Should Yik Yak Be Banned On College Campuses?

Breeaunna Lewis

Professor Werry

RWS 200

2 April 2016

Should Yik Yak Be Banned On College Campuses?

In an age of fast-pace technological development, the issue of how to behave online versus in real life is a growing concern. Without a solidified code of ethics the boundary line between right and wrong can be easily blurred, especially when the factor of anonymity is added to the equation. This ongoing debate can be observed by the smartphone app Yik Yak, launched in 2013, which allows its users to post anonymously to people within a ten-mile radius of themselves. Generally targeting school campuses, this app has generated a serious reputation for fostering hate speech within communities. Middlebury College, located in Vermont, is one of the many examples that exemplifies this Yik Yak issue. The student body debated and responded to this issue in their campus newspaper, The Middlebury Times, all taking different positions. In this essay, I will examine online anonymity’s role in incivility by analyzing three different articles from The Middlebury Times regarding the debate of banning Yik Yak on college campuses. By using Yik Yak as a test case, I will provide a credible answer to the question, “should apps like Yik Yak that allow anonymity be allowed on college campuses?”.

The first Middlebury article that will be analyzed is The Middlebury Campus editorial board members Isaac Baker and Edward O’Brien’s article, “Why not Ban Yik Yak?”. In their article, they argue that although some people feel as if to ban Yik Yak would be to impede on freedom of speech, Middlebury College is a tight-knit community and young adults should not be allowed to behave in such a way. They claim, “[w]e as members of the Middlebury community do not have any sanctified right to engage in this kind of behavior. There is a precedent for colleges banning Yik Yak and there’s no reason Middlebury cannot, in light of pervasive misuse, restrict access to the app over our wireless network” (1). In other words, Baker and O’Brien argue that by attending the University itself, there is a certain set code of ethics and regulations to abide by, as well as a standard to uphold as a student. To ban Yik Yak would not be a revokement of a student’s freedom of speech, but rather a foundation enforced by the University that targets the regulation of hate speech and allows a positive community to flourish. Baker and O’Brien’s argument appeals and is very relatable to most college students, therefore making it very persuasive.

The next Middlebury article that will be analyzed is Jordan Seman’s article, “A Letter on Yik Yak Harassment”. Seman, a student at Middlebury College, was encouraged to download the Yik Yak app by a friend for some light humor. When Seman did, she was shocked and hurt to see a hateful comment posted about herself by a fellow student. She argues that although she cannot stop the negative comments, nor will she be the last person to be attacked by hate speech, the Middlebury Campus should reflect on what kind of community they wish to uphold. Seman states, “[m]ostly, I hope that we can all reflect on what kind of community we want Middlebury to be. I know I want to be able to sit down at lunchtime and not worry about what other people are saying — or writing — about me. I want to feel comfortable on our campus, and I don’t think I’m alone” (1).  Seman makes a very strong claim for the Middlebury populace to reflect on; would any person want to constantly be at a place that only evokes negative feelings of uncomfortableness and insecurity?  It is an issue that is relatable to every college student. The college of your choice should allow a student to feel safe, secure, and at home. Seman’s argument gives the people of Middlebury campus something to think about. Her solution is not to ban anonymity all together, but rather to gain support from the community and Middlebury College itself. Seman acknowledges that she is not the only one who has or will be the victim of hateful speech and removing anonymity completely would not stop the problem.

The final Middlebury article that will be analyzed is an article published by the editorial board for The Middlebury Campus titled “Changing the Way We Yak”.  The board argues that banning apps like Yik Yak would be putting a band aid on a much bigger issue. Rather, there should be educational training about the dangers of internet ethics as there is for sexual consent and alcohol. The board claims, “[t]o clamp down on damaging online dialogue, we must provide resources and education to incoming students. In the same way that we promote sexual assault awareness and prevention, we should educate the community about the dangers of online harassment. Bystander intervention means looking out for each other, both online and off” (1). In other words, the board is advocating for media literacy. With technology developing faster and becoming more advanced each day, it is challenging to develop and implement a concrete code of ethics and guidelines. Not to mention, the internet is a huge spectrum of endless websites and to regulate all of them would be almost impossible. Accountability and ethics are as important, if not more, in modern society than they are in real life. The board offers a solution, stating, “[w]e have had countless examples for hateful online comments on this campus — we should not have to wait for Middlebury to become the public face of this problem for us to take it seriously” (1). In other words, the board is saying that taking action should not be delayed seeing how this is a developing and integral issue now. Whether Middlebury College chooses to step in or not, is essentially irrelevant and would not be a complete solution to the issue. Instead, there should be educational programs implemented that help prevent and regulate this issue alone.

