The Undergraduate Chair
AN obscene fraternity newsletter, carelessly dropped on Main Street in early November, triggered a complicated series of events which resulted in a campus-wide controversy concerning the fundamentals of student self-government and the structure of fraternities at Dartmouth.
As a partial outgrowth of the situation two student government leaders have resigned over different aspects of the issue.
The tangled controversy, fraught with confusion and alleged misinterpretation on the part of both administration and undergraduates, can be traced to the week before Houseparties when a copy of a fraternity newsletter containing an obviously obscene skit was picked up by a passerby on Main Street and brought to a Hanover Town Selectman, who in turn sent the paper to the Dean's Office.
Just two days after the first obscene newsletter was found, secretaries in the College's Central Duplicating Office forwarded two additional pieces of obscene literature - a second newsletter and a pledge skit - to the Dean.
Earlier in the Fall Term two off-color public incidents had occurred which aroused protests but no disciplinary action by any College agency. But the administration, and student leaders, agreed that these were simply isolated cases and they did not believe any trend had set in.
During an informal meeting on November 16 between Dean Seymour, three members of Palaeopitus, the executive committee of student government, and two members of the Interfraternity Council Judiciary Committee, the problem was discussed and the course of future action agreed upon. Varying interpretations of what was actually said and what was actually meant at this meeting proved to be one reason for the ensuing controversy.
At the conclusion of that closed session, Palaeopitus came away with the understanding that the IFC-JC would not try the cases individually, but would deliberate on the general problem of obscenity in the fraternity system.
The seven-member JC met on November 23, with the presidents of the three fraternities involved, all of whom were members of the committee, retaining their seats, on the grounds that the "problem," not the individual cases, would be discussed. Deciding that in the past the question of obscenity had been treated vaguely, that there was a tradition of non-enforcement, and that a lack of precedent existed for punitive action, the IFC-JC agreed that a statement of policy concerning future cases of this nature should be issued.
On November 29, William B. Hayden '66, IFC-JC chairman, addressing an IFC meeting, stated that no further obscene literature would be processed through Central Duplicating, and he "strongly urged" its total discontinuance altogether.
At the weekly Wednesday meeting of Palaeopitus and the Deans, Palaeopitus asked the Committee on Administration to postpone a review of the IFC-JC action until Palaeopitus itself could study it. On December 5 Palaeopitus reviewed the case of its own accord, and, after a lengthy discussion, upheld the IFC-JC's original principle that the cases could not be tried because of the history of nonenforcement. They requested, however, that the JC broaden its statement to include all cases of blatant obscenity, and that each house president be asked to read the statement to his brotherhood.
Two days later the IFC-JC accepted Palaeopitus' recommendations and rewrote its statement for distribution at the next full IFC meeting in January.
Up to this point in the proceedings there was no overt misunderstanding between any of the involved parties. Properly appointed student bodies had looked into the problem and hit upon a solution in the form of a sharp warning to all fraternities.
On December 10 the Committee on Administration received Palaeopitus' endorsement of the IFC-JC decision, and Palaeopitus was under the impression that it had been granted final authority in the matter and the case was now closed.
The Committee, however, did not believe it had conceded right of final jurisdiction, and, unhappy about the disposition of the case, proceeded to reopen its own investigation, calling in the president and pledge-master of one of the houses involved.
Jeffery W. Amory '65, chairman of Palaeopitus, wrote Dean Seymour indicating that he sought an explanation of the Committee on Administration's decision to review the case, and he said that if the IFC-JC's course of action was overruled, Palaeopitus would be compelled to protest strongly.
Prompted by the lack of response to his mid-December letter and the Committee on Administration's assumption of a prerogative he believed it had relinquished, Amory submitted his resignation as chairman and member-at-large of Palaeopitus on January 5. "The effectiveness of student government at the College is directly related to the freedom and candor of Palaeopitus' communications with the Administration and vice versa," he said in a prepared statement. "I am sure that, were I to remain on Palaeopitus, I would be doing a great disservice by impeding the necessary re-establishment of the group's rapport and open communication with the Administration."
The following day, on January 6, the Committee on Administration issued a statement after deliberating the obscenity cases. The statement accused the IFC-JC of "conducting an improper and inadequate investigation," and Palaeopitus of misunderstanding "their authority by assuming that this [the original] disposition of the case was final and binding."
"Nonetheless," the statement continued, "the Committee accepts the IFC-JC and Palaeopitus recommendation in order to give these bodies the full benefit of the doubt." But, after accepting the student decision, the Committee virtually eliminated the usefulness of the IFC-JC by assuming "direct jurisdiction in future disciplinary cases involving behavior in fraternities."
