<p>Yeah, I also called Aubart the “snitch.” There goes your diagnosis that I reserve labels for people “it’s OK to harm.”</p>
<p>Interesting phrasing, though. Anyone who uses coke considers him or herself someone it’s OK to harm.</p>
<p>“they didn’t do anything bad enough to deserve the consequences they’re looking at.”</p>
<p>The thing they did that was bad enough is commit criminal stupidity. I think our drug laws are way too tough, but Ivy Leaguers know what they are. If you’re buying and snorting cocaine, you ALWAYS run the risk of being caught and subjected to these laws. With juveniles, people without other options, etc., there’s some reduction of responsibility, but these guys walked straight into the abyss with their eyes wide open, and I don’t want to hear any whining about how deep it is.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call them victims–that’s a bit offensive to all the other SAE brothers and other privileged students at Dartmouth who chose to follow the law. At the same time, they were definitely enabled by the prevailing social system on campus–the same system found on many other campuses in the US. These students are also being made examples and I fear may be treated more harshly for political reasons. Allowing the existence of the fraternities is akin to selling a kid a bong pipe or a radar detector. Technically legal to do, but not socially responsible because it’s clear what is going to be done with those items.</p>
<p>A comment about turning our kids in to the police…</p>
<p>I have two close male relatives who got involved with drugs. One was arrested by police. The other actually had friends on the police force who he claimed kept him from being arrested. Both came from similar socio-economic class although the one with police friends had some factors that were decidedly better (meaning intact home, 2-parent family, no family history of alcohol/drug abuse). Anyway, arrested boy was thrown in jail, family wouldn’t make bond, he sat there until he showed up before a judge who gave him a small sentence with time served considerations. The other one was never arrested. Fast forward… The arrested one says that his arrest was a catalyst in his life that made him flee from drugs. He has since grown to be a wonderful man, no alcohol/drug use, married, kids, own business, etc.The other one? I met his police friends at his funeral. That’s a true story. It would be very hard to let one’s kid face the consequences of illegal drug use but it may have a better outcome. I am not against rehab but I have seen far too many parents put their children in rehab over and over again because the user doesn’t want to change (or doesn’t see it as a big deal). </p>
<p>So I doubt I’ll have anyone agree with me but… I can’t blame a parent who would call the cops on his/her kids. I don’t know if I would-- but I do think I wouldn’t bail them out for that. Sometimes protecting them is the wrong thing.</p>
<p>“EMMI, regardless of how any of us may feel about underage alcohol consumption, the fact remains that it is currently illegal to serve alcoholic beverages to students under the age of 21. Since one of the primary functions of a fraternity is to do just that, my point was that inevitably problems of this nature will arise.”</p>
<p>No. Fraternities do not exist to provide alcoholic beverages to minors. Social functions are a large part of fraternity life, and because social functions in college generally involve liquor, the fraternities (like other formal and informal student groups that sponsor such functions) provide liquor at those functions). Fraternities are not unique or unusual in this regard; their structure is simply more formal than many other social groups.</p>
<p>Other than that, I actually agree with much of what you said.</p>
<p>This fraternity house will probably be shut down by its national organization because of this incident. I feel badly for the alumni and members who were not involved, who will lose their home and gathering place.</p>
If you think the punishment is too harsh, vote for the officials who mirror your belief. In fact, all these laws can be seen as “too harsh” or “not harsh enough” depending on your viewpoint which always changes when you take it down to the personal level and how it affects one individual.</p>
This may be true of people with serious drug problems, but we don’t have any evidence that this is the case for the people involved in this incident. To use cocaine, even on a regular basis, is not necessarily to be an addict on a downward spiral. Several of my friends used coke regularly back in the early 80s, and I don’t know a single one who became an addict or whose use resulted in any social, medical or legal problems whatsoever.</p>
<p>Regardless, if there is any evidence that Aubart was acting out of concern for the users’ long-term well-being, I haven’t seen it.</p>
<p>“If you think the punishment is too harsh, vote for the officials who mirror your belief.”</p>
<p>I do that when I have the option, but it doesn’t mean that I have much pity for people who decide to bring hell down on themselves.</p>
<p>I agree that the fraternity will probably lose its charter over this, which will hurt many law-abiding students and alumni. That would likely have happened even if the problem had only been reported to the national organization. (Snorting off an old composite…the alumni will love that.) Another good reason not to commit felonies in the chapter house.</p>
