tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post5725640318077379500..comments2023-10-18T10:43:07.116-04:00Comments on Super Dartmouth: Zywicki on the Student Life InitiativeDavid Nachmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08467960851266307551noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-49453846598106363022008-01-06T17:07:00.000-05:002008-01-06T17:07:00.000-05:00Zywicki's past views on a past program are interes...Zywicki's past views on a past program are interesting now that he has got himself in hot water. But they are not worth discussing on their merits. His unsolicited and somewhat ignorant opinions on a program that no longer exists should stay in the archive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-28634767291793125702008-01-06T13:16:00.000-05:002008-01-06T13:16:00.000-05:00"How exactly does one incorporate the spirit of th..."How exactly does one incorporate the spirit of the Principle into their charter"?<BR/><BR/>Easy. Insert a sentence in the Preamble or Purposes section that says "The Chapter values all community voices" or whatever. It would take a few minutes at the annual house corporation meeting. It's easy, and it does not make the Principle adjudicable. <BR/><BR/>Emmet's conclusion that the Principle has become adjudicable does not make any sense, and it's in an article that's several years old, full of idiotic statements, and written by Emmett. Just because he says so does not make it so.<BR/><BR/>"Dartmouth organizations are required to not discriminate, but that's Dartmouth-wide policy, not a facet of the Principles of Community."<BR/><BR/>How is that relevant? Dartmouth organizations are required to clean up their lawns, too, if they have them.<BR/><BR/>"presumably Redman approved Zete's recognition every year, including accepting its charter. But when Zete gets in trouble for other reasons, suddenly its charter is no longer acceptable."<BR/><BR/>You need to get the facts on this. I'll bet Zete's violation was prior to its next re-approval, and it was never re-approved after being told to amend its charter the first time. And if Zete was approved notwithstanding its failure to amend, then wasn't that kind of Dartmouth? The corporation probably only meets at Homecoming, meaning that a correction would take months; Dartmouth avoided derecognizing Zete for a silly matter of months after it made assurances that it would comply next time around.<BR/><BR/>None of this is confusing or nonsensical. If Dartmouth's derecognition were unjustifiable, then Zete (with Toddy on its side) would have sued. The Zete corporation knows better than anyone whether Dartmouth followed its own rules, and they haven't bothered to take any legal action at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-44567392527443219722008-01-04T14:31:00.000-05:002008-01-04T14:31:00.000-05:00According to Review article:"The vehicle for this ...According to Review article:<BR/><BR/>"The vehicle for this was a requirement of the Minimum Standards that says fraternities and sororities are obliged to incorporate the spirit of the Principle of Community into their charters. Thus, Dean Redman claimed the ability to punish them for violating the spirit Principle of Community."<BR/><BR/>How exactly does one incorporate the spirit of the Principle into their charter. Dartmouth organizations are required to not discriminate, but that's Dartmouth-wide policy, not a facet of the Principles of Community. <BR/><BR/>None of this makes any sense. According to the rules, CFS organizations need to be re-recognized every year. So presumably Redman approved Zete's recognition every year, including accepting its charter. But when Zete gets in trouble for other reasons, suddenly its charter is no longer acceptable.David Nachmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467960851266307551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-18925657508171513622008-01-04T14:21:00.000-05:002008-01-04T14:21:00.000-05:00You're right, as you said originally, that "Recogn...You're right, as you said originally, that "Recognition for all Dartmouth College CFS organizations is conditioned on adherence to [the] ... General Requirement[] ... that its conduct, purpose, and activities are consistent with the mission of Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth College Principle of Community."<BR/><BR/>So why, again, do we think that Dartmouth has ever punished a group for violating the Principle? It says clearly that the Principle is not adjudicable. A 2001-era comment to a Reviewer, repeated third-hand, is not an example.<BR/><BR/>I still think you've fallen into Emmett Hogan's willful self-confusion. Zete's punishment for failing to amend its charter was not a punishment for <I>violating</I> the Principle. (Hogan was also confused about the difference between an individual and an organization, between state action and private action, between criminal and civil law, and between a speech code and something else, but we'll let that go.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-50938503128717328652008-01-04T11:45:00.000-05:002008-01-04T11:45:00.000-05:00Anon. 9:15 - It's a January 2000 article, but inte...Anon. 9:15 - <BR/>It's a January 2000 article, but interesting because of his recent controversial comments.