<p>Dartmouth’s honor code (called the Honor Principle) deals pretty much exclusively with questions of academic (dis)honesty and not criminal behavior. Its alcohol/drug policy is here: [Alcohol</a> Policy](<a href=“Home | Dartmouth Student Affairs”>Home | Dartmouth Student Affairs). Neither one <em>requires</em> students to turn in offenders. This is not West Point.</p>
<p>However, I still don’t understand how some here have gotten confused over who are the wrong-doers in this story - the guys who bought and used cocaine or the guy who turned them in. I agree that The Snitch is not generally an admirable figure in our society, but he did nothing wrong and certainly nothing illegal. The Dopers, on the other hand, appear to have committed felonies. Why is this a confusing concept? Why are we so quick to forgive the felons and to condemn the guy who turned them in? Doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>You have to look at the context. The law will do this; it will consider all of the circumstances before rendering a decision.</p>
<p>If I serve my 18-year old a glass of champagne in my home, or smoke a joint with my spouse in my bedroom, do you think I should go to jail? Some people on this thread apparently must think so. I don’t think so. Laws on the books don’t always match the realities of life. Flexibility is always appropriate.</p>
Whether the fraternities should be eliminated is a different story, but reform is definitely needed. This is not an isolated incident as people have pointed out before. There is this pattern of behavior associated with the Greek organizations including racism and sexism that runs against the values of a modern university.
If the murders keep on happening in the dorm and you cannot prevent it from happening again, of course you would consider reform it or close it.</p>
For many of us, it makes sense because we have deep reservations about the reasonableness of the law in question. Remember, calling them “felons” is a legal judgment, not a moral one, and it’s only moral transgressions that we individual humans can forgive or condemn. It’s for the courts to dispose of the legal ones.</p>
<p>My assumption will be that Brown lets it go with a slap on the wrist ( loss of housing maybe ) as they have not been convicted of any crime.They will graduate and be gone. The national fraternity will put the house on probation and that will be that.</p>
<p>I assume everyone is lawyered up. One might expect the only charge that will hold would be possession for personal use. Therefore they would be expected to complete an outpatient drug program of some sort and be on probation for so many months. If they don’t have anymore charges the record will be expunged and it will be like it never happened. </p>
<p>If the law school has a problem he can apply to schools when his record is expunged.</p>
<p>I guess it depends on one’s definition of wrong doing. Mine is, “does it hurt someone else?”</p>
<p>It may not be illegal to lie, but it is reprehensible. </p>
<p>In some states sodomy is illegal, but I would not want my neighbors peaking in windows to look for violations.</p>
<p>I am not excusing the “wrong doers.” They made be utterly obnoxious. They used an illegal substance in a semi-public place after warnings. Not attractive behavior. And their response – not attractive either.</p>
<p>However, their intent or behavior did not harm the futures of those around them. The “snitch’s” may have. </p>
<p>And the honor code of the ROTC may be different than Dartmouth’s, so I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as well.</p>
<p>Compassion should always be the guiding principle in my opinion.</p>
<p>I agree. So we should applaud, or at least not condemn. the guy who brought this activity to the attention of the authorities so that the law can have a chance to consider the context and all the other factors and render a decision. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And what would be even crazier would be if they refused to reform or close the murder-ridden dorms because it might upset alumni who had lived in those dorms in days gone by - which is Dartmouth’s current weak-kneed response to out-of-control frats.</p>
<p>No. The dopers harmed THEIR OWN futures when they chose to commit the felonies. If they hadn’t chosen to do that The Snitch would have nothing to report.</p>
<p>Who is actually responsible here for the criminal behavior? The criminals or the snitch?</p>
<p>It is relevant because it is NO accident that this type of illegal behavior occurs at a … fraternity house. One of the reasons being that frat houses enjoy a heightened protection from the control that the university SHOULD maintain throughout the campus. </p>
<p>However, eliminating all fraternities on campus will NEVER happen. After every incident, there is remorse (real and fake), a short period of quietness, but this is followed quickly by a return of the previous behavior. However, not all fraternities are one and the same --and the difference is even more striking among sororities. Not all fraternities are deeply anchored in binge drinking, rushing abuses, and other illegal or immoral activities … but MANY are.</p>
<p>So what is wrong by actively closing the chapters that have repeatedly violated basic standards? Is there anything wrong with closing local chapters that simply cannot behave? Is there anything wrong by closing an entire fraternity if a non-accidental death occured at one of their local chapters? </p>
<p>When is enough … enough?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an example why generalizations do NOT work well. As you cite, there ARE fraternities that provide positive influences. Unfortunately, the publicity related to fraternities is rarely positive. </p>
<p>Shouldn’t people who support the role of fraternities on college campuses be as interested in closing the rotten apples as much as the observers who consider the abusers a cancer and a perennial risk for influencable young persons?</p>
<p>There are differences between using pot occasionally and using stronger drugs. There are differences between drinking socially and binge drinking. There are differences between pledging and hazing. It so happens that some won’t or can’t understand those not so subtle differences.</p>
<p>S joined a fraternity with two friends from his freshman dorm. My S is white. His two friends are African American and Southeast Asian. My S’s house, like many others at northern schools, withdrew from its national organization decades ago over racist policies at the national level, and only rejoined the organization after those policies were changed. Where’s the racism? I suggest that you stop painting with a broad brush. Some frats may well be racist. Others are not. </p>
