Addicted to Anonymity

What if you could say anything you wanted, to anybody you wanted, without anyone knowing it was you who was speaking? What would you say? Who would you say it to?

The concept of anonymity is one found throughout our society in many different forms. You can call an anonymous tip line to aide law enforcement in reporting a crime, or attend an anonymous help group like Alcoholics Anonymous to seek assistance with a problem you might be ashamed of. If you are Catholic, you might confess your sins to a priest from behind a screen. We walk through crowds in big cities as just another face in that crowd—no one watching really knows who we are. To the person across the room from you in your economics lecture, you might just be that guy who wears the same sweatshirt every day to class.

Interestingly, though, even while we may consider ourselves anonymous in these circumstances, you might not be as faceless as you think. In each of the above examples, there is some kind of characteristic that could lead to your identification by at least someone. The tone of a voice, a recognizable facial feature, or the willingness to speak your mind—even in front of a large crowd of strangers—all are things that make you responsible for what you say. Even if that identification is not made public, there are very few instances in which you do not have to defend yourself if allegations you make are disputed.

That has changed with the rise of the internet, and, most recently, the website Juicy Campus. Let me first say that I find both the vast majority of the content and premise of the website despicable. Most of the thread titles, and many of the comments, are unfit to print in the pages of a publication. I encourage nobody to visit the website. By now, everyone knows—from visiting the site themselves or from hearing about it—what kind of things are posted, so I do not feel I will be giving the site any free publicity by denouncing it. However, the existence of such an “anonymous” website raises interesting questions regarding the nature of free speech, culture at Vanderbilt, and the role of individual students and Vanderbilt Student Government in solving this problem.

First, let’s look a little more at the idea of anonymity. Theoretically, to be anonymous is to lack any sort of identity, and thus to be free from any sort of responsibility for what you say. This might sound appealing, but consider this: at what point would you want to free yourself from responsibility? Most likely, whenever what you are saying could reveal embarrassing or otherwise private information about yourself or another individual, or cause you to have to defend yourself and the accuracy of your statements. In both of these cases, then, anonymity serves to undermine two checks on the truthfulness of one’s assertions. When you are not anonymous, private information is either kept that way, or disseminated with your name attached—and everyone can come to you if they have a problem with it. Because you are forced to defend yourself, your words, and your reputation, one would think that you would verify that your statements are true. This is the reason unnamed sources are somewhat mistrusted in the field of journalism. It is important to note though, that even the distribution of information known to be false can have a disastrous effect on one’s reputation. In the end then, to say something anonymously, and to be free from the consequences of your words, is at its foundation an act of cowardice.

However, Juicy Campus seems to cross a line that deals not only with anonymity, but with general human decency. I spent some time browsing the discussion topics, and was overall appalled at what was posted.

If anonymity allows people to post whatever they want, with little regard for any possible repercussions and any need to follow conventional tenets of decency, should their speech be banned? The Hustler has reported in several stories about VSG and the Greek system’s responses to Juicy Campus. Admirably, VSG (so far) has elected not to ban the website. As vulgar as the content is, to ban any website from Vanderbilt’s campus would set a dangerous precedent.

More interesting, though, is the proposed to response to Juicy Campus – don’t acknowledge it’s existence. An article from the Wednesday, February 13 issue of the Hustler indicates that both VSG and Greek organizations are encouraging students not to post on the site, and that Panhellenic Council President Katie Titus instructed others to “just not go on it, not talk about it, not write on it” because “nothing’s true about it.”

On Friday, February 22, VSG Vice President Wyatt Smith weighed in on the issue: “Juicy Campus is driven by students, and it is in the hands of students to stop it. Visiting the site is the same as promoting the hurtful comments found there, and the site will continue until students decide that they are not going to promote it any longer.” The Hustler also reported that “Most student leaders maintain their anti-Juicy Campus stance, expressing faith the community will cease communications through the site.”

I find these comments interesting because of what they do not address. To me, these student leaders seem to be trying to solve the wrong problem. The issue for them, and for the Hustler, is Juicy Campus. But what about the culture that obviously pervades Vanderbilt’s campus—perhaps more than we initially thought—and causes people to write what they did? I’ll venture to say that in this sense, Juicy Campus has played a useful role. Student leaders maybe anti-Juicy Campus, but are they working to erase the part of Vanderbilt that demeans women, minorities, gays, other fraternities, many individual students from behind a coward’s shield of anonymity? I have heard nobody denounce Vanderbilt for what it has posted – only Juicy Campus, for allowing Vanderbilt to post. Is not contributing to Juicy Campus going to solve these issues, or will it just sweep them back under the rug?

Is Juicy Campus a hateful website? Yes. Would it be a hateful website if Vanderbilt students were more respectful and decent people? I would argue that it probably wouldn’t. VSG, fraternities, and sororities shouldn’t encourage people not to go on it. That isn’t enough. We all, as individuals, must change the culture of Vanderbilt by becoming more decent human beings, treating others with respect, and taking responsibility for the words we say and the things we do.