Generally, the internet has resolved this issue (not purposefully, just naturally) by moving away from the “single authority” approach (i.e. Kael or Hentoff) toward a “wisdom of the masses” approach (583 5-star ratings on Amazon vs. 14 1-stars). Libraries too are grappling with this (one example: controlled vocabulary subject headings? Or uncontrolled folksonomies?) Personally, I trust Pauline Kael and Nat Hentoff. But I also trust 583 5-star reviews. The difficulty I have with your approach to Middlebury Confessional is that by being so concerned with what one (or even a few) anonymous and probably disgruntled individuals have to say, you implicitly attribute to them some sort of actual “authority” or “expertise.”

I sympathize with, and understand completely, the fact that even one disgruntled nasty comment can hurt. But the solution is not to try to legislate or repress away speech, but to understand the underlying meaninglessness of isolated, unhappy, anonymous comments. If someone writes on MC: “That librarian in the music library with the pony-tail is a complete idiot. Plus, he’s ugly and smells bad,” I might feel a momentary twinge of “Hey! Ouch!” But I’m also going to take it with a grain of salt, especially if I can’t remember any interaction with someone that might warrant such a remark.

However, if 50 posters, anonymous or not, start chiming in with “Yeah, I agree. Ugly, dumb and stinky,” it may be an indication that I really am lacking something in my interactions, and, probably, I should also review my hygiene habits. It may be harsh, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

People, all of us, need to begin adjusting their attitudes to the internet. I’m not saying that rudeness will become the norm or that libel should be tolerated, but simply that, if someone spends more than 2 minutes cruising around the internet looking for something to be offended by, he or she will probably find it. If MiddConfess bugs you, or if there’s a nasty post about you, don’t go to the site and read it. But if there are 50 nasty posts, maybe one needs to take a hard look at how one is teaching, or being a librarian, or interacting with one’s fellow students.

Finally (and I apologize for the length of this post), in response to a comment to your May 4th post, you wrote: “As one student put it, our community would not tolerate nasty, anonymous comments written on students’ whiteboards or on the walls of residence halls. Why is this different?” There’s really a pretty simple answer to this: because Middlebury doesn’t own MiddConfess. If you walk into someone’s house and you see a picture of yourself with devil’s horns drawn on it hanging on their fridge, do you have the right to rip it down? Quite simply, if you can’t control something (and control is most commonly exerted through ownership), you’d better be prepared to tolerate it.

Anyway, my .02 on the matter. And, feel free to call me a smelly idiot on MC. I’ll probably never see the post anyway.

Cheers,
Terry

I would suggest this individual seek advice from a dean. For instance, Gus Jordan, Associate Dean of the College (and the administrator in charge of the judicical process) could help interpret Handbook language and suggest next steps.

I have created a blog in order to initiate a broader discourse on M.C. Any new insights that you might have would be a valuable addition to the blog. sites.middlebury.edu/metaconfessional

e

As far as I can tell, MiddConfess does log IP addresses: that’s how Ryan Kellett found out all those fun facts about who’s accessing the site. (http://midd-blog.com/2008/04/28/middlebury-confessional-stats/) Thus, MiddConfess is not as private and anonymous as some might like it to be.