<p>Probability of that happening is close to nil. In the worst case, the local chapter will receive a tepid warning letter , sent in the same package that contains a Hall of Fame plaque to place in the common room. </p>
<p>There isn’t a person with sufficient courage at Dartmouth to seek a permanent closure of the frat house. There isn’t a person with sufficient integrity and sense of responsibility in that entire sorry Greek organization to do the right thing and close the house voluntarily. </p>
<p>Based on those affidavits, if NH law is anything like NY, then don’t see this going anywhere legally. At least from the drug side. </p>
<p>I have been in the position of having to evict drug dealers from apartments in NY. This is best accomplished by first having them arrested. Where we are the police won’t/can’t raid a place where apparent open dealing is going on without first making an undercover buy. Only then will they/can they get a warrant to raid and only if they then find a stash will they arrest.</p>
<p>I don’t see any of that here. They apparently didn’t find a stash, else they would have said so. Therefore, they don’t have any cocaine. They don’t have any possession - at least in the courts where I’m from. Pictures mean nothing. Thinking its cocaine means nothing. If they get a positive test on the residue and if they get one of the suspects to say they snorted a white powder off the particular composite where the residue was found then maybe they get someone, maybe. But I don’t think that’s going to happen. The affidavits themselves indicate that if they do get a positive test for cocaine, it could be from previous use and I doubt those involved even know which composite was used.</p>
<p>I can understand the police trying to shake up the kids and maybe work up a dealer chain, but assuming that that failed and that they did not find a supply of cocaine, don’t see any there there.</p>
<p>concur with xiggi in post #321. At best it will be “temporary.” The Dartmouth Betas (Beta Theta Pi) were “de-recognized” ten years ago, but are now back in good standing…</p>
<p>re #322 I don’t think all the information the cops have is in the affidavits. We know Lohse was questioned; we don’t know what he said. It’s probable that Koo was questioned; we don’t know what she said. We don’t know if Warthen was questioned and/or what he said. We know the cops questioned one of the people that Warthen allegedly sent emails and a text message to. Did they question the others? If so, what did they say? </p>
<p>I think it’s too early to conclude the cops won’t make these charges stick.</p>
I’m not going to glamorize Phil Aubart. I don’t know enough about the situation to say whether he is a decent person. But I do know the following things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Every criminal is free until they get caught. Just because they don’t think they would get caught absolutely does not absolve them of full responsibility for their actions. If I knowingly commit a crime, I am well aware that there may be consequences. Maybe nobody will inform on me and I can keep on doing it, but that doesn’t make me any less responsible.</p></li>
<li><p>Aubart has every right to report a crime. That doesn’t make it a nice thing to do. It may not be the action that will ultimately produce the best outcomes. But he still has a right to do it.</p></li>
<li><p>If the authorities choose to prosecute these cases, the defendants will have their day in court. If not, the whole case can be shelved.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Wow, the statement re: Aubart from the national organazation makes this even more strange since all the facts are not even in . I still have questions about a 25+ year old guy in with these undergraduates which nobody has still addressed. Was he a plant to begin with?</p>
You can see #3 in my post #326. Maybe the evidence is not sufficient and they will walk free. Maybe they are innocent. But if the debate is over whether reporting is appropriate in a situation where the suspects are in fact guilty, the terminology is correct.</p>
<p>I agree that this was part of the debate. However, after reviewing the allegations thus far, there is no evidence that anyone in particular actually snorted coke that night.</p>
<p>Bay, I agree that the name calling and labeling of those young men, not yet convicted should not be happening. I think we are really looking at the shell of the situation rather than the particulars. Whether things truly happened that way, is another story. It looks like some kids were using drugs after having been asked not to do so in that frat house by one of the other residents. When he saw that the request was denied, he called campus security. I don’t blame the kid, and I don’t feel sorry for the other kids in such circumstances. When you use illegal drugs, that is one of the risks you take. Would I have called campus security? Probaby not, though there are circumstances where I might have. </p>
<p>From what I have seen at colleges, the cops tread rather lightly around the students in their own areas, and they generally would not book kids unless the evidence is right there.</p>
<p>One of my son’s former classmates in college was turned in by her suitemates for having a stash of pot/other drugs. She had enough that it counted as dealing. She was convicted and ended up serving some hard time. Not only was the stuff actually found, she was asked to do a drug test. I don’t know the particulars, but this young lady was convicted even with a lawyer dad. But from what I understand, the proof was overwhelmingly against her even though she was not caught using the stuff.</p>
<p>An 18-yr-old kid from my area was indicted for sexual assault at D. He withdrew from school. His name was spread all over the papers and our local TV station did a segment on it. All of those articles are still available if one googles. </p>
<p>Nowhere could I find an article stating that the charges were dropped, which is what eventually happened. I will not go into the details, but according to those in the know the charges were evidently bogus and were forced by parents furious that their D had had sex. Nowhere is this kid exonerated, and nowhere is the accuser named. His reputation is ruined.</p>
<p>I’m certain these kids were not arrested. Therefore, they avoided being given their Miranda rights. They can have an arraignment, where they face charges against them and post bail (which is usually rescinded if their lawyers were any good), but NO arrests. They’d only get arrested if the cops wanted to put them in jail. Instead, they’re probably under their parents’ supervision, with the agreement to return to court by a certain date.</p>
