Friday, February 28, 2014

On b@b, again


Post #3820980: B@B has been used as a primary means by people to harass, threaten, mock, and demean students and organizations at this school anonymously. I seriously want the fans of this site to defend b@b in light of all the shit this site has caused for the school. Feb 8, 2014 @ 6:22pm”

Okay.

I began using BoredatBaker at 11:46am on September 23, 2010. That’s the timestamp of my first post, anyway. Two years later, my senior seminar work was digital performance art on B@B. The next year, as a Dean’s Office Student Consultant, I used the site to advise students and refer them to campus resources. Throughout, B@B has allowed me to express myself anonymously.

The site itself is a free service provided for anyone with an @Dartmouth.edu address, funded out-of-pocket by its owner and administrator “Jae Daemon.” In a recent message to the community, Jae wrote, “I am providing this place for you as a safe haven where you can talk about anything and everything, honestly, without fear of judgment.”

Bored@Baker provides a valuable service to our community by allowing people across all social groups and backgrounds to come together on relatively equal footing. With anonymity, age, sex, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, and the myriad other visual cues we use on a daily basis to categorize people and decide how much to respect them are stripped away.  We are able to experience thoughts and opinions perhaps unrepresented within our own friend groups shared by people we otherwise may have never met.

Anonymity also allows us the freedom to experiment with aspects of our identities. It allows us to seek advice about tough issues we may not want to discuss in person—sexual violence, mental health, eating disorders, drug addiction, academic trouble, parental conflicts, and money problems. I’ve seen all these and many more in my time on the site, and the community has consistently proven itself a tremendous source of support.

That said, there are those who abuse the service. People can be...horrible. I don't have to enumerate those things. We all know. Probably a good many of us have been targets, too.

For those reasons, there are those who have called upon the College to take action against the site. I, too, am sometimes overwhelmingly disgusted with the depths of human depravity that B@B shows us in our peers, but it is important to remember that the abuses of a minority do not represent the standards of the B@B community and are in direct opposition to the goals of the site. 

It is also worth noting that on the Global Board—a B@ page accessible to anyone with a .edu e-mail address—users from schools with their own B@ pages frequently comment on the uniquely abusive nature of Bored@Baker. Regarding the recent post targeting a first year student, a user from Carleton remarked,I can't imagine something like that happening on our board.” The absence of the problems for which our board often finds itself in the spotlight from other schools’ boards suggests that B@B is showing us something particular to our community.

There is currently a team of 12 student moderators who work tirelessly to remove posts that violate the Terms of Service. Neither Bored@Baker nor the vast majority of its users want to be associated with the kind of abuse that bigots and bullies sometimes post. That's just not what Bored@Baker is about.

Unfortunately, there will probably always be people who will violate the standards set forth by the site and the community at large, but denouncing Bored@Baker for the actions of those individuals disregards the tremendous amount of thought, time, and effort that has gone into building and continually improving the site and threatens to take away from the majority something that is a source of support, enjoyment, and community, simply because a few people will abuse the system.

For the site's part, there needs to be a faster and more forceful way to address some of the problems that arise. We are well aware of this and continually discussing our options. Not too long ago, the threshold for removing posts was lowered so that moderators can remove posts more quickly. It's an improvement, and not the last that we hope to see in the moderation system.

For the parts of students, staff, and faculty who may be concerned about the Bored@Baker atmosphere, I would encourage you to look at it for yourselves. Take a look at the Zeitgeist. Read the top posts from today, this week, all time. Look at how the Bored@Baker community—our community—responds to abuse. Perhaps consider making a few posts yourself to add to the positive and supportive atmosphere that the majority of us try to foster. The more voices like that, the more irrelevant those that espouse hatred and violence. The abuse that happens shows us that there are individuals among us all too willing to hurt others; far more important is how we as a community respond.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The Dartmouth: Students back tougher policy

Shared from The Dartmouth:
Replacing Dartmouth’s current sexual misconduct policy with a zero-tolerance policy for students found responsible for sexual assault has recently gathered momentum on the Improve Dartmouth online forum. Since a Feb. 10 gathering on the Green, when students met in support after a male student threatened a female member of the Class of 2017 on Bored at Baker, discussion surrounding the policy has grown.

