News > October 9, 2008

By Samantha Cernuto | Staff writer

JuicyCampus.com. What else is there to say? Nearly every American college student, along with a majority of the university’s campus, knows what it is and how it operates. Even those who had never heard of it now know due to the attention that it has received over the past week.

click to enlarge

An article on CNN.com last April says that Juicy Campus “allows and encourages posters to anonymously post uncensored gossip and rumors – the juicier the better – about others.”

President Nathan O. Hatch’s e-mail criticizes it as a Web site that “has facilitated degrading and demeaning speech targeted at our community and others.”

According to the site, JuicyCampus.com “was launched on Oct. 24, 2007 with the simple mission of enabling online anonymous free speech on college campuses.”

The creator of the Web site, Duke alumni Mat Ivester, who finally came out of hiding, says he sees the gossip on Juicy Campus as “pretty entertaining.”

Despite harsh accusations and the national disapproval, Juicy Campus is only growing. A post dated Oct. 6 on the “Official Juicy Campus Blog” proudly boasts that in the past month, over 447 college campuses have joined the network bringing the count to around 500 colleges.

“There is a huge demand for a site where students can discuss the topics that interest them most, in the manner they deem most appropriate,” Ivester said. “Despite all of the controversy, we’ve decided to keep Juicy Campus true to its roots, anonymous and uncensored. We’re very excited to be expanding to all of these new campuses.”

At the university, Juicy Campus is an outlet for anonymous, slanderous gossip, which has now aroused the attention of the administration.

“I think it is a silly Web site that people use to say things that they would not necessarily say under normal circumstances,” Student Government President Jermyn Davis said.

Juicy Campus came to the university early spring semester of this past year. The “Official Juicy Campus Blog” celebrated this on Feb. 7.

It quickly grew popular around campus, spiking even more hits this semester.

However, it was more underground. Now, since Hatch’s e-mail, the reality of Juicy Campus’ impact on the student body is much more evident.

The administration originally did not make a public address because they hoped the interest of the student body would wane.

After seeing it steadily increase and more students harmed by hateful comments, they decided to step in.

Vice President of Student Life Kenneth Zick, who signed the e-mail along with Hatch, said, “We had a number of complaints last spring and student groups who wanted the administration to internally block the Web site without the students knowing. However, we didn’t believe that it was the appropriate response.”

So why is it being brought to the forefront now?

“After hearing from numerous aggrieved victims, we realized how harmful it truly is,” Zick said.

“False accusations that were made have had many psychological and physiological effects on our students. It is now imperative for us to state our views in light of the harm done to specific students.”

He also warns, “Students need to be careful because the Internet is an archival database and if students making the comments are found out, it is liable and can be charged.

Cyber stalking is a crime and there have been cases of that here at Wake that we are aware of.”

The infamous e-mail coincides with Zick’s statements and points out specific things on the Web site that the administration disagrees with.

It talks about explicit message topics, the unnecessary profanity and unprincipled comments about students, faculty and administrators.

Unfortunately, this is all true. Recently, the most viewed and commented message topics about this university included, but were not limited to: “Who is the sluttiest girl at Wake?,” “Biggest creeper,” “Gays” and multiple messages about different Greek organizations. Some of these messages have received over 5000 views.

“This is a community matter. When students access the site, they are providing income for the site to continue,” Zick said. “In this academic community, we pride authorship, and it is cowardly for students to make remarks anonymously.”

Around campus, a lot of students chose not to comment on the Web site or on Hatch’s recent e-mail.

However, out of the few students who did remark on the topic, a variety of things were said.

Some had negative opinions of the Web site because they believe it is detrimental to the university’s student body.

Others said that no one takes it seriously and they found it hilarious to put up false comments about themselves or their own fraternities/sororities to keep the university interesting.

Some students had never even taken the time to look at the Web site until they received Hatch’s e-mail.

“I would hope that it doesn’t affect the reputation of Wake,” Davis said.

“I would hope that prospective students and other outsiders know that the things said on the Web site are not factual. Also, I hope students take this e-mail seriously and don’t view it as publicity for the Web site.”