This is all very nice, but it is completely besides the point. And that point is that a place like Baird, just like Harvard itself, has an Honor Code. Need I remind you that Harvard has an honor code? Have you not seen The Social Network?
"all students will be honest and forthcoming in their dealings with the members of this community. Further, the College expects that students will answer truthfully questions put to them by a properly identified officer of the University. Failure to do so ordinarily will result in disciplinary action, including but not limited to requirement to withdraw from the College."
"All students are required to respect private and public ownership; instances of theft, misappropriation, or unauthorized use of or damage to property or materials not one’s own will ordinarily result in disciplinary action, including requirement to withdraw from the College."
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k95151&pageid=icb.page584229
If Charlie did snitch then his life not only at this school but afterwards would probably be severely damaged. Why? The students at this school will go on to the Ivy Leagues ( Harvard, Yale, etc ) and it would take only one Baird man to single Charlie out as a snitch for Charlie to be damaged at an Ivy league University.
Oh, really? There are 21,000 people enrolled at Harvard. Let me repeat that.
THERE ARE TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND PEOPLE ENROLLED AT HARVARD.Do you honestly think all 20,999 of the other students there are going to 1) know who this Charlie kid is? or 2) even if they do, give a flying f@ck? Or that there aren't going to be people, LIKE ME, who actually believe in honesty, and actually believe in coming forward and being a witness against wrongdoing?
And as was repeatedly pointed out in the movie, Charlie had no friends at this school. Unlike the private school in the movie Class, no one invited Charlie home for Thanksgiving. He has absolutely ZERO bond with the other students.
The boot camp in any branch of the U.S. Military is also designed to be adversarial, the recruits are insulted and demeaned to make them all brothers-in-suffering, how else will they bond except through having a common enemy in their Drill Sergeants or Drill Instructors which forces them to help each other through a trying and extreme ordeal?
You know where else has an adversarial environment, an us-against-them environment, where the recruits are insulted and demeaned to make them all brothers-in-suffering? The US Military Academies. They, too, have an incredibly simple Honor Code:
"A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do."
Frank, OF ALL PEOPLE, Frank knows this. For him to come out against this is just more bullsh!t.
This thing that was done was a prank, not a serious crime like a rape or a murder.
No, it's just defacement of private property - both Trask's nice suit and Italian shoes, and his very expensive Jaguar.
Guess what? That's a felony in Massachusetts. That's called "a serious crime like a rape or murder." The felon can be sent to prison for up to 10 years. Chapter 266, Sections 126A and 127 of the Massachusetts Penal Code.
This is no f@cking little prank to Trask. How would you like it if someone destroyed your expensive suit, shoes, and very expensive car? Not too much.
Gee, what if the prank had been that they pickpocketed Trask's wallet and used the credit cards to order up some hookers to the dorms? Or better yet, sending a tranny hooker to Trask's house? Or perhaps you've also forgotten the movie Risky Business, and how Tom Cruise's dad's Porsche ended up? That sure would be a hilarious prank - and it sure as hell would be f@cking stealing.
Once again, this "not snitching" is complete and utter bullsh!t. Charlie witnessed a serious crime. As a f@cking human being, he has a duty to tell what he saw. That's the way our justice system works. Without it, we may as
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
reply
share
eddysl12
9 years ago
I certainly don't agree with the stunt that was pulled on Trask, it would have been fine with me if the movie had ended with the three that did it getting expelled from the school.
They did put their fellow students George and Charley into an incredibly difficult position. Frank Slade had some negative things to say to the three suspected of pulling this stunt in that they put into jeopardy the future of two students who were just bystanders to this event.
The best definition I could find on what a snitch is: Someone who gives up incriminating evidence to people they have no business talking to in the first place.
So a question might be would George or Charlie relaying what they saw when questioned actually be considered snitching under this definition?
Personally I would have to view snitching as reporting someone for an offense that was very trivial or minor in the hopes of gaining an advantage of some kind.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the work prank, prank does imply something very insignificant which this incident was not.
I guess perhaps a good rule of thumb is this, if an event occurs and the police are involved or even worse detectives then you had better fully cooperate regardless of whether it seems like snitching or not ( I was involved in something like this myself ).
If the police are not involved then it is a toss up, personally I would prefer to avoid the label of being a snitch if I can help it.
reply
share
jgroub
9 years ago
The best definition I could find on what a snitch is: Someone who gives up incriminating evidence to people they have no business talking to in the first place.
So a question might be would George or Charlie relaying what they saw when questioned actually be considered snitching under this definition?
A snitch is someone who goes out of their way to tell on someone else -
unasked. But when the
proper authorities ask you, and you are duty-bound to respond, then that is not snitching.
So, for example, let's use some Seinfeld examples. Newman told Jerry's parents that he saw Jerry making out at Schindler's List. Under my definition, which is more restrictive than yours, Newman went out of his way to tell on Jerry just to get him in trouble - and without being asked. That's a snitch. Of course, under your wider definition, Newman is still a snitch because had no business talking to Jerry's parents in the first place, because it's none of Newman's business what Jerry does, or who Jerry does.
But, in a different situation, let's say Kramer and his intern at Kramerica had dropped that big bag of oil onto Jerry's head instead of Jerry's girlfriend, and ruined Jerry's puffy shirt. Jerry was contractually obligated to wear the puffy shirt on the Today show to promote it for Kramer's girlfriend, the low-talker. Now Jerry goes on the Today show, and he's got nothing. Entire factories were about to produce the puffy shirt, and now they'll stand idle. Jerry's liable, and has to pay Kramer's girlfriend substantial damages.
Because of the huge amount of money Jerry has to pay, he's going to have to move back in with them and start taking the Bloomingdale's Executive Course. Jerry's parents now have a stake in what happens. They don't know that it was Kramer who dropped the bag of oil, and they start asking around. Let's say that they ask Kramer, and Kramer isn't talking. Then they hear that Newman had seen the whole thing, and so they ask Newman what happened. It would be entirely appropriate for Newman to tell Jerry's parents, who are the proper authorities in this completely bizarre, made-up instance, exactly what he saw. And Newman would not be a snitch.
Here, not only are the proper authorities - the headmaster of the school - asking Charlie but Charlie is also duty-bound by the honor code of that school "not to tolerate" those who commit felonies in his presence.
Charlie IS NOT a snitch under these circumstances. I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
reply
share