It is a well-known and often stated fact that Dartmouth College can legally deny its students rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution of the United States. As a private institution, it can create its own rules, and it is not bound by the Bill of Rights. Because students make a conscious decision to go here, they agree to abide by the rules of the College, even if these rules are in conflict with the rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights. When we matriculated, we all signed a piece of paper to this effect, thereby agreeing to it. The theory behind allowing private institutions such power is valid: private institutions that people voluntarily join should have every right to establish their own sets of standards, even if a right is slightly abridged here or there to help create a more desirable community. However, in the case of Dartmouth, the denial of rights is nearly comical, as College policy amounts to a veritable trampling of the Bill of Rights. Observe:
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
True, Congress isn't passing laws in violation of these rights. However, the College takes away most of them. Free speech: you can't say "wah-hoo-wah." The press: Zeta Psi's papers were too offensive. Religion: Summer Christian Fellowship can't exclude somebody from a leadership role because the organization does not believe that her faith fits into their organization. Assembly: You better believe they're working on it, with all this whining about Greek organizations.
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III involves the quartering of troops, and is therefore inapplicable to Dartmouth.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think it's pretty clear to everybody, including the deans who try to deny it, that the proposed Safety and Security walk-throughs of privately owned residences of Coed Fraternity Sorority organizations amount to unreasonable searches. There is no warrant, nor is there a probable cause. And don't let administrators kid you that the walk-throughs are merely to make sure the physical plant is in the proper condition. If this was the case they would send in Facilities Operation & Management, not their law-enforcement arm. What is a Safety and Security officer going to do, spray a clogged toilet or leaky pipe with mace? Beat it with a nerf night-stick?
Amendment V applies specifically to the criminal justice system of the United States, and is therefore not directly applicable to the College.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The Committee on Standards is far from an impartial jury. However, it is more than merely the jury. It is the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner. Because these roles are not divided, the COS has the power to deal with any case in any way it wants; there is no check on its authority. Thus, a COS hearing is a mere formality. Thankfully, the College does not kid itself or us by calling it a trial. The hearing is also far from public. The door is locked immediately behind the suspect, creating the feel of an interrogation room. This closed door secrecy adds to the illegitimacy of the hearing.
The remaining four amendments of the Bill of Rights are inapplicable to Dartmouth; therefore, the College has not found a way to deny us the rights contained therein.
The students of Dartmouth College have no legal position against the College for these transgressions of rights. It appears that short of mass protest, which we are all too lazy and apathetic to pull off, we must simply live with such violations of our rights. At the same time, however, we must realize that our rights are being trampled, and agree that it is not acceptable. For even if the College is acting within the laws of the United States of America, it is acting far outside the spirit of our nation, as is painfully evident upon examining their wholesale rejection of our country's Bill of Rights. To modify or abridge a right or two would be understandable, but to deny every right possible is downright un-American. We currently live in a community in which we, the students, have no say in how we are governed and lack basic civil liberties. The current situation is a far stretch from the American ideals of freedom and democracy.
