It used to be that if someone believed in something then they said it — they said it proudly and were accountable for their words. People today, however, seem to think that they are entitled to opine without inquisition or scrutiny. You are only entitled to that if you keep your thoughts to yourself. But when you decide you are going to make those thoughts public, then you need to be prepared for criticism, for backlash and for the potential praise or congratulations.
If the architects of our Declaration of Independence decided to remain anonymous instead of signing their names, we would be living in a very different world. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with one’s supposed “right” to remain anonymous.
I guess anonymity is preferred so one does not have to pay the piper after his bigoted and ugly statement has been forced upon the public. This isn’t just about a poor taste of words or, for that matter, a poor ideology all together, but about something greater. It is about the ethics of being a civil human being and taking responsibility for your thoughts and actions.
This is about choices and the difference an option can make when it comes to accountability. When you are forced to ally, it could be argued that anonymity is licensed because you are not opting for the potential danger of scrutiny. But when the decision is yours and no one asked you if you thought women were subpar to men or that you can’t be Catholic and be pro-choice, then that is a horse of a different color. I’d like to think that the people of this campus have a little conviction, but I am beginning to see that possibly it is not the case. It seems people want to stand up for something or they wish to say what’s on their mind, but only if they can accrue all the benefits and none of the repercussions. I guess this is the kind of lukewarm nation America is turning in to.
Recently, a column was published in the Collegiate Times that discussed changes that were being made to the Web site by public editor Justin Graves titled, “Moderating comments an ongoing concern at the CT” (CT, Dec. 1). One of these changes included monitoring or mediating the comments. I thought a variety of things were very amusing in this piece: first and foremost, that because the CT does not moderate commentary until after it has been posted it absolves itself of any hate speech that may occur. This is a safe stance for the CT no doubt. Too bad precedent has already been set for institutions and the accountability they have for the forums or functions they provide.
We hold leaders responsible for the actions of their people, executives responsible for the actions of their company, doctors responsible for the effects of their prescribed drugs and diagnoses, despite the fact that in all these scenarios the individuals responsible never have all of the information to warrant full accountability.
A professor of mine recently stated in the classroom that he is asked to sign hundreds of papers a day in his position and that he cannot read all of them. He must trust the people giving him the papers, but at the end of the day he is held responsible for their content and effects. Why is the CT different? It provides a forum through which people can say anything they want, how they want to, and to whomever they please. They can even claim to be someone they are not.
Another concern regarding the destruction of this anonymity clause was that it would truncate the number of commentators. This is both true and untrue. It would certainly curb the needless comments of those individuals that enjoy spewing hate speech and vacuous insults that say nothing of the actual quality of the article. It, however, would not curb the commentary of desired criticism, such as constructive reviews posted by individuals that believe in what they say enough to put their name to it.
There was also the mention that by removing anonymity that this was somehow curtailing freedom of speech, which I do not think I need to explain to my readers how little sense that makes. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding anonymity. We do have laws, however, against libel — a regular offense on the CT forums.
A solution to these issues is the supposed moderation by CT staff. This “post moderation” is ineffective and pointless since the damage is done before it can be redressed, and many comments go unnoticed. Further, this “moderation” includes nothing more than veiling the comment but still allowing access to it, possibly lending to it greater attention because of the attractive nature of its crypsis. I believe these actions are well intentioned, but they fail to pass muster.
I am willing to meet halfway though. I think that if people wish to remain anonymous to the campus then so be it, but for the sake of integrity (if nothing else) commentators should also have to submit their Virginia Tech e-mail, have it substantiated and then be allowed to comment. In this way, if impertinent behavior occurs, the CT staff can identify the individual while keeping his identity a secret to the campus.