Isn't it past time that anonymity is used to enable attacks on others?/NPS

Years ago when we published our code of conduct for comments, we said anonymous comments would be allowed because there obviously are times when whistleblowers want to shield their identity, when the topic is political dissent, and when the individual doesn't want his/her comments attached to the organization they work for.

Now we're not so sure. Anonymity was not intended to be used as a cloak for those attacking others.

Misogynistic comments flowed in to our recent editorial and story about Grand Canyon National Park and Superintendent Christine Lehnertz. Some made it through as they certainly presented a different point of view and weren't so acerbic (though they quickly grew in that direction). Others were so over the top they never saw daylight.

In the case at hand, why some feel a need to denigrate women, whether in roles of authority or as colleagues, is sadly disappointing. There wasn't similar vitrole against former Grand Canyon Superintendent David Uberuaga, who it was determined knew about the sexual harassment in the park's River District but turned a blind eye to it.

Yet when a woman is appointed to succeed him with orders to root out the fertile breeding grounds of harassment, some view her as a "radical feminist." Let's not forget that Superintendent Lehnertz had documented her subordinate's failure time and again over a period of months to respond to her directives, and that Office of Inspector General investigators confirmed that.

We found that Lehnertz legitimately proposed a 1-day suspension for the GRCA senior official for “Failure to Follow Supervisory Instruction” because the official did not provide Lehnertz a copy of an Employee Performance Appraisal Plan (EPAP) for one of his subordinate employees, despite multiple requests; did not provide written reports as requested by Lehnertz related to a high-priority initiative at the GRCA; and did not attend a scheduled meeting related to that initiative.

We found no evidence that Lehnertz created a hostile work environment or that she wasted nearly $180,000 in unnecessary renovations to a park residence.

So why no condemnation of this individual from those so quick to criticize the superintendent? He cost the federal government thousands of dollars, at least, disrupted the management of Grand Canyon National Park for many months when you take into consideration his foot-dragging and, in the end, cost the Park Service a valued superintendent and left another hole to be filled in the Park Service's leadership team.

Should it surprise anyone who lives in our society and reads newspapers that recount sexual harassment cases with regularity, which continually note year after year that women in general are paid less than their male counterparts, that Lehnertz wants to further women's empowerment? When there are instances in the National Park Service where a superintendent accused of inappropriate behavior with a female subordinate after the so-called zero tolerance policy was put into place was not only transferred to a larger park but reportedly received a performance bonus?

If "empowerment" is too much to stomach, how about equality?

Which brings us back to anonymity of those who comment; not just on the Grand Canyon stories of late, but all that appear on these pages. Why do the authors shield their true identity? To what end? To make it easier to attack others? Is it simply trolls, Russians or others, who enjoy tossing bombs to see the fallout?

The Internet and social media have made it so incredibly, and sadly, easy to forget how to be civil. That doesn't mean we need to be boorish. Points can be made without denigrating or tossing in gratuitous comments.

While the Traveler's board of directors examines this issue, with a possible solution of simply banning comments altogether, we'll be more aggressive in policing comments.