<p>Consolidation, about your post: did the kid get charged? Was he convicted? His reputation may be ruined, but if he doesn’t have a record, he has a future. It would have been AWFUL for him, because he was 18 and the girl was probably underage.</p>
<p>“I agree that this was part of the debate. However, after reviewing the allegations thus far, there is no evidence that anyone in particular actually snorted coke that night.”</p>
<p>There is more evidence for the retaliatory urination it seems, at least Aubard’s direct testimony. Assuming he is not lying about that, would retaliatory urination seem a more likely reaction to snitching, or to a false and slanderous accusation?</p>
<p>Yes, that’s the passage I was thinking of. It’s not the most prudent thing for him to have said, but it doesn’t sound terrible to me. I imagine he wasn’t thinking that a throw-away phrase would wind up in a document circulated online and read by thousands when he was talking with the officer. If he did have the presence of mind to realize that when he was interviewed, then that’d be another story.</p>
<p>The main thing I’d take issue with is that its publication gives people an excuse to call the girl a slut. There’s nothing wrong I can see with using the phrase “hook up” in of itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you were to shut SAE down over this, you’d be shutting down probably at least half the houses here (not just Greek houses, but undergrad societies too). Then again, that’d probably be a pleasing outcome for you too.</p>
<p>I almost wish we’d do away with the Greek houses if only to show people what the consequences of that would be. Most proposals I’ve seen for doing away with the Dartmouth Greek system ignore:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Its unique openness relative to most Greek systems at other schools;</p></li>
<li><p>The simple fact that they fill a void which has to be filled some other way.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As I said before, I believe the criminalization of drinking for under-21s drives it underground, with the consequence that all the idiocy associated with it also goes underground. If Greek houses don’t harbor this idiocy, something else will.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zeta Psi is back too. Both brotherhoods are pretty different now. Ask someone who played pong in Zete last time what it’s like now, and he’ll say it’s unrecognizable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but here is a counterpoint for the non-drug charges from, all of place, boredatbaker:</p>
<p>“is it just me or do the witness tampering and criminal liability charges against Warthen seem really flimsy? For the witness tampering charge, the police are alleging that sending an email to three people asking them to destroy a house-owned piece of property was (a) unlawful and (b) in direct retaliation for Phil’s status as an informant. For the criminal liability charge, they are alleging that the actual destruction of that piece of property was unlawful. None of those three claims are convincing to me at all, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.”</p>
<p>I think the important distinction is whether the table was the property of SAE or the property of Phil Aubart. If it was SAE’s, it’s hard to argue that it was unlawful.</p>
Please understand, I don’t have even the slightest problem with the phrase “hook up” (nor with the phenomenon it refers to). That’s not the thing about the passage that disturbed me. It was Shea’s apparent eagerness to make clear to his listener that the girl was chasing him and not vice versa, so much so that he had to say it three different ways.</p>
<p>The way I was brought up, you don’t go bragging about someone else’s attraction to you. You talk about your feelings for her, if you have any; if you don’t, you just keep your mouth shut. I agree that it’s some slight mitigation that Shea probably didn’t realize his statements would become public, but the attitude they reveal is just ugly, in a way that has nothing to do with the phrase “hook up.”</p>
<p>“Human dignity has gleamed only now and then and here and there, in lonely splendor, throughout the ages, a hope of the better men, never an achievement of the majority.” (James Thurber)</p>
<p>Excellent point, Brooklnborndad. It is discouraging.</p>
<p>Regarding the other case I mentioned, the kid was indicted. The charges were subsequently dropped. I have no idea whether the kid in question returned to D or to some other school. </p>
<p>When one visits D, the place seems so idyllic. it is very hard to imagine, when one also considers the extremely high achievements of the admitted students, that quite the level of debauchery that some suggest actually exists. But who knows.</p>
<p>BTW, it is my understanding that the president of the new Zete and some of the pledges de-pledged upon being pressured by alumnae to institute hazing of pledges.</p>
<p>"I am trying to define a position relative to our nation’s many admirable cocaine users, many of whom will go on to responsible careers in the professions and business. Somewhere in between “you deserve to go to jail, you frigging cokehead” and “Ooh, poor baby, the mean frat house manager called campus security on you, instead of giving you ANOTHER second chance, like a loyal brother should” </p>
<p>I think some reasonable expectations are in order. I think at least several weeks of study of relevant areas of the law are the beginnings of a reasonable expectation. Maybe some training in emergency medicine as well. "</p>
<p>Can they use cocaine to help them during their studies of law and emergency medicine? What about Adderall? </p>
<p>“Human dignity has gleamed only now and then and here and there, in lonely splendor, throughout the ages, a hope of the better men, never an achievement of the majority.” (James Thurber)</p>
<p>And to think, people work their tails off for years to be part of these communities and parents pay upwards of $50K a year of hard-earned money for the privilege.</p>
<p>The sensationalism about the story was because those kids were turned in by their frat brother and housemate. Truly a “man bites dog” thing. Would be a headliner if a parent turned in his kid, too. It does happen. And that the kids were not indited, charges not pressed, etc is not unusual in a college town especially if town/gown relationships are decent. I know many kids that were picked up and, yes, as guilty as could be, they’ve admitted it themselves, for drugs, under aged drinking, carrying contraband, and never even booked in some college areas. Wouldn’t count on it being protection, however, and if kids did find themselves the exception in not getting away with it, I have no sympathy. Those are the risks you take.</p>