It was a Pyrrhic victory for student government. Although the Committee upheld the decision, it changed the rules so that the IFC-JC would not make any such decision again. "We did not and do not believe the IFC-JC did a responsible job in their investigations," said Dean Seymour, a member of the Committee on Administration. One ground for this belief was the failure of the IFC-JC to disqualify the presidents of the three offending houses as members of the judiciary committee in this case. And the Dean added, in tougher terms, "I have said to the fraternities for seven years that someone at sometime would want to take a hard look at the fraternity system, and they better be ready for it."
On Monday evening, January 10, Hayden read the revised statement of the IFC-JC to the fraternity presidents, telling them that "in the future, instances of this nature will be the responsibility of every man in the fraternity system and especially of the individual house officers. Incidents will be subject to judicial review and definite punitive action." Then, citing the Committee on Administration's ruling that the JC had acted "improperly," and stating that he felt his "continued service will hamper the future relations between the JC and the Faculty Committee," Hayden submitted his resignation.
On Monday Dean Seymour sent ten copies of the obscene literature which had triggered the controversy to the offices of The Dartmouth by special messenger, a campus policeman, since it is unlawful to send lewd materials through the mails, even the inter-campus mail. The hundreds of wide-eyed students who poured into the paper's offices to get "a peak at the porn" agreed that, without question, the items were obscene.
But the issue had never been over the definition of what constitutes an obscenity, but rather centered around the assumption of student prerogatives by the administration and a belief on the part of the IFC-JC that it had been agreed, because of the lack of precedent, not to thoroughly investigate or try the individual cases, but rather deal with a general problem.
Campus reaction to the administration's decision was intense and firmly on the side of the student agencies. TheDartmouth termed the action of the Committee "a major rebuff to the ideal of student self-government and student responsibility," and strongly urged "student government and the student body to oppose in every reasonable way this latest decision of the Committee on Administration and to work actively towards the strengthening of student judicial bodies."
On Wednesday, January 12, Palaeopitus, under the leadership of newly elected Chairman Herbert N. Brown '66, and newly appointed IFC-JC Chairman Jeffrey L. Rogers '66, huddled with Dean Seymour and the Committee on Administration in an attempt to restore the lines of communication and mutual understanding which had been sorely disrupted by the clash.
The result was a reversal of the Committee's decision to try cases of fraternity discipline and the return of this right to the IFC-JC. The Committee "expresses confidence in the readiness of Student Government to take responsible and forceful action on matters of fraternity discipline."
Peace. At what seemed to be the conclusion of the dispute, the tangible results were few. The IFC-JC had issued a strong statement about obscenities and the Committee on Administration had demonstrated its determination to insure what it considered quality in student governmental decisions. But two major elected undergraduates had seen fit to resign over alleged misunderstandings in the middle of their terms. And a feeling of distrust between the Deans and Palaeopitus had inevitably developed, a feeling that will take weeks, possible months, to erase.
But, perhaps, the most lasting outgrowth of the controversy will be a deeper appreciation on the part of the Deans of the genuine desire of students to govern themselves responsibly and "play it fair" all the way along the line. The misunderstandings which caused the resignations will in the future be resolved when they first arise, not after action has been taken.
But one thing is certain—fraternities are in for a long and tough battle of survival. The obscenity cases illustrated some of the weaknesses of the system, and another was revealed during a Christmas Holiday inspection of the 24 houses on campus.
The Committee on Student Residence suspended the cooking privileges of sixteen fraternities on account of violations by these houses of the Health and Safety Code adopted by the Interfraternity Council last February and approved by the Committee in June.
Dean Charles Dey who conducted the inspection said that many kitchen areas showed "unbelievable filth," including rotting food, unwashed dishes piled in sinks, and perishable food that had been left in refrigerators that had been turned off.
With two-thirds of the houses denied cooking privileges, and the entire system shaken and cautious after the obscenity controversy, the fraternities prepared to weather a verbal attack by Dean Richard Unsworth of the Tucker Foundation, an avowed anti-fraternity man, who took to the Rollins Chapel pulpit in mid-January to scold the houses in his sermon, "Liberty, Puerility, and Fraternity."
The case against fraternities is becoming stronger, but house men all over campus are turning from their kegs to some thoughtful consideration about the ills of the system, and, more importantly, what can be done to correct them. Improvement and strengthing must come from within the present structure of student government. The recent controversy demonstrated the capacity of undergraduate leadership to retain control of their own affairs. Responsible steps must now be taken to rectify those impurities which exist in fraternities while retaining their essence of fellowship.
If the present College undergraduate generation fails to respond to the challenge, the future of the fraternity system at Dartmouth will indeed be bleak.