The first outside article that will be analyzed is Journalism and Communication lecturer Jason Wilson’s article, “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet”. Wilson argues that anonymity provokes debate, which is essential to democracy. Wilson states, “[a]t its heart, after all, the modern unfolding of democracy has been about an opening up of public spaces, including discursive spaces, to broader participation. It proposes radical equality” (1). In other words, Wilson is claiming that anonymity opens up debate for certain people that normally would not participate due to outside circumstances, such as: race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Anonymity allows people to focus more on the argument being proposed, rather than focus on the person who is saying it.  Wilson suggests, “[r]ather than seeing incivility as an ‘end state’ into which a society can fall, we will achieve more by inculcating a ‘thick-skinned liberalism’ in younger citizens by teaching them to argue, and just as importantly to listen carefully to those with whom they disagree” (1). His solution is for people to take the incivility online as a way to learn how to debate and be more tough when dealing with cruelty.

The next outside article that will be analyzed is Facebook product design director Julie Zhuo’s article, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt”.  Zhuo argues that anonymity allows people to behave unethically without the moral obligation of having their name attached to their words. Zhuo states, “[m]orality, Plato argues, comes from full disclosure; without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly” (1).  The issue of anonymity has been an ongoing issue for quite some time, however, since the coming age of the internet the choice to be anonymous has increased drastically. Without a name, it is much easier to speak without consequence. Zhuo claims that internet trolls, people who feel pleasure by various forms of online harassment, are a perfect example of how anonymity effects morality. She claims that regulating hateful comments will overall promote a more positive atmosphere, she states, “[w]ell-designed commenting systems should also aim to highlight thoughtful and valuable opinions while letting trollish ones sink into oblivion” (1).  Zhuo offers the solution of regulation, opposed to flat out banning anonymity all together. By solely focusing on reforming the negative parts of  anonymity, such as trolls, the positive parts can be enhanced and therefore outshine the negatives.

The final article that will be analyzed is an article by social media scholar and Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd, titled “‘Real Names’ Policies Are an Abuse of Power”. Boyd claims that “[n]ot everyone is safer by giving our their real name. Quite the opposite; many people are far less safe when they are identifiable. And those who are least safe are often those who are most vulnerable…” (1). In other words, Boyd is speaking for the minority groups and the people who encompass them. She argues that some people should not have to expose themselves in order to protect their own identities and own personal safety. Forcing people to reveal their identities under every circumstance to compensate for those who cannot behave themselves is not a solution to the problem, but rather an abuse of power. Boyd points out that, “not everyone is a huckster,” and just because certain people are does not give others the permission to revoke certain people’s safety.

After analyzing and comparing the above articles about online anonymity and hate speech on Yik yak, I say that Yik Yak should be banned on college campuses. Here is why; banning Yik yak shows support from the campus you are paying to feel safe and comfortable while attending. That is why The Editorial Board’s, “Changing the Way We Yik Yak” offers the most persuasive argument and solutions in regards to combating this issue. I also believe in every American’s freedom of speech, but there is a fine line between speech and hate speech. When your whole identity is backed by your words, it forces you to take a moment to stop and think before you blurt out words. However, I do not believe that Yik Yak is the problem, nor do I foresee banning the app as a solution. Instead, I see Yik Yak as a safe zone for people to unveil their naturally hateful and discriminatory thoughts while being endorsed by the support of others who share the same subconscious beliefs. These people being those who could not possibly act upon those feelings with the possibility of ruining their identities.  I do believe that banning on this would just be a band aid to a much bigger issue. We must be proactive and strive to develop a code of ethics for online society by educating others on the dangers and outcomes of online hate speech. Just like with sexual assault and alcohol and drug abuse.