Gina Faldetta September 23, 2013 Media

Amherst Confidon’t

“I thought she was Latina when I met her. I mean, I thought something wasn’t clean in the milk.” –Anonymous submission to Overheard At Amherst

We all have opinions on the Amherst Facebook group Big Four. Amherst Compliments is fun and cute, Amherst Crushes is fun and a little creepy, Overheard At Amherst is in turns funny and unfunny… and then there’s Amherst Confidant.

Amherst Confidant, the breeding ground for discontent, “discourse,” and discourse on the “discourse.” It’s what you get when you put highly flammable, controversial topics on an anonymous online platform: a not-so-fun funhouse version of what we like to regard as intellectual, socially relevant, liberal-arts-campus conversations. What started as a place for secrets (a great premise, especially considering how well ACGG worked out), quickly turned into a clusterfuck of posts including such endearing phrases as “Kiss my ass, you stuck up, obviously insecure asshole.”

The site brings up many questions. What should the role of the moderator be? Should they be censoring posts that promote hate and prejudice in our community, or does it come down to a matter of freedom of speech? How does the anonymity of the site affect the level of discourse – does it allow for openness that would otherwise be unavailable to members of our community or does it allow students to shirk responsibility for their problematic statements?

Anyone who’s seen my comment on the quote that opens this article (the impossibly eloquent “shut it down shut the whole page down”) probably already has an idea of my opinion of these pages. Yes, Compliments and Crushes are cute and generally harmless. Overheard is, for the most part, funny or benignly unfunny (for the sake of my own sanity, I’m choosing to ignore the recent sexist, fat-shaming “She’s fat and I’m sober.”) But Amherst Confidant is a can of worms that shows the dark, ugly underbelly of campus discourse.

It’s not a matter of freedom of speech: it’s a choice to promote or shut down hateful speech. It’s irresponsible to play God by “giving a voice” to everyone, regardless of your own beliefs, because allowing people an anonymous platform to promote unclaimed, private beliefs cannot result in anything positive. If you are unwilling to take responsibility for the things you say, you should ask yourself why you’re saying them at all. And if you truly believe them, but are merely afraid of blowback and stigmatization when expressing your desire to use the n-word in good fun, maybe you should ask yourself if you’re submitting to Amherst Confidant out of cowardice. Spoiler alert: you probably are.

If someone in our community wants to use Facebook to engender a level of discourse that they aren’t seeing on campus, they should post a status. Everyone should feel free to complain about the banality of social justice, but everyone should also take responsibility for the kind of dialogue they share with the community. The expression of varying and controversial opinions is great – it allows us to learn and grow as individuals and as a community. But the anonymous platform of Amherst Confidant (and, to some degree, the other pages as well) promotes irresponsible, often cowardly conversation, and that’s not helping anyone grow or learn. It’s helping people air their frustrations and gang together, it’s helping people pick sides and it’s helping divisions, prejudices, and resentments fester in our community.

“But what if I don’t submit anything to Amherst Confidant, anyway?” you may be thinking. “What if I just think it’s funny to see people arguing in an ultimately pointless and unproductive way?” The other side of this is a kind of perverse voyeurism that comes to light as people derive amusement from watching their peers express passionate feelings about social issues in a way that may be inappropriate or hurtful. This scopophilic behavior can be incendiary and can also undermine the importance of promoting actual campus discourse.

And, on the flip side of this are students who dislike seeing people bash their college, a place that we all chose to make our home. It can be hurtful to see your “peers” spew so much negativity towards an institution that you love (even if you sometimes hate it yourself). Amherst has provided a home, a community, and many opportunities to its student body, and most students feel appreciation for the school, and say negative things about it from a place of love and a desire to make Amherst all it can be. That love doesn’t show itself on Amherst Confidant, a place where people go if they’re frustrated and angry and just want to rant.

It looks like Amherst Confidant is gearing up to start posting again this school year. I’d recommend unfriending so as to cut the negativity out of your life, but, as I mentioned, who doesn’t like watching a good trainwreck? I’ll probably keep reading the posts… but I’ll also probably keep repeating the ancient proverb of “social justice warriors”:

“shut it down shut the whole page down”

16Comments

Add yours

1

Anonymous on September 23, 2013 at 10:50 am
Reply

“allowing people an anonymous platform to promote unclaimed, private beliefs cannot result in anything positive”

You took it a step too far with this phrase, I think. What about the Internet? I think there’s a lot of value to anonymous speech that you aren’t accounting for here. Amherst Confidant is generally a stupid page, but that’s no excuse to condemn anonymous speech in general.
2

o on September 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Reply

where is the “actual campus discourse” that actual does something?
3

Daniel Diner on September 23, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Reply

