Last April, former editor-in-chief Jenny Che wrote a letter from the editor (“Creating a Constructive Dialogue,” April 29) addressing concerns over The D’s then-current comment policy. The concerns, which regarded the offensive and hurtful nature of some comments on opinion columns or news articles, resonated with me. As a columnist, I expect a certain degree of backlash, both on the site and in my daily life. However, that others’ pieces about sensitive, personal issues (such as sexual assault) receive hateful and incredibly callous comments from anonymous sources is not something I wish to tolerate.
Che’s letter promised a change to the old method; users would now have to make an account to post. I hoped that this change would discourage such destructive comments. Unfortunately, the change proved virtually fruitless, since commentators can still choose a fake display name and/or a fake email address. We in The Dartmouth community should not tolerate anonymous comments on articles of a sensitive nature, because these comments could easily trigger depression or panic attacks in an innocent reader or author.
This may sound extreme, but consider the commentary on a recent article about eating disorders. “Fribble,” taking advantage of the fake name option, opens his or her remark by asking, “Why don’t the usual whiners get together?” He or she then notes that “great, great students of the great, great College can’t deal with their own lives.” He or she finishes in a follow-up comment by saying, “Man and woman up ya bunch of babies.” Comments like these, rather than encouraging dialogue or offering a constructive viewpoint, serve only to belittle the experiences of many within the Dartmouth community and potentially harm those who know or have known someone affected by eating disorders. These comments essentially function as a form of bullying.
This is not to say that I do not value free speech. I very much do. However, anonymity complicates the situation. There is a reason people look down on Bored at Baker more than they would look down on a city hall debate or face-to-face discussion, no matter how vulgar or filled with non-sequiturs that conversation is. Though anonymity can be a stabilizing factor because it makes all commenters equally invisible, it can also bring out the worst in people à la “Fribble.”
Moreover, anonymity discourages dialogue. It strips away the mutual assumption of common humanity that the speaker and listener share with each other. Absent a face, or even a name, we can no longer expect either party to behave civilly or humanely. The phenomenon of “trolling” is quite common, with commenters saying the most inflammatory or obnoxious response possible just to incite a reaction. Trolling is certainly disrespectful to the author, the readers and the other commenters. Furthermore, abject racism, sexism, homophobia, et cetera can be excused under the guise of “trolling,” as if saying terrible things for the sake of a bad joke is any better.
The anonymous vitriol is even more disappointing in light of Dartmouth’s well-advertised sense of community. One of the benefits of going to such a small school in such a small town is that you always carry with you a sense of belonging to a close-knit community. Even with the growing network of alumni and the variety of Hanover’s citizens, the almost-quaint sense of community is a hallmark of the ever-amorphous “Dartmouth experience.” That experience comes with a cost, however. Issues as sensitive as sexual assault or violence are highly personal, and these hostile comments not only hurt an individual’s feelings but also threaten his or her sense of belonging. As a community, we are charged not only with respecting one another, but also with ensuring that members of our community feel safe.
The Dartmouth differs from national news publications, which allow anonymous commenting, because the audience is so specific. The Dartmouth has a very personal obligation to its readers — and its authors. The Dartmouth, as a private institution, should amend its current comment policy to include a ban on such hostile comments. Comments should at least be closed on articles that discuss potentially triggering events. The freedom to voice one’s opinion is important, but blatant bullying and anonymous harassment is unacceptable, especially in the context of a community as supposedly strong as ours.
