A Case for Anonymity

A Case for Anonymity

Gay students.
College student newspapers and periodicals.

Editorial dealing with the Bullet's decision not to publish two letters by gay students because the students did not want their names printed. The editorial discusses the impact on gay students if their homosexuality is revealed, citing the case of Ivy Martin. It concludes by arguing for a policy of exceptions based on "common sense" and consideration of "valid and compelling reason[s]" to withhold names.

Mello, Michael Allen

Mello, Michael Allen [MAM]. "A Case for Anonymity." Editorial, The Bullet (Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA), November 20, 1978, p. 2.

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

1978-11-30

The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.

jpg

300dpi

English

Fredericksburg, Virginia

The careful reader will have noticed an odd aspect of the recent debate on homosexuality contained within the letters and “Viewpoint” sections of the BULLET with the exception of the original “Viewpoint” on the issue, no gay student students have participated in that debate. This is not because members of the MWC gay community have nothing to say, nor is it because they do not wish to express those opinions in print; in fact, the BULLET received two letters from MWC homosexuals. But, because the authors of those letters were not yet ready to “come out of the closet” and hence felt that they could not allow their names to appear at the bottom of letters giving first hand accounts of what it is like to be a gay student at Mary Washington College, the BULLET refused to print the letters with “names withheld.”

The BULLET has a long-standing-policy of requiring all letters to be signed. The advantages of this policy are obvious and it certainly is not the purpose of this editorial to suggest that it ought to be abandoned or that it should not apply in the great majority of instances. Departures from this policy should not be made lightly, but these two present letters do justify such a departure. Besides offering the gay viewpoint on the question of homosexuality (an important perspective on the issue to say the least), both letters were excellently written and one was so good that it could rightly be called a social document; they both offered insights into this important issue that BULLET readers would have found valuable. Yet it is unrealistic to expect these students to sign their letters, to make that a requirement, to say to them that they must “come out” before they can express their views as homosexuals in the newspaper. This requirement is unrealistic for obvious reasons: in addition to the possibility of conflict with family members at home if they were to know the truth, MWC students who have “come out” in the past have been subjected to harrassment, ridicule and ostracism on campus. Ivy Martin, who declared her homosexuality in 1976 and was branded the “campus queer” from that time until she graduated last May, is the best argument I know against requiring gay students to “come out” in the BULLET before their views as gays may be printed in the school newspaper.

It is important to note that we are not dealing with unsigned letters here: both students were willing to sign their work. The BULLET Editorial Board would thus have known the identities of the authors; this is crucial for legal purposes and so that the Board could be assured that the writers were indeed MWC students and hence (because of the Honor Code) that they were in fact gay. What the authors of the letters could not allow was for their names to appear in print; the two letters would have appeared with “names withheld.” Many newspapers, including the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star employ a policy of withholding the names of certain letter writers in rare cases, so long as the newspaper can validate their identity and authenticity. These publications realize that it is unfair and unreasonable to demand that certain individuals sign their work in print. The author of the original “Viewpoint” explained that she refused to subject herself to “the pointing fingers, the jeers, the incrimination of those who check out what you wear and how you act and wonder ‘HOW COULD SHE?’ No, I‘ll not be MWC’s token gay.” Can we really blame her?

It may seem that making an exception here is unfair to those who are required to sign their letters. But those two cases are not quite comparable: the great majority of people who write letters to the BULLET can sign them free from the fear that their lives at MWC will be ruined by doing so. This is not the case with these gay students writing as gay students. Once again Ivy Martin is an example of what MWC does to those who do “come out.” Is it really fair to equate a student writing and signing a letter about brick paths with a student writing and signing a letter which begins “as a gay student, I would like to address the present debate on homosexuality”?

One advantage of pursuing a hard line on the present policy is simplicity: an absolute policy of not withholding the names of any letter writers solves the problem of deciding which letters to except from the general policy and which to reject. Whenever exceptions to a policy are made, the potential exists that the exceptions might become the rule. But there is no reason for this to happen. Withholding the names of these two gay students would not mean that the BULLET would thereafter be obligated to print every unsigned letter it received; on the contrary, the Editorial Board would still have the discretion to deny a letter writer the privilege of having his name withheld in print. As stated at the outset, exceptions to the general policy of requiring letters to be signed in print would only be made in rare cases. The question then becomes one of criteria, where to draw the line in deciding when to allow exceptions. It is impossible to state precisely what conditions would be excusing, but two standards do suggest themselves. First, the BULLET does not accept letters that violate the laws of libel, and this would be extended to include these “name withheld” letters. Secondly, the writer would have to convince the Board that there is a valid and compelling reason for his inability to sign the letter in print. The present case of the two gay letter writers, in which the destructive ramifications of compelling the author to sign his work in print is obvious, would be a good yardstick to use here. Most importantly, the Board would exercise simple common sense in deciding which letter to print “name withheld.” Common sense is, of course, a subjective concept that defies definition. It is conceivable that members of the Editorial Board could disagree on when it should apply in particular instances, but that is one advantage of having a five-member Board: no single person’s perceptions rule supreme.

I do not believe that a policy of rare exceptions would create the massive problems that some assert; rather, it would give us the flexibility to deal reasonably with those letter writers who have a legitimate reason for not affixing their names to their work in print.
MAM

The Bullet
Established 1922
Printed by and for the MWC Community in the offices of the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.

Helen Marie McFalls, Editor-in-chief
Michael Allen Mello, Managing Editor
Gary Price Webb, News Editor
John Matthew Coski, Features Editor
Anita Lynn Churney, Business Manager

The Bullet
Mary Washington College is an affirmative action equal employment opportunity institution. It does not discriminate against any person for reasons of age, sex, marital status, race, nationality, religion, or political affiliation.

The Staff of the Bullet
Chief Assistant Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ruth Spivey
Assistant Editors . . . . . . Jane Opitz and Laurie Shelor
Photography Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paul Hawke
Assistant Photography Editor . . . . . . . . . .Pam Marks
Advertising Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Anne Hayes
Sports Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Candy Sams
Assistant Sports Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julie Harrell
Circulation Managers . .Evelyn Watts, Juanita Grimm

Staff Photographers . . . . . . . . Patty Shillington, Karen Noss, Felicia Mazur
Staff--Tracy Hudson, Jean Smith, Betsy Rohaly, Laura Hall, Ann Lambert, Carrie Rebora, Dean Ball, Patrick Thompson, Mary Lee, Cynthia Nash, Mark Madigan, Cindy Goforth, Darla Fjeld.

newspaper

vol. 52, issue no. 10

Ferrell, Claudine

Williams, Megan