Does Anonymous Writing Promote Constructive Discourse?
From the editors:
Obviously, the author of the Con piece would have preferred to be named, but we have rules.
Pro
I should not have to fear publishing a calm, reasoned argument free of hate speech and edited by peers. I should be excited to share my opinions and join the conversation because improvement requires engagement. But I am not. I am worried that if I published an article in existing campus publications, it would be misread and potentially become the defining aspect of my character for the remainder of my time at Dartmouth.
I am scared to submit an Op Ed to The Dartmouth, or any other campus publication, because attaching my name to a piece can be dangerous. Though I’m confident in my opinions, more than happy to talk with someone about them – especially if they disagree – and am open to changing them, much of this campus is not willing to have a conversation. I am worried that people will read what I say and jump quickly to conclusions about not only the strength and intent of my argument but the integrity of my character. Students I have never met will smear my name and, even worse, friends will distance themselves as a result of social pressures.
As you are undoubtedly aware, Ryan Spector published an article in The D earlier this year. It would be an understatement to say he was attacked. I am not saying he wrote a good article, but most people judge him without having met him. No one should pass judgment on someone’s character based off of one poorly written article. We all deserve to be engaged with before we are condemned.
Anonymous writing abolishes this fear. Suddenly I am able to express my opinions without worrying about personal attacks and you are forced to engage with my argument. My background and experience can help determine biases and alternative motivations, but are we not at one of the top institutions in the world? Are we not able to look for signs of bias and keep in the back of our head a reminder that the person writing might have other motives?
There are views on this campus free of malice that are not welcomed. You may struggle to think of them, but that is because they are suppressed. It is hard to determine what the acceptable differences of opinions are when differing from the opinion of the majority comes with a fear of condemnation.
I spoke my mind, I did so civilly, and because this piece is anonymous, I can contribute to the conversation without fear of attack on my character. Hopefully, an anonymous forum will help students recognize that there are plenty of members of our community who think differently and are just too scared to share. We can entertain new and old opinions that have been suppressed out of fear of being ostracized. We can begin to debate and talk with each other. Maybe, down the road, I’ll feel safe writing under my name and you will talk with me before you write about me.
– Anonymous
Con
Individuals should always seek truth. Central to this end is dialogue and discussion between people. Truth can only come from discourse if people are willing to be confronted with other ways of thinking; without honestly and openly exchanging ideas, even the wisest or most intelligent people cannot confirm their perceived reality. This kind of dialogic reevaluation is commonly referred to as constructive dialogue. In order to ensure that people do communicate their beliefs to others, some might suggest creating spaces for anonymous discussion to eliminate fears of personal judgment. Unfortunately, this is not the case—anonymous writing is a detriment to productive dialogue. Written opinions should be associated with actual names so that constructive personal exchanges can happen. Ideas can only be seriously considered when associated with people.
Initially, one might think that anonymity would embolden otherwise reserved voices to speak. Unfortunately, investigation into the matter shows otherwise. There is a considerable body of research that shows negative aspects of anonymity. Anonymity can carry unintended consequences such as discouraging disagreement and does not reduce the risks of harassment or personal attacks. Instinctive feelings about anonymity do not hold up to reality; removing the names of authors from their writing does not always improve the quality of discussion. In fact, when people know where an opinion comes from, they are more likely to listen.
Consider recent articles by Dartmouth students on sexual assault. Experiences with sexual assault can be really hard to hear, but are incredibly important for victims to share. Just as these stories need to be told notwithstanding the difficulty, all written opinions should be shared non-anonymously. When readers know the author of a piece, they are inclined to take it more seriously and respond more thoughtfully.
Sure, perhaps knowing an author’s name is only relevant to those who would recognize the author. Maybe it is sufficient to know that the author of a particular idea is speaking authentically. But as long as some anonymity is preserved, ideas will exist separately from their original context. An anonymous piece on living in poverty will make little impact unless people in proximity with the author can validate some aspects of his/her narrative. Only a real face and name can resolve the impersonality of anonymous exchange; the closer someone can get to the source of an idea, the greater the chance of understanding.
A move toward anonymity in writing is understandable. Historically, people have been hurt or killed for holding unpopular beliefs. In the face of this precedent, simple solutions might appear promising. Nevertheless, people should be able to speak openly, especially in a country with a constitutional commitment to free speech. If people are at risk of harm, the proper response is not to bend to the collective will, but to convince disputants that violence is unnecessary. In this way, anonymity is not only a facile solution, but an obstacle to real discussion.
– Anonymous
Hey there,
Welcome to the comments section! We ask that you keep it civil, respectful, on topic, and lively. Nothin’ but good vibes and fiery intellectualism.
Enjoy,
The Editors
I love this dialogue! In order to combat the tribalism and increased polarization of America, we must listen to both sides of the argument with genuine interest. To live in a civil society, one must conflict our own ignorance with our openness to other people’s opinions.
Good pieces of work by both writers. I will say I have to agree with the pro writer on this one. I especially liked the point that “It is hard to determine what the acceptable differences of opinions are when differing from the opinion of the majority comes with a fear of condemnation.” Anonymity allows arguments to be explored in a national and campus environment where the pitchforks come out quicker than the notepads.
Con’s belief that anonymous writing shouldn’t need to occur because we live in a “country with a constitutional commitment to free speech” misses the point of the need for this sort of forum. While the US does legally protect free speech, this free speech does not extend to protection of character. And while I agree with Con’s point that anonymous writing can lead to hateful trolls I believe that the set up of this publication should stop that.
One small thing I think would have been an interesting point by both sides to discuss is the anonymous writing of our founding fathers like Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. While clearly in a different time and age, their anonymity allowed them to debate ideas in a way that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.