
<p>If I’m to be told that this is the just the kind of thing men say about women for fun, then I’m being told we have a real problem in out culture the way we once did with racism. I actually believe we don’t. I believe we have some problematic young men, but most of them see this more and more clearly as the sickness it is. </p>
<p>ETA: Saying there is a long tradition of misogynistic hate songs against women is like saying there is a long tradition of black face. Who cares?! </p>
<p>You don’t have to expel students who circulate pro-rape emails, but it would probably be smart to take the college’s name off of the fraternity house where that kind of thing goes on. Students understandably, though wrongly, expect an official college organization to be safe. They may continue to visit an underground, unrecognized fraternity, but at least the school isn’t putting its imprimatur on the operation.</p>
<p>“You don’t have to expel students who circulate pro-rape emails.”</p>
<p>I think you do. Would you expel students who were advocating violence against people of color or who were circulating anti-semitic emails. I would. </p>
<p>“Cardinal Fang, I find this stuff repugnant in the extreme. But do you think that singing this stuff is limited to fraternities?I remember people I knew at Wellesley, of all places, repeating bawdy songs such as “The Freshmen Down at Yale” back in the 70s. (Not as horrible as much of this stuff, I must say.)”</p>
<p>“Take Your Man Around the Corner,” sung to the tune of “I’ve Been Working On The Railroad.” </p>
<p>The implication here is that the social scene of Dartmouth revolves around alcohol, since there is the implied assumption that the fraternities’ purchase of alcohol to serve to other students is an essential part of their role in providing social spaces for students.</p>
<p>If that were not the case, then the most sensible thing for the fraternities to do is go completely dry, which would result in considerable monetary savings for them (no more buying beer and other drinks for everyone else), as well as reduced liability and bad press due to drunken stupidity or worse. Among traditional age college students, 3/4 are underage anyway, and those who are legal (seniors) are probably less prone to wild partying than lower class levels.</p>
<p>“I think you do. Would you expel students who were advocating violence against people of color or who were circulating anti-semitic emails. I would.”</p>
<p>Oh, at a private school I certainly would. At public schools, I wish we could. But at a public school, the speech needs to be a pretty clear threat to justify expulsion. For example, the guys who put a noose on the statue of James Meredith at Ole Miss, a public university, were rightly and constitutionally expelled. That’s a threat of violence communicated to black members of the community. But the rape emails that I’ve seen vary a lot in terms of whether they meet the legal standard of a credible threat (which erases First Amendment protection).</p>
<p>@Hanna Georgia Tech itself found a “credible threat.” PKT was disbanded in March for violating the terms of their suspension given after the so-called “rape bait” email and for exhibiting a “pattern of sexual violence that…suggests a deep-rooted culture within the fraternity that is obscene, indecent and endangers women,” according to the disbandment letter. </p>
<p>According to the notification of decision sent to the fraternity by the Office of Student Integrity (OSI), the fraternity was found responsible for violating six sections of the Student Code of Conduct including the underage use of alcohol and a count of a sexually related offense.</p>