I read the lead story of last Wednesday's issue of The Dartmouth with a glass of orange juice and a complaisant countenance: "Burnett: College derecognizes Beta," it read. Finally, I thought to myself. Out, damn spot. Then the lower headline caught my eye. "Posters attacking '99 put up in College buildings." Anonymous posters accusing a '99 of rape had appeared throughout the campus. Oh no, more good news.
The Dartmouth and Dean Lee Pelton were both quick to register their disapproval of such "vigilantism," showering the anonymous poster-hanger or poster-hangers with reprobation for disregarding "the system." But instead we might be asking ourselves why the event happened at all: John Locke, 200 years ago, said man [sic] had the right to revolt but was unlikely to do so until his [sic] displeasure was profound.
Most college women choose to keep a rape case within the private confines of their institution's judicial system, but here we have evidence of a thorough and dramatic effort to circumvent the Committee on Standards, most likely triggered by one of two things: a distrust of the system, or a fear of it.
COS has given students reason on both counts. It has come under fire of late, particularly, and perhaps not coincidentally, for its handling of rape cases. In its annual report, COS revealed it had meted out a mere three-term suspension as penalty for a rape, indicating a lack of respect for the gravity of the crime. In addition, even though COS hearings are supposed to be confidential, many students are loathe to approach COS for fear that their case will become the stuff of campus whispering.
Rape at Dartmouth must be the crime most often perpetrated without consequence. Our Ivy League status may exacerbate the problem: There is more pressure to think nothing can go wrong. Young women and men who have spent their lives being told they are the creme de la creme feel compelled to pretend they are invincible and infallible, they can be hurt by nothing and can do no wrong. The reason our actual rape statistics are not higher (21 last year, down from 30 in 1991-92) is because the kind of students that populate Dartmouth would rather wish an assault into unreality than admit they could be victims of anything: so, many rapes go unreported.
Rape is a weighty charge to bring. Most women who cry rape are telling the truth. (The occasional woman who makes a false, vengeful accusation casts doubt in all future rape cases and is as much an enemy of women's rights as any rapist.) But in this particular case, the circumstances are unknowable. Therefore, for the sake of the one man in 100 who may be wrongfully accused of rape, anonymous posters are apocrypha. We have a court system in the United States and a Committee on Standards at Dartmouth precisely because there are concurrent needs to protect any victim -- one who is raped, and one who is falsely accused of rape. Unfortunately, the recent COS decisions indicate that only the rapist has the mercy of the court. In which case the apocrypha becomes apocalyptic.
I cannot join The D in misapplying terms like "vigilantism," summoning visions of anarchy with their verbiage. The posters are the actions of a person or a few people not a posse of rape-protesters. Too bad. I would have liked to witness viragos on horseback as they ride down rapists on the Green. (Thanks to The D, I have rampant imagery galloping through my mind.)
In many ways the posters are reminiscent of last winter's "The Shit You Don't Hear About" flyer and the manure dumpings on Beta Theta Pi and Alpha Chi Alpha's lawns. Once again we see that women at Dartmouth are forced to wear their anonymity like a shield. This frustrated silence erupting in angry, anonymous outbursts is necessitated by the political climate here.
Last year Miranda Johnson '97 made a statement to The D implying that Alpha Delta fraternity was particularly known for its rapists. She was excoriated publicly by the fraternity; she also claimed she was cornered and threatened. The fraternity brothers, it seemed, were primarily concerned with silencing her.
No wonder students resort to anonymity.
If COS is to be a judicial resource students can have faith in, it must not waver in doling out painful punishments for crimes as reprehensible as rape, and its members must not falter in their commitment to confidentiality.
Simultaneously, the women and men of Dartmouth need to expunge crimes against women from this campus. If "the system" is irresolute, let's work to make it responsive. If a student has something to say, he or she should be able to say it, and sign it, without fear of social repercussions and reprisals.