That the page shows “the dark, ugly underbelly of campus discourse” is the very reason it’s so important. There are still plenty of people on this campus who haven’t been reached by things like the pro-sexual or sexual respect campaigns. The question has always been how to reach them, but reaching them hasn’t been attainable until we could actually find them. Allowing them to post hateful things in a safe space is exactly what needs to continue happening – shutting it down will not shut down the hate, only our awareness of it.
4

anonymous and proud of it on September 23, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Reply

The essence of free speech is allowing people to say things you don’t like. It isn’t free speech if we only permit certain kinds of things to be said. Regardless of how much we may not approve of what is spoken, when we restrict speech, we are committing an injustice. Social justice IS allowing everyone to have a voice, not just what is sanitized or pre-approved. Contrary to what is stated here, it is determining what should or should not be said that is playing god and acting irresponsibly.

We ought to be asking ourselves why people only put forth these opinions within the safety of relative anonymity, rather sitting on a moral high-horse and shaming them for not publicly expressing them and labeling the behavior as cowardly or unproductive. We should be working to understand why these views are held rather than trying in vain to erase any evidence of their very real existence. We are generally intelligent people here at Amherst, and as such, we ought to know that banning things doesn’t erase their existence. Instead it pushes it into an underground environment. When they aren’t out in the open (even the limited openness of a semi-anonymous Facebook page), such views cannot be challenged or changed. Even if they are stated anonymously, we can engage these topics and try to promote true understanding and empathy, rather than simply making sure no one has hurt feelings or feels slighted. The later is a band-aid solution, the former affects the true change that social justice projects seek to bring about.

So don’t promote shutting down a forum just because you don’t agree with what is said. I think it is safe to assume you wouldn’t want someone to do that to you if the tables were turned.
5

J. on September 23, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Reply

Though it may be true that the reluctance to take responsibility for our words is a sign of cowardice, and that we might, in a perfect world with perfect human beings, properly expect everyone who has a rationally-held belief contrary to the mainstream to proudly stand up to the rushing currents of public opinion, in reality, and in our community specifically, few people actually have the moral standing to legitimately condemn those who chose not to attach their name to an unpopular belief. We are all cowards in face of injustice, one way or another.

That somebody would rather post their opinion anonymously is less a sign of their cowardice than a damning critique of the unfortunate state of our intellectual community: that people do not feel safe or comfortable expressing unpopular opinions. This is the chilling effect of censorship, whether it is an enforced policy or simply the force of public opinion –which is after all a far stronger censor than any government or administration policy. Obviously there are certain limits to freedom of speech, but these limits bear the heavy burden of justification. Restricting it because of negativity absolutely does not withstand any such challenge.

That we need something like Amherst Confidant is a lamentable fact. People should not have to resort to anonymity. But nevertheless, I’m glad it’s here to stay.
6

Anonymous on September 23, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Reply

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the author claims she’ll keep reading the posts but advises others to unfriend it for the same reason she wants to read it for: “a good trainwreck”?
Hypocrisy much?
7

anonymous on September 23, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Reply

Interesting beginning quote– seeing how it’s not even from Amherst Confidant…
- 8
  
  Anonymous on September 24, 2013 at 3:45 pm
  Reply
  
  wait wtf. but actually! she’s not even criticizing the right page.
9

Anonymous on September 23, 2013 at 8:10 pm
Reply

“It’s helping people air their frustrations and gang together, it’s helping people pick sides and it’s helping divisions, prejudices, and resentments fester in our community.”

“This scopophilic behavior can be incendiary and can also undermine the importance of promoting actual campus discourse.”

“but, as I mentioned, who doesn’t like watching a good trainwreck? I’ll probably keep reading the posts… but I’ll also probably keep repeating the ancient proverb of “social justice warriors”: “shut it down shut the whole page down””

At least have the decency to not be a hypocrite from way up there on your moral high horse. You can’t feel righteous and do the wrong thing (according to your own words not even 3 paragraphs apart) at the same time, much less preach to your peers about it.
10

Anonymous on September 23, 2013 at 9:13 pm
Reply

“And, on the flip side of this are students who dislike seeing people bash their college, a place that we all chose to make our home. It can be hurtful to see your “peers” spew so much negativity towards an institution that you love (even if you sometimes hate it yourself).”

And this is why people are afraid to “bash”, or legitimately complain about, the College using their own names. The issues I have with Amherst extend past, but do include, the general “social justice” problems; because of that, they aren’t very popular.