Under the zero-tolerance policy students found guilty of rape would be separated from the College. The suggestion, proposed on Jan. 23 by Cally Womick ’13, is Improve Dartmouth’s highest voted submission.

Dartmouth’s current policy states that students are prohibited from engaging in any kind of sexual misconduct, which refers to any form of sex-based discrimination, harassment or nonconsensual sexual contact. Sanctions can be as severe as permanent separation from the College, though Dartmouth is not currently required to separate students who are found responsible for rape, according to the student handbook.

Expelling offenders will decrease the cases of sexual assault and increase community safety, Student Assembly president Adrian Ferrari ’14 said.

Chair of the Student Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault Will Scheiman ’14 clarified that any zero-tolerance policy would apply only to cases of rape and not for other cases of sexual misconduct.

“Once an outcome is decided and the [Committee on Standards] process finds someone responsible of rape, that person no longer has a place in the Dartmouth community, now or ever,” Scheiman said in an email.

As of Sunday night, the post had received 1,401 unique page views on Improve Dartmouth, said Alison Polton-Simon ’14, who analyzes the website’s traffic. The majority of activity related to the post occurred on Feb. 11 and Feb. 12, the days immediately following the student gathering.

As of press time, the post had 921 up-votes and 24 down-votes, for an overall feedback score of 897 on Improve Dartmouth, which is a crowd-sourcing website for ideas launched by student group Dartmouth Roots last month.

The website team provides biweekly reports to College President Phil Hanlon on site activity, including visitor demographics, popular ideas and actions resulting from the ideas, co-moderator Esteban Castano ’14 said. The group submitted its most recent biweekly report, which included the zero-tolerance policy proposal, to Hanlon last Tuesday, said co-moderator Gillian O’Connell ’15.

In July 2013, SPCSA recommended specifying in the student handbook that students found responsible for non-consensual sexual penetration be expelled.

The current COS policy states that students found responsible for engaging in actual or attempted penetration without consent or for repeated sexual misconduct could face permanent separation. Not all students found guilty of rape, however, are expelled, Scheiman said in an email.

The proposed policy would mandate expulsion in cases of rape.

The current policy’s breadth makes it unlikely that Dartmouth would feel confident enough in its legal standing to expel a student who violated the policy in any way, former head of the Center for Gender and Student Engagement professor Giavanna Munafo said.

“When somebody’s found responsible for being a predatory rapist, I think that’s the kind of incident that the person wouldn’t be allowed to return to campus,” she added.

Munafo said discussion of a zero-tolerance policy has become more prominent due to the Title IX investigation and alumni activism.

Discussion on Improve Dartmouth included a suggestion for a negotiable expulsion policy that would protect a survivor from unwanted legal proceedings that could arise if expelled students decided to pursue defamation charges.

Matthew McFarland ’16 noted that implementing a zero-tolerance policy requires there to be no doubt that the individual committed the offense.

This addresses Dartmouth’s use of a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which states that a person is responsible for an offense if the Committee on Standards finds that it is more likely for the violation to have occurred than not.

Concerns regarding the preponderance of the evidence are important, Munafo said. Alternative decision-making standards and motivations of the current policy should be discussed, she said.

One problem with a zero-tolerance policy is the lack of control it grants the survivor, Scheiman said in an email, adding that he believes all survivors should have control with regard to reporting and the COS process. Yet because some survivors choose not to go through the COS process out of fear that their perpetrator will not be removed from campus, the policy may have a positive impact, he said.

Students have raised similar questions at peer institutions.

Over the past decade, Yale University has faced several investigations into its handling of sexual assault cases. In the first half of 2013, six Yale students were found guilty of non-consensual sex. None were expelled and just one was suspended, sparking national outrage.

Harvard University’s policy has also been strongly criticized, The Huffington Post and The Crimson reported in partnership. At Harvard, penalties for sexual harassment depend on the nature of the offense and range from reprimand to dismissal.

