Come on, Dean Johnson. Read the comments below Andrew’s article. Student after student confirms that Andrew’s allegations are 100% true, and that they’ve either participated in similar activities or heard from friends who have. That brutal and degrading forms of hazing regularly occur during pledge term is public information. To claim that the administration has done everything possible to investigate the issue is willful negligence.

AD blindfolded pledges, threw them in the back of a U-Haul, brought them to a field in Vermont and made them do degrading things. Yet Johnson just brushes that off like it is nothing and claims that probation is a significant punishment. What happened at SAE (which as Osserman says is 100% true) is a shame but the Administration’s response is a tragedy. Something tells me that this issue is just beginning and we will get more details as time goes on… and the Administration won’t be happy.

While it is good news that the College has addressed and punished some perpetrators of hazing,this is far from enough. It is far easier to punish infractions that are much less serious than those Lohse describes. Much less shame, reputation, and pain are at stake. Many fewer people will go to many fewer lengths to hide the truth. While other organizations such as sports teams engage in hazing, it is worth remembering that none of them have as much power as fraternities — they are quite simply, easier to catch because they lack the power structure to compel fear and induce isolation. It is these power structures, complex and dangerous, that the College cannot continue to ignore if it is serious about condemning hazing. It has to examine closely the reasons that hazing happens in the first place, and not simply punish the symptoms of a deeply corrupted system.

^^^ he’s back

NewsFlash, the college isn’t going to do anything unless it is absolutely forced.

If any significant crackdown on hazing happened our alumni base would give the administration hell.

My experience has been that administrators at the College, and on any campus really, are extremely aware of what goes on. As we saw in this case they tried to put a lot of pressure on the organization even though they had no evidence and could not prove anything. Nor could the police.

Did they do everything possible to investigate? I don’t know. What investigatory tactics is the community prepared to accept in a case like this?

Thank god for responsible leadership. Instead of coming forward and mentioning concrete details of proposed action, the Dean of the College chooses to dispel the rumors. And here we were worried something might happen to the Greek system. And the President seems to be absconding. Where are you, Prez. Kim when you have an opportunity to redeem yourself after multiple failures?

“I also want to dispel the notion that hazing is limited to the Greek community.” Oh, great! These are the truest words in Dean Johnson’s CYA commentary. But if hazing is everywhere, why doesn’t the College actually do something about it. Start by educating first-years about what they will soon face, and what they can do to avoid the unsanitary indignities that everyone knows are commonplace here.

How does it create any complications for anonymous students to come forth with hazing allegations? You have taken a huge step backwards by basically saying that if you make an anonymous claim, nothing will be done about it. And when you catch a house that is hazing its new members, that house should be derecognized immediately, not put on probation. The College doesn’t care about hazing and you know it Dean Johnson.

It was during my tenure that the College first decided that its 19-22 year olds were not mature enough to make their own decisions.

There is an inherent tension between the College’s treatment of this issue—somehow both treating students as children and adults (How can a “child” too immature to make their own decisions to say no be expected to observe and fulfill a contract saying the same?? It seems incongruous).

Underlying all of this appears to be the pervasive assumption that hazing is somehow nonsensical, has no upside, whatsoever, and yet, quizzically, is pervasive. The College fails to ask why? After all, the acts described in Lohse’s article were the very acts going on 10 years ago…

This head-in-the-sand approach is the first mistake in approaching the problem. As I understood it, the concept of hazing has three heads: 1) It is funny to the hazers. This somehow gets totally, completely lost. Yet, when I pledged that was all so obvious—you get hazed for only one year in exchange for the amusement of watching other people get hazed for three years; 2) The perception that being hazed somehow strengthens one internally. That the solution to hardship is fortitude and not crying to mommy. I am a lawyer. As any lawyer will tell you, your junior years involve substantial action by superiors that does not further the case, but instead just brutalizes the junior people to make them stronger, better lawyers; and 3) The concept of belonging somewhere requires earning it. One is not a Marine upon signing up, one is a Marine upon finishing training.

Some may look at these factors and scoff. And yet, these are huge factors driving the hazing system. Any “solution” will require facing up to the underlying rationales, not burying one’s head in the sand.

One last thought, that I find scary. There is a huge difference between “dangerous” and “demeaning” behavior. In both instances, we openly question the ability of adults to make their own choices to engage in such behavior.