<p>As I said earlier, still confused how Aubart even ended up with these guys. He seems to have been generally disliked even before all of this. I really can see an older vet being frustrated by these “privileged” guys. But there has got to me more to this story, to turn in your “brothers” just before graduation, there has to be some bad blood somwhere.</p>
<p>With felony charges and a police force that is looking at the entire Greek system, if the SAE charter isn’t revoked, national couls still invode some harsh actions. for insurance sake, many fraternities are becoming “dry” - no alcohol within the house. This reduces underrage drinking, but puts considerable social pressure on the house regarding recruitment, etc. Houses have been shut down for less than felony drug arrests.</p>
<p>“This may be true of people with serious drug problems, but we don’t have any evidence that this is the case for the people involved in this incident.” </p>
<p>Why are you saying that may be true of people with a serious drug problem but not others? Do you have info that that is true because it’s not in my story (and wouldn’t be accurate)? </p>
<p>“To use cocaine, even on a regular basis, is not necessarily to be an addict on a downward spiral.”</p>
<p>I think to use cocaine on a regular basis is to be a repeat offender and a drug user. I try to keep those people out of my life in any capacity possible.</p>
<p>“Several of my friends used coke regularly back in the early 80s, and I don’t know a single one who became an addict or whose use resulted in any social, medical or legal problems whatsoever.”</p>
<p>I suspect we have different definitions of what constitutes a social problem. I know a number of people who use cocaine now with no visible medical or legal problems. I also know several who have had legal, medical and employment problems because of it. It just takes one instance to have a legal problem-- and often, if the employer finds out that one legal problem can become an employment and possible an economic problem. Off the top of my head, I know of at least 3 people who have serious medical problems which doctors said had to do with drug use. I also had a boss once (a top executive) who was a regular cocaine user. He was erratic, undependable, caused the company a LOT of money and made some really bad decisions under the influence that really impacted other people (including driving the company car while under the influence of cocaine). </p>
<p>“Regardless, if there is any evidence that Aubart was acting out of concern for the users’ long-term well-being, I haven’t seen it.”</p>
<p>Actually, I wasn’t talking about Aubart. If you read the first sentence of my post, you will see that I was talking about turning our own kids in to the police. I don’t know if I would do it but I wouldn’t blame parents who did.</p>
<p>That is a truly humorous statement. I doubt there are many law-abiding students in SAE (or most Greek houses.) Underage drinking is not “law-abiding”, but I’m pretty sure the vast majority do it. So it goes back to the same question, what “laws” is it okay to turn the other cheek to and which ones are not. Obviously the honor code that Aubart lived by was to pick and choose which law breakers to turn in.</p>
<p>Reading the story in the link posted here makes me think it was not bad blood. Aubart explains he had sent an email warning and he seemed to justify reporting them on that basis. He must be so despised on that campus I won’t be surprised if the next story is that he has to leave and not participate in graduation.</p>
<p>Redroses, if you look at that boredatbaker website, you’ll see kids saying they’ll boo him at graduation, etc. I wouldn’t want to go if I was him.</p>
<p>Am I really the only person here who sees a giant ethical or emotional gulf between a 19-year-old having a beer in a fraternity house and a 19-year-old doing a line of cocaine in a fraternity house? If it were your son, would you react to both crimes the same way?</p>
<p>I don’t believe there’s any such thing as responsible use of cocaine or heroin (or cigarettes, for that matter) the way there is responsible use of alcohol. Yes, some people use cocaine socially and don’t suffer any ill effects, but you can’t know in advance whether that will be the case for you. It’s just too addictive.</p>
<p>I can’t find links to those affidavits anywhere. At least not in the D article in post #241. (I got distracted by The Drunkest Girls At The Party, too, and by the hilarious comments following it.)</p>
<p>I might as well come clean and say that cocaine is the one drug I would use if it were legal. With care, yes. I used it sometimes in college – once in a while recreationally, most often as a stimulant in connection with writing big papers. It was way too expensive to abuse; I never used more than a tiny amount. Nothing has ever worked so well to overcome writer’s block for me, or to set aside shyness and self-doubt without compromising judgment. Hardly a month goes by that I don’t miss it at least once, and I haven’t even set eyes on any in over 30 years. Best drug ever.</p>
<p>If it were my kids I’d certainly make sure they were aware of cocaine’s danger, but I would not react badly as I expect all kinds of experimentation.</p>