Perhaps the least brotherly thing one can do is report activity to the cops. The problem is that someone for some reason felt it necessary to call someone outside of the fraternity. The fraternity should have a process (albeit informal) for handling things like this without the law coming in. This idea that ‘brothers’s feel the need to call in outside authorities is absurd.

Anyone tired of the term “physical plant” being used instead of the term “house.” Anyone using the term “house” without a physical house is misusing that term, not people who call an actual house a house. Am I wrong on this one? Please help me.

I agree with Brandon, for once. “Physical plant” has got to go. Urination as a weapon of retaliation. Brilliant.

The act of not listening to the authority of the house manager is the behavior that is absurd. This guy didn’t call the police at the first sign of drug use; the men had a warning – which they chose to ignore. If house rules are to have any bite, they have to be enforced. The attitude of entitlement that says “I can break the law without repercussions” is the behavior that is absurd. At some point doing the right thing has to be the driving force of how you live your lives. And yes, we all make mistakes when we are young, but think about that before you arrogantly chose to use drugs in a public space where you’ve been told not to indulge your illegal habits. Some self control is required to be part of a healthy community. Evidently, the young men arrested in this incident now understand there are limits on their behavior. We would not be reading about this incident if the three young men had understood those limits earlier.

he was the house manager over sophomore summer. he did this not as a house manager but out of spite. wish him the best at duke law school.

Agree wholeheartedly with P ‘10. The behavior of the alleged cokeheads reeks of an intolerable sense of entitlement.

P'10, you’re a joke. He’s not even the house man. He was the house man. And regardless, since when is he an extension of the law? The men he tattled on like a six-year-old were his brothers. There is supposed to be a level of respect among brothers. The fact that he would act as a vigilante and permanently ruin the lives of two of his brothers (possession of cocaine doesn’t look too good on a record) is absurd, selfish, and childish. I simply can’t believe he would go to such an extreme length and not handle this within the house. Auburt deserves to be condemned and ridiculed for this ridiculous act. Even if he disagrees with drug use within the house, it isn’t affecting him. Just close the door and walk away, don’t be a child about it and go straight to the cops.

P'10 is absolutely correct. Brothers need to respect other members of their houses, especially execs, or former execs who were elected to serve the best interests of the house. After being warned multiple times, the brothers who were arrested should have known what was coming. They chose not to modify their behavior. At a certain point, people who are responsible for the safety of a house have no choice.

Where do brothers draw the line? What about the murder or rape of someone nobody likes? Or is this a case of all drugs should be legalized? What’s with Floyd Landis?

Does anyone else find Kyle and John’s comments absurd? The possession and illegal use of cocaine break the national law, and not just the college rules or Hanover town law. The fact that one is a Dartmouth student who has access to a nice frat house doesn’t mean that one is in Amsterdam – Hanover is NOT a refuge for drug abusers.

Why does none of this reporting mention the fact that the ‘10 who called security (Aubart) is one of the Veterans on campus? Maybe the feelings against him for “ratting out” brothers is really bias against his backround of military service. He certainly understands brotherhood. Maybe because he is also a DartBlog author who favored petitioner candidates perceived as conservatives?

For whatever reason, the Veteran and DartBlog connections are being repressed in all the reporting.

“There is supposed to be a level of respect among brothers.”

Yes, and it was lost after those with the cocaine continued to bring it to common areas after being asked/told not to. Public drug use in the house affects all its members.

John is the joker here; he cannot really be serious, can he?

Just coincidence that all links to the article about trustee investment conflicts of interest go to other articles? A subtle way to retract something where the administration wants less visiblity. How clever.

Another ‘10: Judging from your pseudonym choice, you appear to have incorrectly assumed that P'10 is one of your classmates. You will be graduating soon and will learn that P'10 is a parent of your classmates.

It appears your opinions align with values of the older crowd. Older and wiser. Welcome.

Those facts are insignificant. The ire towards him is due to snitching on his brothers.

Speaking as a brother in another fraternity campus, I completely understand those who bring up the legal issues concerning cocaine. I agree- drugs should not be allowed, just because it is done within a house on-campus.

That being said, being a brother in a fraternity means that you care for the well-beings of your fellow brother. The act of ruining the future lives of your peers by tainting their records is a representation- to me, at least- of personal vendetta. I believe that Aubart should have personally spoken to those involved and perhaps encourage them for rehab, or another program which could assist their drug dependencies. A fraternity member should care for the well-being of the other brothers in the house. To bring upon negative press, not only to the individuals but the entire SAE chapter, is a lack of understanding brotherhood within the fraternity system. I wonder if Mr. Aubart regrets his decision.

It is true that a lot of people dislike Phil Aubart;

It has little, if anything, to do with him being a veteran or a conservative.

There are a lot of veterans at Dartmouth. There are a lot of conservatives at Dartmouth. There are even conservative veterans besides Aubart. Aubart’s getting shit for other reasons.

Flaunting cocaine use in the common area after being repeatedly asked to stop? Ugh. The guys in SAE in the late ‘90s never would have tolerated that. It was a house with a reputation of “strait-laced” guys, a place where you could go and have a good time without the kind of debauchery that has been written about lately. Sad.

Don’t think that public drug use has any effect on a house besides the members involved. Think again. One of the oldest fraternities in the country at UVM almost got their house seized by the Feds for institutionally condoning drug use and distribution. They saved the house in the end, but cost them $50K plus court costs and lawyer fees. Aubert may have saved SAE their house. http://vermontdailynews.com/2010/01/fraternitys-cocaine-trafficking-forfeiture-case-settled/

Doing cocaine is a public space is stupid. Turning in your fraternity brothers for a drug crime is probably also stupid. Intimidating witnesses is beyond the pale, and is a much much bigger deal than either tattling or cocaine possession charge. Instead of a plea deal and drug treatment, these guys are now probably going to prison for some serious time. And they should. No matter the underlying circumstances, we cannot tolerate intimidation of witnesses or the rule of law fails.