Unlike many American universities, including Dartmouth, Harvard does not have an affirmative consent policy. Affirmative consent defines sexual assault as occurring in the absence of enthusiastic verbal or physical consent. It must not be given as a result of physical coercion or threat of bodily harm.

Dartmouth’s sexual misconduct policy, in contrast, states that “one should presume that there is no consent in the absence of a clear positive indication of consent. Likewise, non-consent or lack of consent may also be communicated in a variety of ways both verbal and nonverbal.”

Harvard and Princeton are currently the only Ivy League schools without the preponderance standard.

In April, students at Swarthmore College filed a Clery Act complaint against their school, alleging that administrators did not support those who reported sexual harassment.

Swarthmore is reviewing its sexual misconduct policy and currently has an interim sexual assault and harassment policy, which places all responsibility for investigating and taking appropriate action on Swarthmore, not the complainant.

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Dartmouth: Bored at Baker users report positive culture

Shared from The Dartmouth:
When the Jan. 10 post targeting a female member of the Class of 2017 was published on Bored at Baker, site moderator Blaine Ponto ’14 said it was removed so quickly after being reported by other users that she herself never saw it, despite being a frequent user of the site. If it had stayed up, however, the number of users who clicked “disagree” and “newsworthy” would have made it clear that the Bored at Baker community disapproved.

Since the post became public after its target wrote about it on the Class of 2017 Facebook page, Bored at Baker has been thrust into the spotlight, with many students decrying the sexist, racist, homophobic and overall offensive nature of some of its content. Last spring, students who protested the Dimensions show for accepted students were targeted by anonymous rape and death threats posted on Bored at Baker.

Users of the site, however, argue that Bored at Baker only receives public scrutiny following posts that violate the site’s terms of service, posts that they say are promptly removed.

The site’s content is overseen by moderators, a group of dedicated users that can remove posts that students say violate the site’s terms of service. There are currently 12 moderators, three of whom must agree to remove a post. The current moderator feature was introduced to the site in May 2013.

Aaron Pellowski ’15, who began using the site the summer before he matriculated, said that in the week following the Jan. 10 threat, the site’s most popular posts either denounced its author or expressed sympathy for the target.

“Everyone on Bored at Baker hates the people who post those things because they’re unrepresentative of the people who use the site,” Pellowski said. “Then everyone who doesn’t use the site jumps to the unintelligent conclusion that that’s what the site is, when really that’s the opposite.”

Pellowski said that the Feb. 10 gathering on the Green in response to the post allowed the Dartmouth community to come together, but it only allowed two student leaders to speak. In contrast, he said, a substantial and broader discussion took place on Bored at Baker.

Other students argued that the problem is not the site itself but the way that Dartmouth students choose to use it.

“The board without the students using it is a blank slate — it doesn’t invite any particular type of content,” said Callista Womick ’13, who has had an account since 2011 and continues to use the site as an alumna. “It’s really just a mirror of our own culture.”

Frequent users contend that the majority of users are sincere and intelligent.

Womick said she first made an account her sophomore year after hearing that the site was “a haven for the worst people on campus,” a claim that piqued her curiosity.

“In addition to the horrible things posted, there’s a really strong community who may not know each other in person, but they know each other online and share jokes and support each other,” she said. “There were upperclassmen users who I liked what they had to say, as well as lot of really funny people, and it allowed me to explore a lot of my thoughts and values and honed the way I communicate.”

Derek VanBriesen ’17, who created an account last summer, said he values the site because anonymity allows students to share their real opinions.

Bored at Baker also serves as a news source, VanBriesen said. Last fall, he first learned of Theta Delta Chi fraternity’s suspension from the site.

Pellowski said that Bored at Baker is the only place on campus where he has found authentic discourse about important issues, because in-person conversations must remain polite.

“There’s a huge amount of alternative experiences that would be completely invisible to me if I never used Bored at Baker, like how people view their fraternities, financial aid, classes and personal lives, and a lot of that stuff gets shared on the site,” he said.

He also said he was initially concerned before matriculating that Dartmouth students would be incapable of intelligent discourse, but that he was relieved when he found Bored at Baker and was able to converse with users who think critically about the College.

