{ title: 'The Prospector (Helena, Mont.) 1916-2015, September 29, 2004, Page 11, Image 11', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about Chronicling America - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-09-29/ed-1/seq-11.png', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-09-29/ed-1/seq-11.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-09-29/ed-1/seq-11/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-09-29/ed-1/seq-11/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
About The Prospector (Helena, Mont.) 1916-2015 | View This Issue
The Prospector (Helena, Mont.), 29 Sept. 2004, located at <http://montananewspapers.org/lccn/TheProspector/2004-09-29/ed-1/seq-11/>, image provided by MONTANA NEWSPAPERS, Montana Historical Society, Helena, Montana.
ETHICS ON THE HILL • 11 SpeakEasy: But First Identify Yourself? This year, though not for the first time, the SpeakEasy has been closed. “Operation o f the SpeakEasy, ” we are told, “ will be suspended... while we as a community have discussions to determine where the SpeakEasy, community e-mail, and other electronic communications fit into the inter nal and/or external communication structure. \ Main issues include whether the boards should be restricted to the Carroll Community alone, and whether participants should identify themselves. In this column, we consider the ethical responsibilities o f identifying oneself in cyber discussions. Is anonymous ethical? Cost of free discussions By Adam Potts Senior, Political Science major Ah, the joys of a new school year! The sunshine! The new pro fessors! The new Freshmen! Spending five hundred dollars on books! However, as refreshing as these experiences are, there is one thing that is noticeably lacking: I can’t call people “Crap-for- Brains” on the Internet anymore! The SpeakEasy has once again closed its digital doors. The fact that the SpeakEasy has been a constant flash point for defama tion, insults, and the like, warrants an examination of on-line ethics. Do ethics violations in cyberspace have consequences in real life? And more importantly, why would Carroll students chose to use the Internet to lash out at their peers? One suggested reason is the ability of SpeakEasy members to post anonymously. A user can choose any username: I can choose to be ‘adam_potts’ or‘amazingsuperpimpguy_wOOt_w 00t.’ The choice is completely mine. Now is this digital ‘invisible cloak’ really that much of a threat to the Carroll community? Can anonymity really affect a person’s ethics that much? Some philoso phers suggest that the answer is yes. For instance, in The Republic, Plato recounts The Myth of Gyges. In this story, a Sheppard finds a ring while tending his sheep one afternoon. He puts in on, and soon discovers that it can make him invisible. So he seduces the Queen of the land, conspires with her to kill the King, and becomes ruler himself. His justification? He would never be caught! As Plato summarized: “And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.” The effects of the anonymity provided by the SpeakEasy are much the same. Students feel free to say anything, be it crazy stories about dragon slayers or a slander ous statement about a student or faculty member. Plato’s assessment of human nature is perfect we will do unethi cal things if we feel we will not be held accountable for them. In light of that assessment, and with phi losophy on my side, I feel that it is time we raise the bar and hold our selves accountable to the views and statements we make on line. It is time we take off the invisible cloak and show our true identities in the SpeakEasy. Sharkboy5 part of Liberal Arts tradition by Dan Case Web Administrator, CCIT Most businesses have a com ment box where employees can drop concerns and questions and these are then presented “to the powers that be” anonymously. Corporations have labor unions where employees can pose ques tions to be brought up in an anonymous context to the manage ment. Here at Carroll tougher questions are posed to the President during faculty and staff assemblies because they were col lected anonymously and then read aloud. Declaring ones identity on a discussion board is therefore a very tricky issue. Are people more likely to discuss on an anonymous board system? I believe the answer is yes. This is due to two beliefs: one, that there is a sense of fun or excitement in being “goril- la45.” As an alter ego, one can say what they want to either further or stir a current discussion. My second belief is that users will be a little more open with their comments and questions. Granted, this openness can be both a boon and a concern. These con cerns were addressed on the Speak-Easy by the student, faculty and staff moderators that roamed the boards. After a time, the boards became somewhat self moderated by others who frequent ed the system. All this begs the question of what we would really like to accomplish with an online board system? Are we looking for a con trolled arena where every user is By Dr. Mark Smillie Associate Professor Philosophy Department The important role of freedom for thought and discussion was stressed by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. Mill dreamed of a society where people are “free ...to express their opinions with out reserve.” When the SpeakEasy (and rest of the boards) were cre ated at Carroll four years ago, I welcomed them in Mill's spirit. They presented another opportuni ty for the free expression of ideas, and in some ways, a more open and readily available avenue than other avenues already existing on campus. But a discussion is a messy thing. People bring different expectations to discussions. For example, some people welcome the passionate (and sometimes even reckless) articulation of one’s beliefs; for others, this is a total turn off and the sign of a dis cussion already gone awry. People can offend others by what they say, how they say, or even what they forget to say. People can be offended by what they hear—sometimes for good reason, but sometimes for wrong reasons. Despite this, discussion remains a great good of human life. As Plato portrayed it, discussion is the means of learning the truth. Discussion is a means of learning about ourselves and others. Participants in a discussion know each other—and by the end of the discussion, know each other bet ter. I think most regular users on the boards know each other, even with some splashy moniker to identify themselves. They not only know the identity of the per son behind the moniker, but they come to know and hopefully appreciate who that person is. So should people identify them selves on the boards? Would it be a good thing to know that “babe- magnet” is really Joe Smith who lives in Guad 121? It might be less frustrating when “babemag- net” violates the AUP. Would that stop Joe from sometimes being offensive, or losing his temper, or other “conversational” offenses. This is one of those messy things that can happen in conversations. Though it might solve some problems, having to identify our selves would create others. And requiring this, as all attempts to micromanage conversation, would only undermine it and cause greater harm than good. Don't sti fle a working source of discussion on campus to suit some people’s sensitivities and unverifiable fears. In On Liberty, Mill sets very high standards for participants in a dis cussion-finding the truth requires it. However, as Mill I think would agree, these standards should be voluntarily adopted by the participants, and not required as the cost of participating. publicly displayed and the so- called questionable post might never happen for fear of repercus sions or being publicly identified? Or are we looking to learn, laugh and educate in an open environ ment based in the liberal arts tradi tion of expanding and enlightening one’s mind? Granted not all discussions on the old Speak-Easy were uplifting, had a point, or even promoted any sort of meaningful dialogue. Yet, when taken as a whole I believe the board created an outlet for ideas, asked some tough questions about what we are all doing here, served as a study break, and even generated a laugh. Most frequent users of the boards knew who was posting and who was replying. It was a banter that most enjoyed, but yet raised a few eyebrows once in a while. So, did the views of sharkboy5 represent the college? I think not. But would the views of Chuck White, Senior, Communications Major, be taken differently? Philosophy 'lub Sponsors. J E t h i c s o n ' t h e H i l l This is a regular column on ethical issues at Carroll. If you would like kto suggest topics for future consideration, contribute] p this column, or respon/ kto positions taken herej please write to Johnj leaves care of ths Prospector. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29 VOLUME 88, NO. 1
