Home

Terri Senft - Re: Bloggers Need Not Apply

Jul. 11th, 2005

12:31 pm - Re: Bloggers Need Not Apply

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry

I wrote this in response to a piece called Bloggers Need Not Apply, in which a pseudonymous member of an academic committee at a midwestern university describes reading applicants' blogs as a "train wreck," and warns people not to put things on the internet because they can be "easily Googled." The Always Great Danah Boyd had some good thoughts on the topic,. Below are my additional musings:

I had trouble with the Chronicle article, and not just because I just posted a video of myself in a PowerRanger suit chasing four year olds. This is one is the kicker sentence of the piece for me:

It would never occur to the committee to ask what a candidate thinks about certain people's choice of fashion or body adornment, which countries we should invade, what should be done to drivers who refuse to get out of the passing lane, what constitutes a real man, or how the recovery process from one's childhood traumas is going.

Um, thanks?

I wonder if the problem lies in the title for this piece. It's called, "Bloggers Need Not Apply," but as you rightly hint, it's really intellectual freedom (with the should-be-old-by-now notion that the personal is political), rather than blogging, which is at issue, here.

Understand this: committees aren't doing anyone a favor by not asking these questions; they are simply obeying the law. Every hiring committee knows that asking certain question in a job interview will almost guarantee that some candidate will take legal action eventually.Anyone who has ever sat through an interview knows exactly why these laws exist: to protect candidates from undue duress during the application process, when they are at their most vulnerable.In short, and at least in theory: nobody should feel forced to give personal information in a job interview. The issues mentioned by the author are one of a million on an employer's "don't ask" list.

But as some of us learned after the Clinton Administration's handling of the military, not everyone does best in a climate of not asking and not telling. Here are at least four things I've been warned by others (but interestingly, never my employers) not to discuss in public until tenure:

1. Sexuality and sexual politics

2. Labor issues at the university

3. U.S. sanctioned military activities

4. Disability issues in general, and mental health issues in particular

Now, according to Dr. Anonymous at MiddleGround U., I should add to these the following:

1. Interest in technology beyond Microsoft Word

2. Passing familiarity with anyone else on the internet who might overstate the scope or importance of my research

3. Feelings about the passing lane.

Contrary to the author's position, I'm going to go out on a limb and argue it's GOOD to be a potential job candidate and a blogger. The issue of brand that Danah addressed is one reason. Another is that some of us actually want to have a life with fewer, rather than more surprises after being hired. The author of the Chronicle piece says it straight out: blogs are easier to track and read than scholarly papers. When someone hires me, I assume they've done due diligence and are comfortable with someone for whom the personal, the political, and the pedagogical are of a piece. This means I can come into a place committed to working my butt off and not pull back for fear that I'll be asked to leave once someone discovers the Real Me.

Perhaps the writer of this Chronicle piece is right and perhaps there are some bloggers who really don't understand how their blogs display them as political and social beings. Perhaps I'm being too harsh and all this writer is doing is reacting to the latest warm and happy gushing about blogs. Perhaps all she wants is to warn potential job applicants that writing in public carries risk. With that I would agree, but in the end, I still think it's a risk worth taking. Disclosure requires trust and trust carries the potential for betrayal, but it's in those moments that a life worth living unfolds. I don't think anyone dies thinking of the last chapter of their dissertation, but there is a strong chance that some of us will carry in our final moments of life a photo, a text fragment or a memory of an interaction derived from some time spent online. For me, that's probably the best reason to insist on an identity as both an academic and a blogger.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:[info]fluxbox
Date:July 11th, 2005 11:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks! Although I knew something was amiss in the writer's logic, I couldn't pinpoint it. Instead, I prepared to succumb to a Vague Unease about posting anything of consequence. By the time I'm on the market—six or eight years at this rate—your take on academics-with-blogs should be more mainstream. Or I'll be looking in a country where it is.

(Unfortunately, I think even on these terms my blog colors outside some of the lines. I can't imagine any hiring committee would be happy to read about my current writing troubles, for instance—or that they would be happy when an industrious student dug them up and used them against me in a teaching context. Guess I should try to figure out a consistent take on public/private—which I would say is the same thing as a brand, in the end.)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 11th, 2005 11:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Well, while posts on writing troubles may not sit well with a hiring committee, posts detailing how one works through writing troubles SHOULD be public, in my opinion. It's called leading by example, and showing that scholarly writing is labor. It doesn't come fully formed out of the head of Zeus, but is crafted like all other sorts of work is crafted: with sweat and mistakes. You know?

