Guest Opinion

Submitted by Sarah Weill-Jones and Ben Fligelman

Recently, there has been extensive discussion about Fizz — the Bi-Co’s localized, anonymous forum. In November, Resolution #12: Unsubscribing Bryn Mawr as a partner institution to the Fizz application was introduced at Bryn Mawr’s Plenary. This resolution, and the debate surrounding it, has forced our community to reckon with the longstanding issues that Fizz poses. Many of these issues were articulated, with great eloquence, feeling, and bravery, by Bryn Mawr SGA President, Esénia Bañuelos in her guest opinion. Esénia documented the harm and harassment that she experienced at the hands of anonymous students on Fizz. First and foremost we want to make exponentially clear, as Haverford College Students’ Council Co-Presidents, that we stand with Esénia. No one should have to face the amount of harassment, bullying, and blatant racism that she has faced, in real life and on this anonymous platform. This is not the first time that women of color in positions of leadership have been targeted and vilified this year at Bryn Mawr, and Fizz adds to this denigration.

Anonymity is contrary to the spirit of the Haverford Honor Code, the Bryn Mawr Honor Code, and the very idea of a liberal arts education. By giving students the ability to say whatever they want without affixing their names and taking accountability for their words, platforms like Fizz draw out our worst impulses. We say and do things that we would not otherwise do because responsibility cannot be ascribed to us. Because we cannot confront one another through the veil of anonymity, the basic practices of trust and care that our community relies on disintegrate. Because we cannot be held accountable through the veil of anonymity as we type, guarded by screens, bigotry and racism can fester unabated. Let us be clear: we believe in the freedom of speech, and in freedom of expression, but what comes with freedom of speech and expression is the freedom for others to respond. Fizz forecloses all opportunities for discourse; how can one respond to a hateful message if there is no one to assign that response to? We also must note that it is the college’s obligation to maintain an environment that is not hostile to students, and that hate speech can create a hostile environment. Hate speech, officially defined by Oxford Languages as “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds” or by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful.” Keep these definitions in mind as you read further.  

In this article, we want to write about how we’ve seen Fizz used over the past year and a half. This anonymous platform has made it harder for students to engage across difference, decreased the regard that we have for one another, and lowered community discourse. While Fizz has promised to “build community,” it has done nothing of the sort. Some might claim that Fizz has become a space where students can relate to one another, but, how can we connect with one another when we don’t know who has uploaded what? In truth, the “community” Fizz claims to offer is a facile shadow of true connection and real discourse. Indeed, what far outweighed funny moments and the occasional fruitful question asked has been an app that has brought out the worst in us through forms of bigotry and has rendered respectful discussion next to impossible. For, how can one build community if one has no idea who they are speaking to? Who are they engaging with? Who they may be relating to? It is impossible unless people sign their names. This anonymous platform has wrought profound harm on our community while Fizz makes a profit on this distress under the guise of “community building.”  

Platforms like Fizz make it impossible for students to sincerely engage with one another in good faith. Incentives for us to act in good faith with one another are removed, and structurally null due to how Fizz is made. Someone who has made an anonymous post cannot be confronted by a concerned peer as our Honor Code requires of us, “confrontation is crucial to strengthening relationships between individuals and reinforcing our commitment to community. The goals of confrontation at Haverford are to raise awareness of a situation, relieve tensions, build understanding, promote responsibility, and repair harm” (Haverford College Honor Code, Section 2.01). When this becomes impossible, both parties are harmed: for the student who feels hurt, there can be no resolution — someone who faces criticism on Fizz cannot engage in dialogue with the person who has critiqued them. For the student who has caused harm, it is impossible to take accountability, grow, or gain a better understanding of why their words hurt someone else, and what they can do to better themselves to minimize harm to others. The result of this imbalance is that the cycle continues: students continue to feel hurt, but resolution is impossible, and students continue to hurt others without knowing why their actions are harmful. 

