Dartmouth arrests

Parents Forum
141

<p>I am APALLED by the responses calling the young man who reported the coke users a “snitch” and a “horrible friend.” </p>

<p>We have NO idea what the circumstances behind this were. Perhaps the brothers had been REPEATEDLY asked to stop doing the coke in the common areas. Perhaps they were dealing or doing other drugs and this was just the one they were caught in the act doing. Perhaps those brothers become VIOLENT when they did coke (they don’t sound like great people, judging from the intimidation tactics). I have personally witnessed 2 men do coke at a party and become dangerous (yes, alcohol can do this as well, & if someone became violent when drinking alcohol yet continued to do so, I hope they would have gotten their just desserts as well). Without knowing the circumstances we CANNOT make judgments. Perhaps they were stealing money or acquiring the coke in ways that were, well, less than upstanding. There are so many reasons one can think of that the ROTC soldier may have been “pushed to the edge” to report them. I have been disgusted by many of the posts on this thread.</p>

<p>Just like I do not judge these brothers for their use of coke (perhaps it was the first time they had ever done it, and it was just a ‘harmless’ experiment’), I do not judge this snitch, since perhaps there were various extenuating circumstances. HOWEVER, I do judge the frat brothers for the behavior following the incident.</p>

<p>“However, their intent or behavior did not harm the futures of those around them. The “snitch’s” may have.”</p>

<p>Absolutely UNTRUE. </p>

<p>There have been TWO at gunpoint robberies of entire off campus houses that have had confirmed links to drugs at UMD this year alone. Even though not all members of the house did drugs, all members of the house were put in a life-threatening situation. Dealing (which these people may have been doing but were lucky enough to not get in trouble for - again we don’t know the whole story) or even buying from certain dealers or simply being known for being in possession of drugs can put everyone in the house in physical danger. There have been no at gunpoint robberies of properties in the area simply for televisions or Xboxes. A small sample size? Yes. But very real to me and students here? Yes. </p>

<p>Additionally, it can 100% put other members of the house in danger with the school or with the law. At UMD, campus rules say if drugs are found in a dorm room, BOTH roommates are responsible and considered “in possession.” I wouldn’t be surprised if the person who turned them in thought the brothers were endangering himself and other frat brothers for expulsion/etc. by having the cocaine in the house and using it so publicly. Also, we don’t know where this coke was being stored or whether other members of the house could have been pinned with possession by the police even if university rules at Dartmouth are less stringent than they are here.</p>

<p>As an aside: GREAT, our president used coke. GREAT, many people who went on to be “successful” used coke. That doesn’t mean it was RIGHT and just because someone is president or “successful” doesn’t mean they deserve to be or that they are some fabulous upstanding character. I don’t know anything about Obama and if he is a thing like these frat brothers (intimidation tactics, hating on ‘snitches’ etc.) then that makes him a bad person, president status notwithstanding. </p>

<p>Ultimately, these kids made the choice to break the law. We all make the choice to break the law sometimes - we may speed, we may have done pot, we may have ran a stop sign, we may have publicly urinated or jaywalked, we may have had alcohol underage. And every time we break the law we weigh the consequences and accept that we may get a ticket, community service for possession, etc. Ultimately, it is these frat brothers’ fault that they CHOSE to do cocaine while knowing full well the legal consequences of their actions. I’m not necessarily unsympathetic (again I don’t know the circumstances) but this in no way can be the fault or responsibility of anyone but the individuals engaging in the illegal activity.</p>

142

<p>I absolutely can NOT go with the “kids will be kids” thinking. These are MEN. They are seniors in college.</p>

<p>I can see that a 15 year old texting a nude photo of herself might be a kid who doesn’t fully understand the consequences of her action – that is SO different than this. </p>

<p>There is no way that these men didn’t know that the cocaine was illegal – and that others around the house could be troubled or in trouble by their actions. What they chose to do was ignore those around them – and take up gross and petty acts of retribution. </p>

<p>What’s sad is that the other students in the house and in the same social circles will all be shadowed by this event. It will be a long time before this fraternity gets back from this mess.</p>