“It turns out that 95 percent of the people here are really pretty stupid and shallow and basic and vapid,” he said, calling Bored at Baker an “IV drip of realness” that keeps him sane.

Other students have used the site to work through personal issues. A male Ph.D. candidate at the College, who operates an account named “Pinkie Pie,” said that Bored at Baker has helped him battle his depression and feel connected to other people. He first joined the site in early 2011 and created the Pinkie Pie account during the interim between fall 2012 and winter 2013.

Users are able to create personalities on the site, giving them names and pictures. The Ph.D. candidate, who declined to reveal his identity because he wanted to preserve his anonymity on the website, said that Pinkie Pie has become her own entity, separate from himself, whom he refers to as the writer. Bored at Baker, he said, is a place for Pinkie Pie to express herself.

“There’s really no other kind of site where I’d feel comfortable with this kind of ... experiment,” the Ph.D. candidate said in an online message. “I’m ‘hacking’ my own brain, toward trying to stabilize myself. If the end result is something superficially like dissociative identity disorder or schizophrenia, I’m not sure I really care. I’d rather operate well with something like that than be depressed as much as I have been in the past.”

Reaching out for help on Bored at Baker is not uncommon, and many users use the site to ask for advice or seek companionship, said Pinkie Pie, the Ph.D. candidate’s online personality. She said that while it is easy to abuse anonymity, people will more readily reach out for help than they will in the real world.

A male member of the Class of 2014, who wished to remain anonymous because he did not want to be associated with the website, said that when he used the website he would often send personal messages to users who appeared to be going through tough times and offer to talk through their problems with them.

During the week, around 700 to 800 unique users log in per day, Pellowski said.

Ponto said she would estimate that slightly more males use the site than females, an inference based on interactions with users and observation of their content. She added that a majority of users seem to be sophomores, juniors and seniors, as freshmen are likely less aware of the site.

She said she believed that most content is generated by a relatively small percentage of users, while the larger community provides feedback by agreeing or disagreeing with posts.

The Ph.D. candidate, writing as Pinkie Pie, said that the site’s users represent a wide variety of students.

“[Bored at Baker] gets the shy, awkward, depressed, lonely, the angry people who need to vent, the frustrated social justice warriors, the desperately horny and the staunchly upbeat,” she said.

The original Columbia University version of the site, Bored at Butler, was created by a 2006 Columbia graduate named Jonathan Pappas, who goes by the name Jae Daemon online. There are now “Bored at” sites at Dartmouth, Harvard University, Princeton University, Carleton College, New York University and other colleges, as well as a “global board” connecting the sites.

Dartmouth users have been able to infiltrate other schools’ sites through various means, including via friends’ email accounts or asking for access on the global board. Ponto said the Columbia site is “tamer” than Dartmouth’s, while Pellowski noted that it is not used as much or by as many people and the posts are less interesting.

Users could not pinpoint exactly what about Dartmouth is different that makes the site more prone to offensive posts.

Ponto said that during a conversation with another longtime user, the other person said that Bored at Baker acts as an “equalizer” because anonymity grants all users an equal voice.

“We are so stratified at Dartmouth,” Ponto said. “All of these people can come together on Bored at Baker, and the anonymity erases all of these things.”

Womick said that posts targeting students on Bored at Baker reverberate around campus when students who do not use the site are informed if they or a group they belong to is being discussed.

“I don’t know how many students I’ve seen targeted in very hateful and extreme ways,” she said. “I don’t know how one can walk around campus and not know who was saying those things, or if you knew them, or if they would be physically safe.”

While offensive posts do appear on the site, the tone has changed, users said. With the introduction of moderators in 2012, reported posts are removed much more quickly than they had been in the past, Ponto said. She added that there are continuing conversations about potential changes to the website, including creating a permanent user ban or modifying what types of posts should be removed.

Students currently logging onto the site are confronted with a message from Jae Daemon, which responds to the recent controversy by stating that “great anonymity comes with great responsibility,” and should not be abused. He said he will continue to post similar reminders on a monthly basis.