Apparently those New Haven Elis can't handle a little free speech. According to a March 7th Yale Herald article, "Administrators ... are considering the University's legal options for restraining the site's presence on campus." The perpetrator: JuicyCampus.com.
We are not, however, new to the idea of an anonymous message board; Bored at Baker paved the way for the dissemination of undergraduate libel. But the liberties of anonymity will often lead to offense, and victims of slander will always demand justice.
Because the source of the hatred cannot be pinpointed, attempts at revenge are foiled: "I am not a whore!" pleads the sticky-palated strumpet between peptide gulps; "Someone called me gay -- how gauche!" squeals the in-the-closet opinion columnist. Poor Wackery Nottlieb.
To think that Yale is willing to take legal action or punitive measures on those who access the site is an absurd reversion to elementary school martial law. Demands for accountability neglect the cruel beauty of social experimentation. Juicy Campus -- and the Internet more generally -- have created a real anonymous world in which accountability is finally eliminated. Of course people will be cruel; once we break down social barriers, truth -- or exaggerations inspired by true feelings -- will be unleashed at last.
Juicy Campus provides this opportunity, and we hate it because it can reveal how we are truly perceived (anything but fat, please!). Little on Juicy Campus is wholly uninspired; perceptions and hyperbolic criticisms stem from existing antagonism. But that doesn't mean that it's entirely wholehearted.
Fortunately, much of the vitriolic fodder on the web site -- especially about racial and ethnic groups -- is probably not legitimate bigotry, but a result of the removal of social obstructions. Often it's done purposely to offend. The solution is not to take offense -- it is just an experiment, and shock value is at a premium. Intent is key. We cannot assume true malice in what may be puerile experimentation with a new social freedom. Incendiary words are just that, often nothing more.
Even if posts are wholly and intentionally malicious, how much emotional weight should we invest in something with "juicy" in its name? The rhetoric and logic of offensive posts is so anemic that believing in them makes as much sense as Islam. (Islam Fayed, the '10, not the religion. Nice kid, that Islam.)
Unlike Juicy Campus posters, my name is attached to my words, and Islam can feel free to Blitz me about them. And while I often offend many readers who don't understand the use of a jocular tone, the fact that I identify with my words proves my point. Without someone to approach, without a target, bigoted words on a computer screen are really no words at all. Just like the gold standard, verbiage without nominative backing is literary fiat; nothing prevents it from worthlessness save the faith we put in it. Peers who put their names behind malicious words are those we should question first.
The world was only a womb of tender care and wine cooler for nine months. Why do people feel the need for institutionalized protection, when shrugging off amateur bigotry is the best way to nullify it? If you know those rumors and stereotypes aren't true, it's not your obligation to defend yourself from a verbal assailant shrouded in cowardly anonymity. Using the site to denigrate other people is the greatest auto-insult.
You may be disliked, and those sentiments may bloom online. Even the people you live with will hate you for as little as using their pillow as something to approximate the shape of a woman when you sleep. (She's an adult, Teddy, and she can choose who to love!) Juicy Campus' power to unleash the vitriolic soapboxers inside of us often makes it seem like the whole world is out to get you. And unless you actually are the hottest guy at Dartmouth (Jonathan Adelson '10), it probably isn't.
If you don't empower Juicy Campus, you incapacitate it. That is the challenge of the web site; if we choose to eliminate it, we have failed to prove our maturity by confronting it. Sticks and stones, Dartmouth. Ultimately, shutting down the site proves nothing; castrating it with our emotional resilience makes for a much greater statement. But knowing you readers, you'll probably just go thumbs-up the list of the hottest '11s. If you're on that list, check the site in about five minutes -- I'll have the biggest penis on campus.