143

<p>Is this truly news? Like almost every college, Dartmouth annually has its share of students who drink or do drugs. The OPE indicates that an average of 3-4 Dartmouth students a year get arrested for drug law violations, and another 20 students a year get referred for disciplinary action for drug law violations. :confused:

Fortunately, that’s not a problem at some colleges. At Duke, for instance, students are strongly encouraged to contact the EMTs or Duke Med immediately if they notice a student in trouble - such students receive an immunity of sorts.</p>

<p>Formal disciplinary action for a violation of the alcohol policy will not be taken against students for whom medical assistance is sought, or against those who seek medical assistance for themselves or for others, provided that the student/group has not violated other university policies that warrant formal disciplinary action.</p>

<p>[Duke</a> University | Student Affairs | Student Conduct | Alcohol](<a href=“Duke Student Affairs”>Duke Student Affairs)</p>

<p>

My freshman year, I was startled while hanging out with some friends in my room by a banging on the door of the room next to mine. I went out in the hall - as did everyone else on the floor - to find the RA and a police officer banging on the door. Apparently the inhabitants of that room had chosen to smoke drugs and let the odor waft down the hallway. I don’t think the police or the school ever prosecuted them, as the officer wasn’t allow to enter a closed room, but the rest of the floor ridiculed those students for quite a while - they didn’t live it down anytime soon.</p>

<p>My junior year, I lived next to a themed housing group that had a reputation for recreational drug use (though containing several students with some of the big scholarships), and they threw parties in the section from time to time. The faculty in residence warned them that he’d call the cops if they continued the drug use…well, they did and he did. The rest of us had absolutely no sympathy for them.</p>

<p>It’s interesting to see how different the opinions here are, though perhaps not surprising given the demographics. Needless to say, the 60s/70s were before some of us were born. ;)</p>

144

<p>I agree that the ROTC guy was smart to call security. For those 60’s/70’s/80’s folks that think it’s no big deal, kids are much savvier today and many know that underage drinking and drugs can have serious consequences for students. With the increased drinking age and tougher drug laws, it’s not a game to them!</p>

<p>I read a bit of this thread and asked my 19-yo, who doesn’t use alcohol or drugs, (yes, I’m sure) what she and her friends would do if a roommate was. Her immediate response was “call security” because university policy is that ALL students in that room/apartment/house are going to be held responsible and, for drug offenses, it’s normal for the police to be involved. I think they have been well-advised to minimize the risks to their own records, financial aid, etc. by refusing to condone those activities within their living spaces. She has no problem with them doing it elsewhere, if that’s their choice, but simply will not risk her education and future over it and feels that she has the right to maintain her own integrity and live without the stress of illegal activities. She does have a problem with students cheating, and little sympathy for those offenders, but said she would not turn in a fellow student for that unless it somehow compromised her own integrity.</p>

145

<p>Urinating on someone’s clothes is an act of vandalism. That is a criminal charge. No, it is not murder or rape, but a criminal charge none the less.</p>

146

<p>Not all of us from the 60s/70s ran into the drug culture either. Drinking was always big at BC but I never ran into anyone doing cocaine while I was there. I personally don’t know anyone that’s tried it that has admitted it to me nor have I ever been in the presence of anyone doing it.</p>

147

<p>if my son was in this situation and lost his scholarship because he didnt tell , i would be furious! Kids know the rules going in, there are procedures in place for dealing with it, and i wouldnt find it acceptable, if my son said…well i didnt want to be a “snitch!”</p>

148

<p>

</p>

<p>I was wondering if anyone was going to point this out. I see this mentality all the time on this board. “Kids cannot always process the consequences of their behavior down the line, etc.” “Kids do impulsive things.” </p>

<p>Yes, that’s true…of kids. Anyone who is a senior in college is likely to be at least 22 years old, maybe even 23. That’s an adult-due to be out in the real world and expected to function as a full fledged grown up in a matter of weeks. They are certainly capable of behaving in a mature, responsible manner and of comprehending future consequences of their behavior.</p>

<p>It seems that society is extending childhood these days.</p>

149

<p>Sorry, but I can’t help picturing Phil Aubart as Douglas C. Neidermeyer in "Animal House,’ and the perpetrators as the luckless but lovable saps in the Delta Chi Tau house. Wasn’t the movie fashioned after Dartmouth’s fraternities? :)</p>