Most recently, we’ve seen this dynamic play out after Esénia Bañuelos, Bryn Mawr SGA President, wrote a guest opinion explaining her experiences with anonymity. Esénia explained, in no uncertain terms, that she felt hurt and wounded by the anonymous comments made about her on Fizz. Full stop. Let’s take a moment to pause and reflect on what would have happened here without Fizz. Students who had complaints about or critiques of Esénia could have engaged with her directly and she could have responded — they could have spoken to her or sent an email, they could have come to a RepCo meeting, the possibilities for dialogue are endless! Some might say that they were using Fizz to “hold Esénia accountable,” — is this a serious argument? First, to criticize someone on an anonymous platform hardly “holds someone to account,” but more importantly — how can anyone claim the virtue of “accountability” while themselves hiding behind anonymity? These are not the values that our community espouses. Our Honor Code reminds us that “confrontation should occur privately, in-person (never on public social media), and with the consent of both parties” (Haverford College Honor Code, Section 2.01). We also ask the question: if students who had complaints about Esénia did not have access to an anonymous forum and their responses could be assigned to them, would they have felt comfortable describing her as aggressive, lacking decorum, or assigned her behavior to “her cultural background” or “the way she was raised”? We would argue that if they had to sign their name beneath views fueled by prejudice, they likely would not have written such detestable statements. 

We also want to point out that criticisms against Esénia and other women of color in leadership positions have consistently included the words “aggressive,” “hostile,” “angry,” and that they “lack decorum.” These criticisms are rooted in racist tropes that have painted Esénia and other student leaders as The Angry Minority; their moments of passion and justified distress at injustice are twisted into narratives that they lack professionalism and are unqualified. We want you to truly reflect, do you think Esénia would have been told she lacked decorum, or that she was aggressive, if she expressed such passion and vulnerability as a White person? Many of you reading this may say that you may not have been racist in making these claims, but we argue that you too may be fearful that a true commitment to anti-racism means confronting your own contributions to racist ideologies that permeate our campuses, even if these contributions were unintentional.

In response to Esénia’s article in the Bi-Co News where she rightfully responded to the hundreds of posts that pointed out her background instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue, a student on Fizz posted a letter of their own in response. The letter praises “reasoned debate,” and “evidence-based policymaking.” The letter’s author ends the article with a soaring statement: “A community that cannot tolerate critique cannot claim to be democratic. And a politics that discourages open debate will not, in the long term, serve the very students it claims to protect.” And yet there is a certain irony here: this letter was published anonymously. Its author is shielded from the very critique they seek to uplift. The “open debate” that the letter so clearly supports is only possible if we face one another as fellow students, face-to-face, and resolve our differences with sincerity and good faith. Arguing anonymously from behind a screen does nothing of the sort. 

Doubtless, critique and debate are important parts of any community and we — as Students’ Council Co-Presidents — are very much alive to the power we hold and the responsibilities we have as student leaders. We know that we need accountability for our actions. But that accountability should never come in the form of bigoted attacks on our identities — as it did for Esénia — nor should it be severed from a larger dialogue. A “callout” on Fizz is not the same as truly “holding someone to account.” To hold someone accountable means to reckon with them — through discourse, through discomfort, and through the slow, painful process of community-building — in hopes of reaching, if not agreement, then resolution. As our Honor Code states, “we call upon our community members to consider and be open to new perspectives, and lean into the discomfort that may come with self-reflection, dialogue, conflict, and confrontation” (Haverford College Honor Code, Section 3.02). An anonymous post on Fizz can never accomplish that aim. Perhaps the people critiquing Esenia don’t have hate in their hearts. Perhaps we are misinterpreting their words. We will never know, however, because they refused to engage in real dialogue with her. 

At Haverford, we pride ourselves on our unique Honor Code. We pride ourselves on our community. We pride ourselves on our ethical commitments. Now it’s time to make good on our Honor Code, our community, and our commitments. When we disagree with others, we should seek dialogue. When we want to hold others accountable, we should engage with them in person. In sum: we need to move away from using Fizz.

Haverford College Students’ Council Co-Presidents, Sarah Weill-Jones and Ben Fligelman

Co-signed by Student’s Council Executive Board: Sophia Goss, Ben Perez-Flesler, Victoria Haber, Caroline Yao, Grant DeVries, Oliver Wilson

Please leave this field empty

Subscribe to the Bi-College Newsletter

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Please leave this field empty

Subscribe to the Bi-College Newsletter

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.