<p>What “pattern of behavior” are you saying this reveals? Doing drugs in college? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that students do not do drugs in their dorm rooms or off-campus apartments? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that there is less drug use at schools without frats? You’ve got to be kidding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I for one do not equate legal/illegal with right/wrong. Plenty of things are or have been illegal that I do not consider to be wrong, for example: having sexual intercourse with a person of the same gender or outside of marriage, drinking alcohol, using birth control, distributing birth control devices and information, marrying a person of another race. Just to cite a few. </p>
<p>I would observe that most of the violence associated with drug use has been caused by their illegality, just as Prohibition resulted in a crime wave and violence. I do not think that consumption of any drug ought to be illegal. It certainly may not be <em>wise</em>, but that does not equate to “morally wrong” or “harmful to others.” (Although, as I said before, OUI should be strictly enforced no matter what the substance involved.)</p>
<p>In what way is a person who snitches on people doing drugs in their own home any better than the villain who turned in Julie and Steve for miscegenation in Show Boat? After all, both activities were illegal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree. I would also agree that houses that commit offenses against persons, such as hazing, should be strictly sanctioned. D has in fact closed various houses and required them to remain closed for years. They are currently working on the issue of drinking culture, although how much success they will have remains to be seen. Personally, and I know it is heresy to say so, I would rather see kids kicking back with a bong on the weekends than drinking. No one ever died of a bong overdose!</p>
<p>I am in fact not a huge fan of fraternities. I’ve known a few chapters that were in general very positive influences, and others that were not. I wouldn’t mourn if they all vanished tomorrow. But I am, as I said earlier, really ticked off by those who insist upon portraying all brothers in all houses everywhere as miscreants.</p>
<p>It doesn’t cover everything but it’s a good place to start - a good first approximation. </p>
<p>Everyone knows that there are unjust laws. But the solution to unjust laws in a civilized society is to seek to change the law. And failing that to resort to civil disobedience. But one of the key tenets of civil disobedience is a willingness to submit to and endure the punishments of the unjust law in order to achieve moral authority over it. </p>
<p>We are clearly not dealing here with a case of moral civil disobedience. These are just some dopers snorting cocaine.</p>
<p>I have trouble with this logic, too. A security officer sworn to uphold state and federal law is called upon a situation where people are committing a felony, (and trashing community property and threatening another community resident). That Security officer can either hold the ‘alleged’ perp for the local police, or walk away; the latter is a dereliction of duty. (There is no in-between – Dartmouth does not have a college jail/holding cell for on-campus crimes.)</p>
<p>WHAT college, without its own police force, has a administrative process-only for felonies in action? Heck, even if they have their own police force on campus, what college can ignore a felony in progress?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no guarantee of no harm to others in the house. What is NH law in this respect? What is federal law with respect to drug use in common areas? How much will it cost for an attorney to bail out the innocent after they are all hauled down to the local jail for ‘questioning’? (I seriously don’t know, and I’m guessing most 20 year-olds don’t know either.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair question, but some of the Frats at Dartmouth have a reputation for ‘voluntary’ use of controlled substances during pledging/hazing. Thus, it can become endemic in that culture.</p>
<p>That’s the problem. He’s a man trying to lead an honorable life living with people who have no interest in honor except in the twisted way they have come to define it; covering for those whose favors they may need later in life. </p>
<p>That a veteran and ROTC student is being smeared repeatedly in this thread says much more about those attacking him than it does about the man himself.</p>
<p>I’ve dipped in and out of this thread and am really surprised to see people so quick to defend the cocaine users and use words like “snitch” against the law-abiding guy.</p>
<p>Would you feel different if the drug was pot? How about heroin? How about meth? Would campus security have handled it different if it was pot? I wonder.</p>
<p>I would feel different if the drug was pot. It is not consistent with my argument that it’s illegal and nothing else matters. I lump the other three in the same category.</p>
<p>Okay, fine. I do not care that he was in the armed forces or ROTC. I don’t see how having chosen to participate in either activity gives him a free pass on anything else he does.</p>
<p>I would feel no differently if it were pot. I personally believe that all drugs should be legal, with a tax that would pay for high quality rehad for those who wish to quit. </p>
<p>However, drugs are not legal. This fraternity admitted at least one member who could lose their scholarship and destroy their career before it even starts if they are associated with illegal drug use. He asked them not to do it in public areas. They did it anyway. </p>
<p>The news articles also speak of brothers who prevented those arrested and their friends of doing more damage to the brother’s property who called campus security. Thankfully at least some are able to both belong to this fraternity and not succumb to a Lord of the Flies mentality.</p>
<p>wow. apparently none of u (blaming the ROTC guy) have driven through a community that’s been devastated by cocaine… </p>
<p>well, i guess this thread proves cnn wrong. cnn’s constantly trying to paint black people as a monolithic group that fiercely adheres to a “no snitchin’” policy. LOL</p>