I think it’s absurd that we admit students whose parents attended Amherst but whose applications aren’t up to par. I don’t understand why we scream about the slightest sexual injustice but shrug off racial and ethnic injustices. I find the discussion of class issues at Amherst to be woefully lacking. But we can’t talk about it because those complaining about white, heterosexual, cisgender privilege often enjoy economic privilege.

Also, why is peers in quotation marks? Aren’t you serving to marginalize a minority group on campus—those who don’t love Amherst, even in broad sweeps—which is exactly what you so often rail against?

My comment will remain anonymous because, and I imagine I’m not alone in those, I worry that it would further remove me from the campus community. I already don’t love where I am, why make that worse?

Fun fact, when you Google “Amherst College Community Service” the second hit is Dinning Services.

College on the hill? You’re damn right we are.
11

Tom M on September 23, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Reply

The most cited peer reviewed paper on the idea generating effects that anonymity provide suggest that in general anonymity allows individuals (and groups) to generate and share more ideas then if they were identified. I think it is too far to say that anonymity “cannot result in anything positive”. It probably sounds harsh, but your lack of research aside from looking at facebook a lot is pretty disappointing.

Here is the paper for the curious:

Click to access 7.hciincontext.socpsyc.connolly.mediated.pdf
12

Anonymous on September 23, 2013 at 11:41 pm
Reply

And if you truly believe them, but are merely afraid of blowback and stigmatization when expressing your desire to use the n-word in good fun, maybe you should ask yourself if you’re submitting to Amherst Confidant out of cowardice. Spoiler alert: you probably are.

It is easy to bring forward the charge of cowardice when your own opinion is one held by the vast majority of people in Amherst College. An example which might be easier for you to understand: why don’t you tell the gay students at Liberty University to openly come out in their community instead of being cowards?

I feel that a number of people at Amherst, at least myself, may have opinions about politics, laws, or social justice which sharply diverge from the accepted “correct” opinion (“correct” being the point of view and set of assumptions which you are expected to hold when you are, say, discussing issues openly in a classroom setting). However, not all of us are that willing to defend our minority opinions to the point of sacrificing our public reputations for it. For example, I might be a conservative Republican, but I am unwilling to spend the bulk of my day arguing about politics, which is only a small aspect of my thoughts anyway. This may be cowardly, but I think it is completely fine to be cowardly for the sake of achieving certain greater goods. Only extreme masculine pride demands that one be courageous in everything.

“The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.”
13

physphilmusic on September 23, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Reply

And if you truly believe them, but are merely afraid of blowback and stigmatization when expressing your desire to use the n-word in good fun, maybe you should ask yourself if you’re submitting to Amherst Confidant out of cowardice. Spoiler alert: you probably are.

It is easy to bring forward the charge of cowardice when your own opinion is one held by the vast majority of people in Amherst College. I should call this “majority viewpoint privilege”. An example which might be easier for you to understand: why don’t you tell the gay students at Liberty University to openly come out in their community instead of being cowards?

I feel that a number of people at Amherst, at least myself, may have opinions about politics, laws, or social justice which sharply diverge from the accepted “correct” opinion (“correct” being the point of view and set of assumptions which you are expected to hold when you are, say, discussing issues openly in a classroom setting). However, not all of us are that willing to defend our minority opinions to the point of sacrificing our public reputations for it. For example, I might be a conservative Republican, but I am unwilling to spend the bulk of my day arguing about politics, which is only a small aspect of my thoughts anyway.

As you can see, it might also not be a case of me want to use certain words like “nigger” because I want to satisfy some deep racist desires, but instead a simple case of believing that we shouldn’t censor that word by referring to it as the “n-word”, because I agree with Albus Dumbledore that not saying the actual word gives them even more power than they can ever have. But despite believing in this strongly, I have no desire to put my reputation on the line for defending such a belief, especially since there is little to gain from it.

All of this may be cowardly, but I think it is completely fine to be cowardly for the sake of achieving certain greater goods. Only extreme masculine pride demands that one be courageous in everything.

“The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.”
14

Anonymous on September 24, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Reply

shut AC Voice down. shut the whole page down.
- 15
  
  chillman is in the house tonight on September 26, 2013 at 9:50 am
  Reply
  
  lol
16

On Irony and Loneliness | AC VOICE on September 28, 2013 at 12:15 am
Reply

[…] other consequence of ironic distance is anonymity. In a recent article, Gina profiled the role played by Amherst Confidant within our community. I agree with her, in that I believe allowing hateful opinions to be voiced […]

Share this:

Like this:

Related