Letters: The Obiter’s Policy on Anonymous Submissions

EVAN VELLA
<Letter Writer>

I have been dismayed by this publication’s policy of publishing anonymous opinion pieces. From my vast journalistic experience, and by this I mean writing for student newspapers and watching TV shows about journalism (i.e. a hardnosed mix of House of Cards and Gilmore Girls), anonymity is usually only accorded in two instances:

1. As an editorial board, speaking uniformly as the voice of the newspaper. Individuals are subsumed into the collective voice, and the opinion is put forth as that of the collective.
2. If a journalist grants a speaker/information source anonymity usually grounded on the legitimate fear of violent reprisals.

These tepid law school opinions, which the Obiter regularly publishes anonymously, do not begin to cover the continuum of acceptable positions in the outside world. If the names of these opinion-holders were available, and I agreed with them, I could give these people high-fives when I saw them next in Gowlings Hall. If I disagreed with them, I could roll my eyes at them and say “Really?” while playfully frowning and discussing their opinion with them. Neither of my responses are violent. At worst, if an upper-year classhole got all red-faced while bloviating in opposition to a named person’s opinion piece, this would still not approach violence. Please worry about violence in any York parking lot at any time of day, but not from some oppositional, opinionated law student who detests your considered thoughts on jeggings.

Writing anonymously in a newspaper column is problematic, because readers cannot tell if the anonymous writer is singular or plural. Readers cannot match the words to the reputation of the real-life analogue responsible for this opinion. Also, an anonymous writer may seem to represent a larger group of people than she does, like a quasi-editorial board of undefined size. Worse still, the Obiter could seem to lend unwarranted credibility to these views by making them anonymous, since this fashion is reserved for editorials and persecuted rebels. And no opinion on jeggings rises to the threshold of rebellious. Maybe persecuted. Maybe.

So, why is anonymity requested of the Obiter so much? If people are worried that their beliefs might get questioned, it may be an indication they are not strong in their convictions, or that they are wrong, do not hold those beliefs, and are trolling everyone.

If people cannot stand next to something they find meaningful enough to form an opinion on, I recommend other options beyond the cover of anonymity:

1. They could keep their opinions to themselves. I recommend this course, since I often think up nonsense that I save for my tumblr of sad poetry and pictures of cats, more as a matter of politeness in not burdening newspaper readers.
2. They could change their opinion if they do not actually have the courage of their convictions. I did this recently regarding Twitter. It is very freeing admitting I am wrong, and having another place to post haikus (e.g. “Little cat wearing / my rimless black spectacles / badass instagram”).
3. They could actually discuss their opinion, stand by it, refine it in conversation with others, and learn to live with the dislike their reinforced opinion may garner.

It is one thing to worry about violent reprisals. Maybe worrying about being disliked subjectively feels similar to violence, but it is not objectively similar. Being disliked by some is the price of holding and sharing any opinion, no matter how sparkly or boring. Further, if other people dislike someone based on a solitary opinion, who needs those fair weather readers?

I call on the Obiter to end the practice of allowing frivolous anonymity. The Obiter should stop enabling opinion-holders from acting cowardly and hypocritically, or, at best, holding untested, solipsistic opinions. Sharing an opinion is giving someone a view into your mind. While this could be intimidating in any environment, demonstrating how you think is part and parcel of foisting your opinion on other people. If someone has an opinion and feels the need to share it in written form to a base of readers, she should also have the obligation to answer for it in conversation.

Note: Obiter Dicta publishes one uncredited editorial per issue. The three Editors-in-Chief, whose names appear in the masthead, take joint responsibility for the opinions expressed therein. Other uncredited opinion pieces appear at the aforementioned Editors’ discretion. That’s our story and we’re sticking to it. See here.