Are “Freedom Walls” Free?
In many universities, “freedom walls” are marketed as an opportunity for students (and frankly, anyone else) to voice out opinions, concerns, or other bits of information under the cover of anonymity. Indeed, it is precisely the cover of anonymity which gives “freedom walls” their appeal to many students who seek the opportunity to be heard without having to expose themselves to the scrutiny of public opinion or (perhaps) the student discipline office.
But due to their anonymous nature, “freedom walls” have been accused of preventing users from being held accountable for what they say on these platforms. For this reason, some people rightly question whether “freedom walls” are truly “free.” Freedom, they argue, goes hand in hand with accountability and responsibility. But “freedom walls” do not provide avenues for accountability and responsibility. Therefore, they conclude, “freedom walls” are repugnant to true freedom.
But this requires further unpacking. Indeed, man is free insofar as he is able to determine himself towards the good through his action and choice—whether internal or external. By acting, man manifests the “I” as that which makes a choice for himself.
The dialogue of St. Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons with the Duke of Norfolk is particularly instructive, especially when More makes the following point: “The Apostolic Succession of the Pope is . . . Why, it's a theory, yes; you can't see it; can't touch it; it's a theory. But what matters to me is not whether it's true or not but that I believe it to be true, or rather, not that I believe it, but that I believe it . . . I trust I make myself obscure?” (I do not endorse Robert Bolt’s subjectivist presuppositions.)
Due to the fact that a free act is one which determines the whole person, the human person therefore becomes responsible for his or her free actions. On the other hand, it is true that anonymity is not necessarily opposed to freedom or accountability properly understood. We consider it a laudable thing when one gives to charity anonymously. This is because, on a basic level, man is accountable to God and his conscience before anything else.
It is therefore not inherently repugnant towards freedom or accountability for acts to be done anonymously. However, I would argue that freedom walls are, in fact, contrary to the proper notion of accountability due to their inherently accusatory nature. Different kinds of actions call for different levels of accountability, and in the following paragraphs I will demonstrate the inadmissibility of anonymity in the context of university freedom walls.
“Freedom walls” have often been used to publicly criticize institutions or individuals. While some “freedom walls” disavow the inclusion of surnames, page administrators have often allowed posts targeting certain individuals, usually by means of oblique references, but sometimes through more direct allusions. For this reason, it is clear that the public criticism of persons or institutions belongs to the purpose of “freedom walls” nationwide.
But every public criticism, no matter how well-intended, contains an accusation: a claim that someone acted contrary to, or failed to act in accordance with, one’s obligations whether legal or moral. Unlike benign acts done under the cover of anonymity, accusations can bring about the loss of one’s reputation, property, liberty, and even one’s own life. The experience of the War on Drugs should serve as a stark reminder of such.
This is why the Bill of Rights contains the following clause: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right . . . to meet the witnesses face to face” (sec. 14). The gravity of an accusation demands that the accused have the opportunity to face his or her accusers. One who has the power to ruin another person’s life and acts towards that end (for better or worse) should be held accountable by those involved: the judge, the jury, but most of all, the defendant himself.
This protection applies to a court of law, which operates according to an established judicial and investigative process. This is all the more true when it comes to the court of public opinion. When a certain university president was accused of plotting to cull his university’s cat population, he was not given the chance to face his accusers who set off a chain of anonymous “Freedom Wall” posts questioning his character and his alignment with university values for all the world to see.
By submitting an accusation in a “freedom wall,” one becomes a prosecutor in a kangaroo court where the public, as judge, jury and executioner, is disposed to act on the basis of a predetermined conclusion. And although it is true that some accusations made in “freedom walls” deserve consideration, even assholes deserve due process. The rights of the accused are based on nothing less than the dignity inherent in each and every one of us. “If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone” (Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti, n. 269).
Remember: what can be done to a university president, to that one unpopular student, to that block representative who “doesn’t deserve to be there,” or to that student from a questionable family can most definitely be done to you. And nobody wants to be a defendant in a trial where they cannot face their own accusers who can sway the jury nonetheless. The fight for a fair and more human society begins at our digital fingertips.
To conclude, “freedom walls” fail to uphold authentic responsibility by the mere fact that they remove the opportunity for accusers to be confronted by those they accuse. For this reason they are repugnant to true freedom. In a court of law the accused has the right to face his accusers. We should expect no less in the court of public opinion.
Daniel Tyler Chua is the founder and president of the Collegium Perulae Orientis.
