[Disclaimer: I do not claim to speak for my organization as a whole, although I know that at least one other member of our management staff who I discussed the issue with agreed with me wholeheartedly]
In an article published recently on QuadNews.net "student leaders" are cited as being in support of the motion to block JuicyCampus.com by the Student Government Association. As one of those leaders I'd like a chance to explain exactly why it is that I, not only a leader but a leader of a media organization and a print journalism major, did not hesitate for a moment in supporting this motion. When Alyse Rossner (who has been unjustly hounded by at least one person for her actions against the site) asked me my opinion of the website I was unaware what it was. After she explained it to me and told me some of the things she'd seen I immediately told her it sounded like the SGA had the right idea.
A good friend of mine goes to Oberlin College and a similar web site exists specifically designed for their school. On it students openly insult each other, question one another's sexuality and otherwise gossip, all with that treasured cloak of anonymity that the internet has given us. These are web sites that are socially counterproductive and give people who want to vent about personal issues without having to take any constructive steps towards actually changing them a forum to do so. Thus the cowardly say what they wish about whomever they wish without fear of retribution or, worse yet, the horror having to have a mature discussion with someone they dislike about why exactly they have a problem with them. Heaven forbid they do something as constructive as that. God bless you, internet.
Before I discuss this any further, I want to clarify some things about my personal beliefs for any skeptics who may think I'm some staunch conservative. I am no Puritan (actually I'm agnostic). I am the GM of the campus radio station, and anyone who has been to a WQAQ staff meeting can attest that we are not an organization that takes ourselves too seriously; we are, for the most part, crude, loud, boisterous people. One of my favorite comedians is Sarah Silverman. I believe in majority rule as well as minority right, and, most importantly, I even believe that in their public life people really should be able to say whatever they want to say, no matter how unpopular or hateful it may be…assuming they're willing to be held accountable. Finally, I think that in many respects, QU and its administration have really dropped the ball in allowing student's rights to express themselves. But trust me; this is not one of them.
Some of the things written on JuicyCampus.com have literally made my jaw drop. One thread, entitled "Best f*** in commons," featured a post where someone gave the first and last name of a female QU student and claimed she "has a thing for freshman," and suggested she would sleep with just about any freshman male in the building…and the post only gets worse from there. Is this true? Maybe. Or maybe it's just an act by a cowardly former roommate, ex-boyfriend or other person who would rather attempt to destroy the girl's reputation than confront her in person about whatever issue they clearly have with her. JuicyCampus.com insures there is no way of you, or more importantly, the subject of the post, ever finding out who wrote it.
And here is where the argument against "censorship" becomes null and void. This is a web site that not only encourages "gossip" right on the front page, but also allows anonymous posting and is apparently completely un-moderated. Separately, these elements are dangerous enough, but combining them is like handing a group of children a loaded gun and expecting no one to get hurt. This girl has no way of knowing who wrote this and is denied the right to confront her accuser. This is a web site specifically designed to draw people in to say extreme and hateful things in order to boost their hits and, as a result, ad revenue. They are making a business of hate speech.
We will decry conditions like our oft mentioned lack of diversity, saying it further encourages hate speech on campus, but apparently when SGA takes steps to block a manipulative web site that intentionally creates a hateful environment and worse yet profits from it, suddenly students cry that their rights are being stepped on. What right exactly is that? To spread rumors about people without consequence or accountability? Somehow I doubt that our founding fathers firmly believed in the people's right to call someone a "whore" anonymously and without fear of retribution. But maybe that's just me.
-- D.J. Bernat, General Manager, WQAQ
Be the first to comment on this article!