<p>“I’m just pointing out that the danger of the entire house being charged for cocaine use, or any members at all, for that matter, is not great, unless someone is making the affirmative effort to report the activity.”</p>
<p>Supposing that to be true, anyone could make that effort at any time. The reporting student in this case was subject to the possibility that any other member or guest might see the use and report it, or casually mention it to a third party who reported it. There was also the possibility that college officials or police would stop by for some unrelated reason and be admitted to the house, only to notice some drugs or paraphernalia left in plain sight. Both these scenarios are pretty common in the law enforcement world. So the odds that the police would find out about the common-room cocaine use, endangering the records of everyone in the house, weren’t nearly as long as you make them out to be.</p>
<p>^Fair enough, but if the likelihood of this happening is true in the real world of Dartmouth fraternities, then one would assume that they must bastians of propriety, in the legal sense, the majority of the time. The cocaine usage at issue would presumably be an anomaly.</p>
<p>Right. I don’t think they’re “bastions of propriety” – but underage drinking is not a felony, unlike coke possession. Getting a ticket is no fun, but it won’t ruin anyone’s future. If other felonies are taking place, like sexual assault, they’re probably happening in the bedrooms with the door shut, not the living room.</p>
I congratulate you for raising such a great kid, but this only shows your son and his friends have no racial bias. If you examine some of these Greek organizations, racism and sexism persist. You are right I should have said “some Greedk organizations”.</p>
<p>Bay: what would you suggest the Campus Security do in this instance? Tell the guys to knock it off, go back to their office and write up a report: “We were called to the scene by a student who reported other students using a controlled substance. We found said students in possession and destructing personal property. We also found said students threatening/intimidating other student(s). We told the boys to be good and left. Suggest a dean check into it during office hours.” (Note: Campus Security does not have a detention facility…)</p>
<p>The police had probable cause because it had been reported to them by campus security. The campus police presumably went to the building and asked to be let in (or the door was open) and someone let them in. If you’re going to be doing something illegal, plan for the possibility of getting caught.</p>
<p>Or, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.</p>
<p>It is impossible to say, without knowing more of the facts, which unfortunately I doubt we will ever know.</p>
<p>We don’t know whether either campus security officers or the police officers actually witnessed the cocaine being used. They may have caught the men in the act after being called and admitted to the scene by Aubart, or Aubart may have told them about it, and they subsequently searched the area and the persons and found it. (As I understand it, the witness tampering (harassment) occurred later - after the arrests had been made).</p>
<p>In any event, I would expect the campus security officers (are they law enforcement officers or private security guards?) to proceed in the same manner they would have with any Dartmouth students alleged to be doing drugs.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, the article said there were more arrests anticipated. This made me wonder whether a “sting” operation might have been staged, or if Aubart has turned in the names of other members he alleges have also used cocaine on the premises, that the police are now investigating.</p>
<p>Now that I think of it, the article made it sound like the men were recently arrested for the incident which occurred on the early morning of May 13. That makes me think that the officers did not actually witness the drug use taking place, but rather conducted an investigation that led to the arrests a week later, presumably with Aubart as the primary witness.</p>
<p>The responses in this thread are an interesting contrast to the threads about cheating. If kids should look the other way when someone is doing dope in their living room, then why shouldn’t they look the other way when classmates cheat?</p>
<p>^^And most do because they are confronted with a moral dilemma that is not easily resolved–loyalty to one’s friends/peers or compliance with formal rules/expectations.</p>
<p>There is no easy answer in many such conflicts, as in this one. The context and particular circumstances must be taken into consideration.</p>
<p>What should a student do if a roommate, housemate or anyone is using an illegal substance in an area where that student is going to get hit with the consequences if this is discovered? Especially after those users have been asked to stop? </p>
<p>My one son had that problem. Expulsion from college housing is the consequence for illegal drugs being found in such housing. Everyone in the house could be found guilty. Sort of like the gun in the car or dope in the car rule. Everyone in the car can be legally charged if that is found in there. My son had roommates that were casual about drug use and then became careless, then outright obvious and flouting it. He asked them, then warned them, and then finally left the house when he realized that it was not going to stop. He was in a particularly rough predicament, because he was on a sports team that had a high profile incident and all team members were under scrutiny and told that there would be a no tolerance for them.</p>
<p>Do you call the police and report the license plate numbers of people who you see going 10 miles an hour over the speed limit or parking illegally? Probably not. Would you report someone you saw committing a hit-and-run or seriously driving to endanger? Probably more likely. Why? because you are able to distinguish between behavior that has a high likelihood of harming others and behavior that does not.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, laws and rules that involve group guilt are bad, IMHO, and should be overturned. Your son was put in a difficult position. He made a good decision in leaving the house. That option was open to Aubart. One can make a very valid case that a person should not have to make that choice. Certainly the housemates in both cases were guilty of selfish behavior. In Aubart’s case, however, one can imagine him eagerly prosecuting gay service members. Too bad for him that DADT will probably be gone b the time he gets to JAG.</p>
<p>It is very difficult to 100% know someone is cheating. A kid can brag he cheated, it may look like a kid cheated, but to be 100% sure and to be able to prove it is not easy. Accusing someone of something that cannot be proven is a dangerous thing and not advisable.</p>
<p>If you are certain something wrong is being done, you have a high likelihood of proving it, and the severity of the consequences of that action is ruinous to you, ignoring it and NOT reporting it, or getting completely out of the situation is a risky thing for you. As Nightchef said, what is at stake is a big issue here. Would you report murder? Someone being injured? Someone stealing? Someone cooking meth? Where do you draw the line?</p>
<p>Sorry just joining this thread. As a Dartmouth alum I will say one thing, there are less hardcore drugs (such as cocaine) on the Dartmouth campus than almost any school I’ve ever seen. I never saw cocaine once on campus, and I would say I was incredibly active socially. Just isn’t a big part of the social scene.</p>
<p>Consolation: In Aubart’s case, however, one can imagine him eagerly prosecuting gay service members. Too bad for him that DADT will probably be gone b the time he gets to JAG. </p>
<p>I think it is a pretty gigantic leap from reporting illegal drug use to assuming that the person is (or would be) eager to prosecute gay service members – much as it is a gigantic leap to assume that since one of the drug users retaliated against Aubert by peeing on his clothing that it is likely that the drug user would next go commit rape or murder. It is possible, but not something one can draw an inference from based on the very limited information that has been printed. </p>
<p>Kids do stupid things – but in this case, the kids who were clearly doing stupid things were the two that were using coke in the common room, particularly after they’d been told by someone who had some responsibility for the house not to.</p>
<p>Technically, or at least logically, you are right, but the act of urinating on someone else’s property as retaliation is so repulsive and agressivie in a particularly male way, that I would not be surprised that a man capable of that would also be capable of rape. In this whole ugly story, that detail, for me, is the ugliest. It is such a base act. I guess it’s a sort of proof (as if we really needed it at this point) that high SAT scores and intelligence do not always go hand in hand.</p>