150

<br>

<br>

<p>Neidermeyer was entitled and it appeared that he had a privileged background. Aubert was an enlisted man. A look into the background of Lohse would show that he has far more in common with Neidermeyer and those of the poor students at Delta Chi Tau.</p>

151

<p>^ I don’t know, BCEagle, Neidermeyer supposedly came from a military family, so I’m not sure you could call him “privileged.” On the other hand, Otter, Hoover, Pinto and Flounder in the Delta Chi Tau house seemed like upper-middle class guys. :)</p>

152

<p>Of course we have no idea, really, what these people are like, but I’d just point out, from my own experience, that an entitled personality and a privileged background are two things that correlate much less closely than we are culturally conditioned to believe.</p>

153

<br>

<br>

<p>I see no indication that he had a background as an enlisted man.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>That’s five out of how many?</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Lohse and Aubert have written extensively on the internet. Lohse has written a bit more about his parents than I would be comfortable with but I guess that’s what kids do in the internet age.</p>

154

<p>If these “kids” don’t deserve to go to prison, they can make that case in a court of law. If you don’t like the law, call your elected officials.</p>

<p>If this had happened at LA Southwest College, would we be discussing it? Would there be such a hue and cry over the damage to the futures of these “kids”?</p>

155

<p>Dartmouth Policy on Drugs (don’t know if it has been updated since then):</p>

<p>Robert McEwen, college proctor and director of DSS, testified that it is against college policy for students to possess drugs. As of June 1995, the college’s policy with regard to controlled substances encountered by DSS officers was to destroy drug paraphernalia and small quantities of contraband and to report to the Hanover Police Department the rare instances in which large quantities of drugs were discovered or DSS suspected drug trafficking.</p>

<hr>

<p>As many of us suspected, reporting to DSS meant that they could use their discretion in this case to avoid the legal system.</p>

<p>There is far more interesting information in the case linked below. It appears that the Hanover Police had an informal agreement with Dartmouth that small amounts of drugs would be confiscated and eventually turned over to the Hanover Police. Large amounts would be referred to the Hanover Police.</p>

<p><a href=“Welcome | New Hampshire Judicial Branch”>Welcome | New Hampshire Judicial Branch;

156

<p>thank you, noimagination, THANK YOU!!!</p>

<p>nope. wouldn’t read a peep about it on college confidential. and certainly wouldn’t see anybody actually sympathizing with the cokeheads!!!</p>

157

<p>

</p>

<p>I would. I don’t think anyone ought to be prosecuted for first offense minor possession of drugs.</p>

158

<p>^ Well, that’s the prosecutor’s decision, isn’t it? If the government doesn’t want to take the case to court, they don’t have to. That doesn’t mean that security should allow illegal activities to occur without informing the appropriate authorities.</p>

<p>It’s good to see that you apply your views equally. I don’t think this is true of everyone and definitely don’t think it’s true of the media.</p>

159

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, its four. Animal House is based on a fraternity that existed in 1962. I’d venture to guess that Dartmouth didn’t have a particularly generous financial aid policy back then, so most likely, most of the students who pledged fraternities (which require dues) were probably upper-middle class or higher.</p>

160

<p>

Yes. The double standard you’re implying is not part of my worldview, and I think that’s true of more people around here than you’d think. We’re not all worshipers at the Church of the Sacred Top 20. </p>

<p>If anything, I’d be more concerned about the damage to the kids at the obscure little urban college, because they don’t have the resources a Dartmouth kid might have to make something like this bounce off their resumes.</p>

<p>The criminalization of recreational drugs is a hamfisted, draconian non-solution to a complicated social problem. And as long as the law has not caught up to this truth, I am against ever invoking the criminal justice system in response to drug use unless there are other, truly criminal issues involved, such as theft or violence. If Aubart warned his housemates that he would call the cops on them in the future, and they ignored this, then they have nobody but themselves to blame for the trouble they’re in–but that doesn’t mean Aubart was right either to make his warning or to follow up on it. </p>

<p>I’d be interested in knowing what, if anything, other members of their house have had to say about the situation.</p>