To the Editor:
The Dartmouth seems to have missed the point about the whole uproar over the Hanover Police policy.
The editorial in Wednesday's issue of The D ("A Cause for Outrage?") states that the whole blitz barrage and discussion of the situation at hand is geared at protecting the underage "'right' to party." This is not the case. The point of the whole issue is that the policy is in violation of a basic right, the right to walk down the street unmolested.
The editorial mentioned the hypothetical situation of police involvement if underage students "appeared to be intoxicated in public." Anyone who was on campus during the summer probably witnessed the abuse of this hypothetical a number of times.
I myself was witness to police cruisers parked outside of fraternities or sororities and the police themselves stopping pedestrians with the excuse that they had suspicion of intoxication solely by the fact that these people were leaving a party. They were not told of their right to refuse the breathalyzer, at least not in the instances to which I was witness. This is wrong.
The furor over this policy is not to protect the college student's God-given right to drink while underage, it is simply an attack on a method of enforcement of the law that removes the right of an innocent person from walking where he pleases. If The D calls the effort to maintain the right to walk home unobstructed by random accusations "concern for our own leisure," then I think its editorial definition of leisure is different from that of most people.
The simple freedom to be considered innocent by the police until ample, justifiable cause gives reason to think otherwise is at least as important as National Coming Out Day and Domestic Violence Awareness Week, as all three revolve around freedoms that should be automatic in our society, upon which other parties are infringing.