Telling adults what they can and cannot do in their private lives is generally a huge overreach of authority, but is justifiable to protect the health of students. However, “demeaning,” as I understand it, is a slippery slope in that it is hard to define and very easy to characterize “demeaning.” I openly question the wisdom of the College characterizing so-called “demeaning” behavior and then attempting to socially engineer student conduct in social spheres. There is a very good reason the law only criminalizes certain conduct and not conduct that may hurt others' feelings (the standard of proof for an Intentional Affliction of Emotional Distress claim is quite high).

I am really disappointed that I chose to attend a school where this occurs. Not only have the descriptions of hazing incidents made me feel unsafe in a place where I have to live with fellow students who are capable of that sort of thing, but they have absolutely disappointed me in terms of everything I believed Dartmouth stood for when I first enrolled. I hope that the administration realizes the significant harm that they are encouraging students to subject each other to.

For me, hearing rumors about hazing (when axa’s lose sirens, AD uhaul truck) is much different than the published, graphic description that Lohse has put out there. That combined with accounts from other SAE ‘12s that I personally know stating that his account is TRUE, but they are forced by their fraternity to deny it or face the fortunes of Lohse and Phil Aubert, is truly disheartening.

Dean Johnson, we have had multiple conversations regarding the Dartmouth community. I am submitting this comment anonymously to protect my own public name on campus as many who are not coming forward are. I have not experienced any hazing myself, but I encourage, plead, beg of you to stop this series of disgusting denials.

The administration sweeps things under the rug, that is no secret. From my expeirence with budget details, dds management, and sexual assault policy, it is no surprise to me that the administration has attempted to sweep this under the rug as well. The difference between hazing and the aforementioned topics is that hazing is something that the administration can completely prevent by disbanding the Greek system. Music groups and other organizations are only hazed in imitation of the practices institutionalized in the Greek organizations on campus.

The administration hides certain issues because they are liars, but in reality, it is true that they cannot prevent having to make budget cuts, magically negate the fact that DDS is expensive to run, and sexual assault is a case by case basis, which they can improve their policy on, but could never take a stance that would absolutely prevent it from happening. HAZING IS NOT LIKE ANY OF THESE PROBLEMS. IT IS STRICTLY INSTITUTIONALIZED IN INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE NOT IN ANY WAY ESSENTIAL TO DARTMOUTH STUDENT LIFE. If it makes some alums upset, so be it. Letting women into the school angered the alums much more and the College was able to survive that.

Put an end to hazing, you know how.

Thank you, Confused ‘01, for providing a bit of balance and perspective to this conversation.

The suggestion that alumni promote and support hazing is distasteful. I’m sickened by these allegations and infuriated by the administration’s lack of response. You misjudge alumni if you think we’ll support Dartmouth no matter what. At this point, the only support the college will receive from me is if it starts taking positive action to deal with these issues (and all the rest the Kim administration is failing to attend to. Believe it or not, over-subscription of classes, for example, used to be unheard of.)

How many parents are going to want to send their children off to Dartmouth with this type of thing going on-and being swept under the rug by the administration? I’m guessing the powers-to-be have absolutely no clue how damaging this is to Dartmouth’s reputation. President Kim’s PR machine isn’t going to be able to handle this one…

Pages 6 & 7 pertains to Lohse’s witness tampering and allegations of urinating on the witness’s door.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31913045/Warthen-Affidavit

The administration’s failure on multiple issues has nothing to do with whichever students stepped up to point it out. I’m glad they did, but their individual credibility is irrelevant of the college’s deliberate ignorance.

Also, Dean Johnson, I have heard you say something along the lines of “At some point, homophobia and other social problems are an issue that should be addressed by the students, and there is only so much the administration can do”, and effectively asking us to stop our whining. I agree that there should be more student action on these issues. But we do not employ you to simply tell us that.

Don’t worry about the alumni. This isn’t SLI or swim team. And small donors haven’t mattered for the past few years anyway.

This seems like another PR failure, but don’t be so sure. This will blow over. What about dormitory continuity, oversubscribed courses, lack of adequate advising, etc.? All of these problems have existed for a decade or more. What is going to cause a change now? 23,000 applicants speak louder than the current student body (and their hovering parents). Goldman Sachs or bust.

<i>It was during my tenure that the College first decided that its 19-22 year olds were not mature enough to make their own decisions.</i>

‘01: No, it was long before that!

Garbonzo ‘94