Attack versus healthy debate

I’d like to thank Vivienne Chen for her response to President Shirley Tilghman’s letter on anonymous comments. Chen’s main argument is that she is in favor of anonymous comments because anonymity sparks debate; anonymity allows for marginalized groups to voice their opinions, to raise concerns and promote change. Chen goes on to say that she has been a victim of racist and misogynistic remarks, which is why I thought she would be more sensitive to the issue at hand. While I do not necessarily agree with President Tilghman’s statement that “anonymous debate is no debate at all,” I do believe that a debate, regardless of whether or not the participants are revealed or anonymous, should remain relevant so that the dialogue will not turn hateful. There’s a difference between attacking an issue and attacking a person — here’s where I believe Chen has made an error.

I agree with Chen’s example of how anonymity can have a positive outcome. But the example that she used was not an anonymous comment, but rather an entire article written by an unnamed person. One of the examples that she referenced is the wildly popular article “Living in Ambiguity,” which was written by an anonymous gay student. I believe the comments on the article were relatively clean because no one knew who the person was, and therefore no one could say anything bad personally about the writer of that column. Anonymity, in that case, enabled the experience to be judged and not the person. The Street section was very accommodating to allow a writer to submit something anonymously, and it definitely worked. But there are other sections of the ‘Prince’ and countless publications in general where this is not the case. Every time I, or my colleagues, submit a piece, it is a no-brainer that my name will be attached to the articles. We are held accountable for what we say when we want our voices heard. In juxtaposition, some commenters do not want their voices heard; they just want to attack someone.

My very first article as an opinion writer, “Creativity, not Selectivity,” was about my disapproval on the competitive process of enrolling in creative writing classes. An anonymous commenter spewed that the only reason I got into Princeton was because of affirmative action and that I was too dumb to achieve anything of significant value. He or she proceeded to call me a “whiny black girl.” Now how does that promote debate? Vivienne Chen challenges the assumption that anonymity creates a space of negativity and for that I challenge her argument. I can’t change the fact that I’m an African-American and that I’m a woman. I’m a double minority. African-American women are stereotyped to be oversensitive, loud, mouthy and ghetto. How do you think it made me feel that my first time published as an opinion writer, I was called a “whiny black girl”? My race and sex had absolutely nothing to do with my article whatsoever. How is this not negative? It was completely irrelevant, and this is a prime example of why I think anonymous comments are not always healthy.

But since I may be biased because this is my own personal experience, let me give another example: Emily Rutherford, a 2012 Marshall Scholar, wrote an opinion article on Annual Giving, and there were over a hundred comments within which anonymous people commented on her sexuality and even took swipes at her mother. How does that promote debate? The writer did not once mention her sexuality or her family in the piece.

Overall, to ideally resolve this issue of anonymous commenting, the question must be asked: What image does The Daily Princetonian want to project to its readers? If you look at the Huffington Post or The New York Times, comments are flagged and removed if they are racist and hateful. I believe there should be more monitoring of anonymous comments. This is not necessarily to say we should track down the IP addresses of people who comment on articles. However, there should be stricter vigilance — racist, sexist and misogynistic remarks that are completely irrelevant to what the writer was discussing should be removed as soon as possible. When President Tilghman said anonymous commenting can be a verbal equivalent to a food fight, I agree in the sense that anonymity also breeds juvenile, childish behavior. If we as students cannot stick to the issue at hand but instead attack an author for features that the person cannot change, how far have we really advanced in our critical thinking?

Morgan Jerkins is a comparative literature major from Williamstown, N. J. She can be reached at mjerkins@princeton.edu.