<BR/><BR/>Anon. 1:40 - <BR/>Abiding by the Principle is listed as a condition for recognition in the CFS handbook, which is linked to in the post.David Nachmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467960851266307551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-44103428752182367422008-01-04T09:19:00.000-05:002008-01-04T09:19:00.000-05:00There's a difference between requiring organizatio...There's a difference between requiring organizations to put the Principle into their charters and actually requiring them to abide by it.<BR/><BR/>Where does Dartmouth say that "abiding by the Principle of Community is a condition for the recognition of Greek organizations"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-49008900302718652652008-01-04T09:15:00.000-05:002008-01-04T09:15:00.000-05:00So Zywicki called out the SLI while it was launchi...So Zywicki called out the SLI while it was launching. Now that it's dead, why's he still talking about it as if it's some kind of threat? How relevant is his scary "social engineering" theme when the very program he's talking about was officially buried by the administration?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-62427017069996862422008-01-03T15:02:00.000-05:002008-01-03T15:02:00.000-05:00My overall point here is there is faulty logic in ...My overall point here is there is faulty logic in dealing with the Principle of Community:<BR/><BR/>The college says that the Principle of Community are not enforceable: <BR/><A HREF="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~deancoll/documents/handbook/principles.html" REL="nofollow">"Because the Principle of Community is a statement of aspirations and values and not a promulgation of rules, it cannot be the basis of a disciplinary hearing."</A><BR/><BR/>Yet abiding by the Principle of Community is a condition for the recognition of Greek organizations, which places the Princple beyond merely being "aspirations" and certainly into the category of "rules"David Nachmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467960851266307551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-62880309578997260012008-01-03T14:51:00.000-05:002008-01-03T14:51:00.000-05:00The quote was from a 2001 Dartmouth Review article...The quote was from a 2001 Dartmouth Review article, as I mention, so Redman was talking to the article's author, not to me.<BR/><BR/>When I talk about "judicial," I mean within Dartmouth's judicial system, namely the Committee on Standards for students and the Organizational Adjudication Committee for organizations (including Greek organizations) which are authorized by the trustees to conduct disciplinary hearings.<BR/><BR/>In comparing the potential adjudication of the Principles of Community, I was making the point that holding hearings on whether students or organizations have been "respectful" and have been promoting "moral growth" is not dissimilar to a Congressional committee trying to determine whether or not citizens are "patriotic" and acting "American"David Nachmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08467960851266307551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5036978896178117588.post-44304033391365560502008-01-03T13:40:00.000-05:002008-01-03T13:40:00.000-05:00Now hold on a minute -- Dartmouth committees might...Now hold on a minute -- Dartmouth committees might be like HUAC in the sense that they are unfair or questionable or have other flaws, but that's as far as the parallels go. Dartmouth is a private institution, not a government or a branch of one. <BR/><BR/>There is no rule at Dartmouth that is "judicially enforceable" as some kind of law, rather than as a mere condition of a student's contract for housing or an organization's contract for official recognition. <BR/><BR/>There has been no judicial enforcement of Zete's punishment.<BR/><BR/>A student, for example, who fails to pay or violates some other term of his contract, such as the requirement that he follow published rules of behavior, can see that contract terminated or some lesser penalty enforced. If the student sues Dartmouth for breach of contract, a court might or might not uphold such penalties depending on whether they comply with the requirement (in the contract) that Dartmouth act reasonably. In the Cole case, the court did not excuse the students' behavior (it was not at issue) but found that Dartmouth's penalty in that case was not reasonable -- in contract terms.<BR/><BR/>It seems unlikely that Dean Redman told you that Zete was being punished for violating the Principle of Community. You must recognize that a group's failure to amend its charter [for any purpose, including the incorporation of the spirit of the Principle] is completely different from a violation of the Principle itself. Are you sure Dean Redman didn't say he was punishing Zete for this omission, not for a violation of the Principle per se?<BR/><BR/>Even if he did say that, I wouldn't put much stock in such an unofficial comment to you. You seem bent on creating a legalistic system of discipline at Dartmouth, one that imitates the civil court system, and so you shouldn't mind having only official rulings to work with, not personal comments. The official reasons for Zete's punishment were its violation of a Dartmouth Standard of Conduct and two violations of the house's own local and national charters, according to the Review.<BR/><BR/>As punishment, Dartmouth terminated whatever contract it had with Zete. Zete was free to sue but did not. You are going to have to work really hard to try to turn this contract question into a "free speech" issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com