When you line up all the Ivy League school mottos, Dartmouth's doesn't quite fit in. Harvard's "Veritas," meaning truth, and Yale's "Lux et veritas," meaning light and truth, exude a certain collegiate sophistication. Our motto, on the other hand, just doesn't have that same ring to it. "Vox clamantis in deserto" is an admittedly borderline emo teardrop motto, one that Conan O'Brien joked was "easily the most pathetic school motto I have ever heard."
The roots of this seemingly unorthodox motto come from the Bible, and the "voice crying" is a reference to the local Native American and English youth that Eleazar Wheelock hoped to educate in the barren New Hampshire wilderness.
But times have changed since then. While no one would call Hanover a booming metropolis, with solid cell phone service and a Walmart only 15 minutes away, it is no longer as isolated from civilization as it once was. So is the motto still relevant?
It is. However, the voice crying out is now anonymous, and the wilderness is now the Internet. Our generation lives and breathes technology. News now spreads over the Internet. So at a school with an overwhelming culture of small talk, much of our campus discussion occurs on the Internet through anonymous platforms.
The Dartmouth's comment section is one output for anonymous discussion.
"Actually a lot of the time, I'm more interested in the comment section than the actual article," Michael Moriarty '12 said. "Those arguments can get heated."
The Dartmouth's current commenting policy is that the anonymous posts undergo approval by the editor-in-chief, while comments using the Dartmouth DND system are immediately posted.
"People have the right to be anonymous," Moriarty said. "But if you're going to say something polarizing about an article, you should put your name behind it."
Yet perhaps the more popular and controversial outlet for Dartmouth-related anonymous discussion is the notorious Bored@Baker. A recent visit to the site showed a gamut of posts ranging from requests for random hook-ups to posts of puppy pictures to a serious discussion on gender equality. Nevertheless, the site has garnered much controversy due to the many personal attacks and insensitive posts that appear on a daily basis.
Aaron Pellowski '15, who said he is a frequent user of B@B and one of the site's top posters, praised the site for encouraging open and honest campus dialogue.
"B@B is a perfect place for two kinds of interactions: discussion and exchange," he said. "You have to look at the way it's structured. B@B by itself is meaningless, [but] because it's user-driven, the users decide its potential."
Pellowiski noted that while there certainly is "junk" or offensive posts, serious and thought-provoking discourse pertaining to campus culture naturally tends to be the most viewed content.
Tom Lane '11, another avid user of B@B, said anonymity is a key aspect of the utility of the site.
"I think B@B is the only forum where people can ask tough questions about controversial topics like race, sex and hazing," he said. "Being anonymous is great because it allows for people to share their honest opinion without fear of repercussion."
Similarly, Pellowski described the site as a "sterile environment where who you are as a person doesn't affect how people will respond to you." Both Lane and Pellowski praised the site as the only place to retrieve campus-breaking news in real-time.
Nonetheless, B@B walks a fine line as an anonymous site. It is when discussion moves from the abstract to specific people that B@B too easily becomes an agent of antagonism and hurt. Nobody wants to be criticized, especially when the attacker is unknown and faceless.
Brian Holekamp '12 said he has had plenty of personal experience with this situation, as his name has been posted on the site 3,557 times as of publication. Holekamp explained that his name has become a "meme" in the B@B community, a rapid and widespread internet sensation.
"I don't let it get to me and generally ignore it," he said. "Although when I meet people in person who have read about me, they think it's very funny, and I do too."
Pellowiski said he felt there is both good and bad to the site and a need for increased moderation without blatant censorship. Still, he added that people should not be afraid to try out the site for themselves.
"A lot of people take two or three bad things and generalize the site as bad without actually knowing the site," Pellowski said.
The increasing prominence of anonymous commentary shows that the voice of campus has adapted to the digital era. The anonymous voice is a double-edged sword, with the potential both to enable productive discussion yet also be abused by its users. Such platforms are a step toward more honest dialogue on a campus, but we must tread carefully.
