Voices

Naming names

Should a newspaper keep people in recovery anonymous?

BRATTLEBORO — A reader recently wrote us with a strong reaction to a memoir by a Brattleboro Union High School senior, Nicole Charlebois, that we published in the Feb. 8 issue.

And by reaction, I mean a really, really strong reaction.

And she wrote it to every single one of us she could find with a commonsnews.org email address.

Let me first say that I found the piece in question - “Survival: A young woman recounts her difficult journey through drug addiction and recovery” - a beautiful testimony to the bravery and resolve of this young writer, who is facing a lifelong struggle the likes of which most of us will never know.

In fact, Nicole's piece illustrates perfectly the very reason for being of this section: it is a way for all of us to find and share our voices on a wide variety of issues that touch those of us who live and work in Windham County. It is a way for us to see the world through other perspectives.

The writer, however, said that she was “truly horrified” that we published the piece.

Not because Nicole shared her story, but because she did not adhere to one of the Twelve Traditions of Narcotics Anonymous (and, I presume, Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs).

That would be, well, the “anonymous” part.

That step, number 11: “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.”

At the end of a document quoting three pages of material from these programs, this writer made some points. I originally read these words as bursts of fury, but - as she very generously clarified in a follow-up message later that night - they were simply expressing an urgency and a genuine desire to help us, and the writer, understand.

“It is for the best interest of the individual in recovery and for Narcotics Anonymous as a whole that no full names or pictures show up in press, ever.

“The individual needs to know this!

The Commons needs to know this!

“The group to which she belongs needs to know this!

“This is a matter of life and death for many. Please, it is so against all that we believe. Please: never, never show photos or names of those in recovery ... all 12-step programs!

“Big faux pas. Big, big mistake.

“That young girl's life/recovery is at stake and the lives of all others as well in all 12-step programs.

“We are all responsible.”

* * *

I have been thinking about this letter off and on, ever since it hit my in-box a couple of weeks ago.

I am truly conflicted. And I am going to be honest and say so.

The fact is, I am grateful for Nicole's piece. I admire her candor and her strength and for the sheer confidence that it would take for her to share her story. By putting her name to the story and letting me use her profile photo from her Facebook page, she has added a degree of credibility and reality to the piece.

When I look at that story again, when I look at her photo, it puts to rest any notion that a happy, laughing teenager walking down Main Street in Brattleboro might not also be struggling with such problems.

And I think of how those words might touch others.

Parents. Teachers. Young people. Who knows who might have been moved by this piece, the whole of this piece, in context?

Cloaked in the anonymity that our letter writer urges, it simply would not have resonated as strongly.

I believe, truly believe, that to have published anything less than that would have done a disservice to our readers.

And I have to wonder: if this young writer had taken rule number 11 to heart, would she have tried to contribute this heartfelt piece of writing anonymously?

Or given the culture, would she have been discouraged from sharing her story at all?

* * *

Which brings me to the notion that even though the writer freely gave us her name, we shouldn't have published it.

That troubles me.

I believe with all my heart and soul that this newspaper and this section, by its very nature, must be open and accessible to all, to the greatest extent possible.

Phil Innes at vermontviews.com has been publishing a raw and graphic first-person account by a woman who has recounted a sexual assault and its aftermath. If that piece were to hit my desk, would I refuse to publish it in the interest of protecting the emotional well-being of other readers who might be survivors and who might well be triggered by such material?

Some readers have been offended at times - and bitterly so - that we would offer a voice to Vermont Yankee employees. Should we not publish material that does not conform to the worldview of those who do not wish to see the plant continue to operate?

The fact is, once you start looking at personal essays, viewpoints, memoirs, and other material in this section through a restrictive lens, you start going down a dangerously slippery slope.

The fact is, we want the material in this section to be moving, to provoke, and to occasionally make you angry. We want it to touch you, and we want it to touch your life with all the local context that we can. And a major part of that local context lies in who is writing the words that you are reading.

The fact is, we are responsible for the best interests of our entire readership, not for the well-being of individual readers.

The last thing we want to do, though, is to compromise someone's recovery. Is it fair to put on the newspaper the onus of cloaking the identity of writers who are just fine with having their names published?

Is part of the support that recovering addicts need wholly and non-negotiably contingent on the community's complicity in the anonymity?

I would be very interested in hearing from our readers about this issue, especially from people in recovery.

And yes, for this topic, I'd be glad to have you write anonymously.

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates