In an op-ed about the upcoming elections last week in the New York Times, Gail Collins asked, "How far back in a candidate's history do we want to travel?" With multiple campaigns across the country bringing up opponents' college writings and actions, what counts as fair game is a now a particularly open question.
Collins argues that college is a time for experimentation and growth, and that in electing candidates to office "nothing anyone did in college short of a felony should count against them." As Collins points out, "We do not want the next generation to embrace premature conformity just because they nurture a dream of one day serving with Max Baucus on the Senate Finance Committee." Future campaigns must do a better job of heeding Collins' advice.
There's no denying that for many college is a time of testing new ideas and learning by experience. But for our generation more than any previous one, a person's decisions — bad and good — are well-documented and easily accessible thanks to the Internet. Though a Google search of a candidate can often provide his or her position on the issues, it can also frequently reveal a chronicle of ancient indiscretions. Incriminating evidence about political candidates will increase exponentially in the next decade as every unflattering personal photo and melodramatic status update comes to light.
Earlier this year, we weighed the pros and cons of banning employers from using Facebook in the hiring process. Should the calculus be different for those seeking to become public officials?
Of course, all college students do and say things publicly that they may regret later. Though we don't want to discourage the kind of experimentation that makes college so special, a little forethought and prudence during these years probably wouldn't hurt. It's important to be aware of who has access to your various online personas, as well as what medium you're using. Indeed, an inappropriate rant on your blog is likely to be more detrimental than a picture of you holding a red Solo cup.
Ultimately though, we agree with Collins that campaign mudslingers should stay away from all but the most serious incidents that occur in college. The statements and actions of a candidate during his or her postgraduate career are clearly of more relevance. If a candidate has retracted or revised statements published during college, or provided plausible explanations for forgivable actions, that ought to be sufficient. In fact, such actions reflect an admirable level of maturity and self-awareness.
Our nation has thrived for over two hundred years choosing leaders without a complete digital history of their lives. If we open the floodgates now, it's going to get worse, and it's going to make political discourse even less substantive than it already is. The "Facebook generation" will be especially tempted to use digital histories for vicious campaigning. Let's be better than that.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
