The Tripod

I am extremely disappointed that The Trinity Tripod took down the article David Kimball-Stanley '09 and Ryan Haney '10 wrote in response to the article Whitney Duprey '09 wrote on the fraternities. If, as the Tripod Web site claims, there had been a personal attack in the article, then why did they agree to publish it in the first place? A lot of the article dealt with issues and ideas that could not even be construed as personal attacks; why, then, did the Tripod not ask to just cut a few sentences? Not to mention the fact that there have been much more offensive personal attacks in the Tripod and on the Tripod Web site, many of them written by anonymous contributors. However, the vast majority of these attacks were on students who disagree with the dominant frat culture on this campus, so I suppose the Tripod's not as worried about hurting the feelings of these "radical feminists."

Nothing in their article was a personal attack on Duprey; she published her ideas, her dangerous logic, and her poor writing in the Tripod for all to see and critique. Just because an article is controversial doesn't mean it's a personal attack. If it is the "tone" that the article took on, in being extremely sarcastic, that offended people, then I think everyone should re-read almost every opinion article written by Joe Tarzi '08, Tripod Editor-in-Chief. I think the use of sarcasm is fine, and in this case actually generated some sort of response. There have been many great articles in the past about the sexism in the fraternities; Sarah Gardiner '10 wrote an excellent one that appeared in the same issue as Duprey's. There is not a single comment on it as of Friday, April 25. Professor of Mathematics David Cruz-Uribe wrote a letter to the editor expressing his disappointment in Duprey and Trinity students. There were also no comments. The last time I looked at Haney and Kimball-Stanley's article before it was unfairly taken down, there were 20 comments. If we need to be sarcastic to get people to talk about these issues, then we're going to be sarcastic.

These are issues that need to be discussed. The logic Duprey used was dangerous, and people objected to Haney and Kimball-Stanley calling her a "racist." They didn't call her a racist; they just followed her logic to its dangerous conclusion. One anonymous (as so many of them are) contributor on the Web site said that comparing a college fraternity to the horrors of the Jim Crow laws was wrong. Rape is wrong, too, but people on this campus continually ignore the correlation between the sexist actions of some fraternities and the high number of acquaintance rapes on this campus. All of this is besides the fact that the authors did not compare fraternities to the Jim Crow laws; once again, they took Duprey's dangerous logic and used it in other situations. Their point was if your logic can be used to justify the Jim Crow laws, then you shouldn't be using it. Duprey's logic was that people should avoid injustice, degradation, and discrimination as opposed to attempting to change it.

Another point that was misconstrued in the comments was the idea that Haney and Kimball-Stanley wanted to abolish all fraternities. They actually said that this was an extreme view, and that they did not agree with it, and repeatedly stressed that the issue was with the practices of some fraternities. There is no problem with getting alcohol, dancing, loud music, sweaty people, or even annoying people, if you go to a fraternity. If you don't like that, then yes, Duprey is right, a fraternity is not for you. But saying that you should expect guys to hit on you or rub up against you is saying you should expect sexual harassment. It's just wrong on so many moral and logical levels. If you don't see that there's something wrong with that, then I don't even know how to begin to explain it to you.

Nothing that Haney and Kimball-Stanley said in their article constituted a personal attack. They did not judge Duprey for not being an active feminist; you don't have to be a radical feminist to find the practices of some of these fraternities revolting. You don't have to be a radical feminist to see that this is sexual harassment, and you don't have to be a radical feminist to see that sexual harassment is wrong. They did not judge her for enjoying dressing up and going to theme parties with the word "ho" in the title. They merely commented on her dangerous logic, which yes, leads to sexism, racism, homophobia, and a myriad of other horrible, discriminatory problems, and on her writing, which was poor to say the least.

I am publishing this article with the full awareness that I will probably be attacked online, like Haney and Kimball-Stanley, as being a "radical feminist" for my belief that no woman should ever be told to expect sexual harassment. Perhaps some others may call me "cold-hearted" for not caring that Duprey's feelings were hurt, because I believe that every claim the authors made against her were valid.

Some may call me an elitist for believing that poor writing in a student publication does deserve critique, and still others may misconstrue my argument to say that I hate all fraternities, which is certainly not the case. But I know these are responses I may receive for publishing something in the Tripod, since the online commentary section lends itself to anonymous attacks on the article and the author; however, the only responses I will take seriously are those that address the issues. I stand by what I've written, and if the Tripod publishes it, they should do the right thing and stand by what they've published.

Article Tools