fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) (05/26/84)
From the Review & Outlook column (editorials)
of today's (Friday May 25, 1984) Wall Street Journal:
Consider a trial in which the defendant is accused of a
serious crime, one that puts the defendant's future in jeopardy.
The defendant has no real right to a lawyer; no right to cross-examine
hostile witnesses; no right to compel his own witnesses. What's more,
the committee that functions as prosecutor is also the judge and jury.
Three in one!
What we have just described is not an 1850 lynching nor a
Kremlin trial of a dissident scientist, but a disciplinary committee
of a major American university. In a microcosm of what seems to be
happening at many such universities, this afternoon Dartmouth College
will try freshman Teresa Polenz for allegedly violating state law by
taping a meeting of the ``Gay Students Association.'' Miss Polenz
attended as a reporter for the Dartmouth Review, then wrote an article
on just what the GSA does with the money it gets from Dartmouth
College.
Why is Dartmouth College trying Miss Polenz under state code
when the state hasn't yet acted on the case? Perhaps the state read
its own law, which seems to prohibit only covert taping of private
conversations, not public meetings. The seesion in question was widely
announced in a local student newspaper and held in a large conference
room. But Dartmouth is steaming ahead, partly because of pressure from
homosexuals, partly because Miss Polenz works for the Dartmouth
Review.
For the uninitiated, the Review is one of a spreading number
of independent voices on college capmuses that the liberal academic
establishment regards as heretical. As these opinion organs have
attracted a larger student and alumni following, the war has been
getting rougher and it has become evident that the ``academic
freedom'' so much praised and defended on high-prestige campuses only
applies to right-thinking folks.
One thing the Review does is question the status of such groups
as the GSA, and we can understand why Dartmouth administrators would
like to avoid such tough questions. Is the group subsidized to promote
homosexuality? Is it merely there to promote discussion on the issues
of sexual preference? If the latter, what's the harm in reporting on it?
And is it truly seditious for students to ask why such a group is
funded by the college?
Dartmouth deans argue that Dartmouth has no requirement to be
fair: A private school can do what it pleases. That's questionable as
a legal assertion, and Miss Polenz may test it, if she's punished. It
is beyond the questionable as a moral assertion. The real issue in
today's trial is the skewed vision of free speech and free inquiry
that seems repeatedly to appear in the academic world today.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I would be most interested in comments from the folks at `dartvax' and
`dartlib' from any point of view, since they are most certainly closer
to the real situation. While I was at UCB, I spent a year as treasurer
of the Computer Science Undergraduate Association, and so I know what
kinds of politicking goes on in student governments. The most irritating
part of my job was filling out the damn forms for ALL expenditures.
The greatest challenge was protecting my group's budget from the
vagaries of the Associated Students of the University of California
(ASUC, pronounced "a SUCK") Student Senate when budget time came
around in early May.
besides, net.college was getting boring,
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA
dual!fair@Berkeley.ARPA
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!fair
Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, Californialkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (05/27/84)
From: fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) For the uninitiated, the Review is one of a spreading number of independent voices on college capmuses that the liberal academic establishment regards as heretical. ----- For the uninitiated, the Review is a reactionary William F. Buckleyesque rag which gained national notoriety a while back for publishing a racist article criticizing some welfare program by using a stereotypical "nigger" (dumb, lazy, etc.) talking about the issue using a caricature of black ghetto language. -- Larry Kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) (USE) ..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk (ARPA) lkk@mit-mc
rpk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Krajewski) (05/29/84)
From: lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
Message-ID: <1955@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-May-84 14:30:39 EDT
From: fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair)
For the uninitiated, the Review is one of a spreading number
of independent voices on college capmuses that the liberal academic
establishment regards as heretical.
-----
For the uninitiated, the Review is a reactionary William F.
Buckleyesque rag which gained national notoriety a while back for
publishing a racist article criticizing some welfare program by
using a stereotypical "nigger" (dumb, lazy, etc.) talking about the
issue using a caricature of black ghetto language.
This is certainly true, but it is not the issue. Even if the Review had
never published such an article, they would have come under the same
duress. Why is it OK for some groups to be required to answer their
differences of opinion before the usual process of discussion in public
forums ? In the incident which provoked this discussion, the Review had
done nothing wrong, or worse, Buckleyesque.
There is another issue which is not entirely legal in nature. It would
seem that Dartmouth does not have to nurture acdemic variety by law, since
they are a private organisation. Certainly there are other private and
religous institutions of higher learning that are just as close-minded in
their overall makeup as Dartmouth is alleged to be in its. Why should a
college support academic freedom ? After all, doesn't it seem to be a lot
more tranquil if you do not have to constantly argue with Marxists,
Baptists, monetarists, anarchists, socialists, capitalists, Hegelians,
existentialists, hippies, punks, old cronies, the Tri-lateral commission,
nerds, jocks, and other assorted flotsam and jetsam ? But I digress. The
implication is that intellectually, conservatism at Dartmouth is not
allowed an equal footing with, say corporate or grass-roots liberalism.
What is it like at Dartmouth ? The Boston Globe article on the Review seemed
a bit equivocal on the climate. Maybe everybody else just loves to gripe
about how badly they get treated by everybody else.
To give you an example of how convoluted the question can be, take
philosophy at Harvard. The chairman of the department is Robert Nozick, a
Brooklynite whose {\it Anarchy, State and Utopia} is a libertarian tour de
force. Another biggie in the department is John Rawls, of almost
aristocratic origins, whose redistributive theory of justice is very
influential. Harvard is seen as a bastion of liberalism, and here we have
a non-liberal in an important ideological position. But then again, Rawls
tends to be more popular with the students in the philosophy department.
It is safe to say that Rawls brand of justice is more popular with young
intellectuals than Nozick's, so how did Nozick get where he is ?
--
``Bob'' (Robert P. Krajewski)
ARPA: RpK@MC
MIT Local: RpK@OZ
UUCP: genradbo!miteddie!rpk
or genradbo!miteddie!mitvax!rpkscot@dartvax.UUCP (Scot Drysdale) (05/29/84)
<>
I had hoped not to get involved in this, but since a request was made for
comment from someone at Dartmouth, here goes. I am a CS faculty member.
The Wall Street Journal article is somewhat selective in its details and
in my opinion rather biased. Two of their "facts" are in fact incorrect.
First, Miss Polenz's case has been indefinitely postponed. Second, the
New Hampshire District Attorney's office is actively investigating the
case. (The school has postponed any action to avoid prejudicing state
criminal action.)
The diabolical discipline committee is the Committee on Standing, and is
a student, faculty, and administrative committee charged with trying violations
of the Dartmouth Honor Code and Principles of Community. The Principles
of Community states, "The life and work of a Dartmouth student should be
based on integrity, responsibility, and consideration. In all activities
each student is expected to be sensitive to and respectful of the rights and
interests of others and to be personally honest. He or she should be
appreciative of the diversity of the community as providing an opportunity
for learning and moral growth." I assume that any disciplinary action would
be for violation of this principle rather than for violation of state law.
The COS, like all other Honor Code committees that I know, is not set up with
a judge, jury, prosecutor, and supeona powers. Student appearing before it,
however, have brought lawyers, witnesses, asked questions of other witnesses,
etc. Perhaps the committee should be a more formal "legalistic" system, but
I think that this is another question.
The meeting in question was a discussion group sponsored by the Gay Students
Association. It was advertised as a confidential forum where students could
discuss their homosexuality or questions about their homosexuality. It began
with a pledge of confidentiality. (Accounts differ as to whether each
participant made an explicit pledge or the leader of the group made some
general question about "Does everyone agree that what is said in this room
will not leave this room?" and nobody disagreed. I expect the latter is the
case.) The reporter presented herself as a women with questions about her
sexuality. She did NOT identify herself as a reporter, and did NOT explain
that she was secretly taping the meeting. She later published a partial
transcript of the meeting. Fortunately, most (but not all) names were deleted.
Unfortunately, enough personal details remained that some closet gays are
identifiable. (This is gleaned from various articles rather than direct
knowledge of what happened.) This is a big improvement over a couple of
years back, when the Review stole the membership list from the Gay Student
Association office and published part of it.
The legal situation is as follows. There is a New Hampshire law against
wiretapping, etc. which forbids the taping of private conversations or meetings
without the knowledge of the participants. The legal question is whether a
publicly advertised meeting with an understanding that the discussion would
be confidential constitutes a private meeting. The second question is whether
the reporter's actions violate the Principles of Community quoted above. My
personal opinion is that her actions were morally repugnant and violate the
Principles of Community. I do not know if they were legal. A further question
is whether the editor of the paper violated a law in assigning the reporter to
tape the meeting. (The editor originally denied, and later admitted, assigning
the reporter to the meeting.) Again, I do not know.
The Review is a self-styled "conservative" paper that attempts to use "humor" to
deflate liberal balloons. It tries to do outrageous things to get national
publicity. The final sentence of a Review editorial on this issue was,
"Dartmouth, welcome back to the limelight." (Approxiate quote - don't have
the paper here.) The last time the Review made national news was noted by
another person in this DL, but the details were a bit confused. The article
was not on welfare, but affirmative action. (The Review is against affirmative
action, Women's Studies, Afro-American Studies, homosexuality, liberals,
"excessive" spending on computers in an attempt to create "Dartmouth Tech",
and a number of other things. They support the return of the Indian symbol for
Dartmouth athletic teams (eliminated in the early 70s because of Native American
students' objections), a Western Civ "core course" requirement, ROTC, and
conservative causes.) The article was supposedly a letter from a Black
Dartmouth student to his family. In part it read, "And who be mouthin' 'bout us
not bein' good read? I be practicly knowin' "Roots" cova to cova, till my
mind be boogying to da words! An I be watchin' the Jeffersons on TV 'til I
be blue in da face."
My own opinion of the Review is not very high. Some of its positions I agree
with. For others I can see reasonable arguments. However, the yellow
journalism, personal attacks, and derisive "humor" like that quoted above and
the quote, "The question is not whether women should be educated at Dartmouth,
but whether they should be educated at all" make it hard to take them seriously.
They have attacked and deeply hurt a number of people on campus (students,
faculty, and administration). Their antics tend to make me resist their
arguments even when I agree with their conclusions, which I must admit is not
often.
As for this particular case, the Wall Street Journal article strikes me as very
biased. I certainly believe the Review has a right to publish and to oppose
student money going to the GSA. They certainly have the right to do
investigative journalism and to object to how GSA funds are spent. But for
a reporter to mis-represent herself as a student who is worried that she is
gay to tape-record a confidential support group meeting without the knowledge
of the participants and to then publish painfully personal details about
students at the meeting is certainly immoral and in my opinion violates the
Principles of Community that she agreed to on matriculating.
Scot Drysdale
(scot@dartmouth)
({decvax, cornell, linus}!dartvax!scot)