One way I've tried to think on this "what to post" issue is by asking myself: WHY make this statement publically (as opposed to behind the filter of a friends list, or whatnot)? Take the PowerRangers video for example. Why the hell would someone choose to have that on her web site? Well, for me (an unmarried, childless feminist) it's a swell illustration of what I consider to be my family values: relating to children on THEIR terms, not mine.

You've got me thinking. Maybe I will write more on this...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]saltbox
Date:July 11th, 2005 11:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
A friend of mine actually sent me (via lj) a legal blog link that discussed the Chronicle article. That link, in turn, referenced another blog entry that, similar to your letter, invoked blogging as a screening device.

I have to say, I didn't find my blogging to be a hindrance in the academic job market, much to my surprise, given that I was involved in a minor blog scandal. It may be a matter of disciplines---I think blogging is actually kinda hip in mine these days, what with some Really Big Name profs blogging away like crazy.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 11th, 2005 11:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That Ann Althouse blog is a good read!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]saltbox
Date:July 11th, 2005 11:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Had you come across it before? I hadn't. It seems fun, though (I especially liked her scornful closing lines.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]burgundy
Date:July 12th, 2005 01:02 am (UTC)
(Link)
But don't many of these concerns apply to any activity in the public sphere? Especially in the case of those applicants whose blogs were found in Google searches, and had not brought them to the committee's attention voluntarily? Blogs give quicker, more concentrated access, but it's partly a question of degree, rather than purely a difference in kind. If someone done political work, has written letters to the newspaper, has simply signed a membership roll that's ended up on the web... if you're doing a Google search on your candidate, then any of these and more might show up, and if those aren't problematic, then blogs shouldn't be either. And if they are problematic, you're essentially asking only for candidates who never actually do anything, at least not in any capacity that might be recorded later. Which seems a little... odd.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]plural
Date:July 12th, 2005 01:58 am (UTC)
(Link)
See, I have to rather agree with the man.

I've always thought people used email and webstuff too casually then act surprised when it came back to bite them in the ass.

I personally choose to keep my blog disassociated with my rl persona, because I want not only the freedom to say what I think and feel, but a certain degree of plausible deniability if the wrong person happens onto it.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
Not that I'm a pillar or anything, but I guess I'm more interested in responsibility than deniability.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]plural
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
Thats a nice glib response but rather misses the point.

There is supposed to be a separation between work and personal. What you do in your private life, and what you do at the office, are measured by two distinct meters, and cross over will always bite you in the ass.

His point is that people are being idiots with their blogs, presenting information to potential employers that will harm their chances.

That isnt responsible or accountable but suicidal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
Did you read the article I referenced? Did you read my full response? Do you actually work in the field that is under discussion, here? Because I do, and I'm not being glib. You speak of world in which work and personal worlds are distinct and separate. I'd like to meet the humanities teacher who lives in that world.

From what I can gather, you are interested in anonymity as a means to "plausible deniability." Those are your words, not mine. I've made a different choice and have outlined my reasons for that choice here. Why can't we leave it at that? Why the insistence that there is this one place called The World, with rules that you know, but I do not/cannot?

And why the drama? While my choice is arguably riskier than foregoing an online presence and/or opting for anonymity, it is by no means "suicidal." Last time I checked, I was alive and well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]plural
Date:July 12th, 2005 07:43 am (UTC)
(Link)
yes, I did read both items, and no I dont work in the field under discussion.

Work and personal worlds are distinct, sure there is more bleed over in academia, however I took the authors entire point to be, that you have to be more careful with the image you present and the information you provide. I.e. that you need to protect a seperation between professional and personal realms to a certain extent, specifically if something in one will cause you harm in the other.

We do live in entirely different worlds, and I've always respected that you are both able and willing to be so open about your identity here. In my case that isnt possible as I have to present certain image both in my professional and personal life, this is not my preference but a family obligation.

I'm not questioning your bravery, and from the long time I've been reading your journal I wouldnt say you are the sort he (or by extension myself) was referring to. However, many peoples blogs have content which is absolutely unacceptible in a professional sense, and for someone to either include their blog address, or have a "google-able" blog which would damage their career prospects, seems both idiotic and harmful to oneself.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:21 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I agree with you about your last sentence! I'm sure you and I have spent equal amounts of time telling people on LJ, "Uh, you may want to lock that entry..." My issue is that the examples the author provided in the article contained nothing that seemed to me "absolutely unnaceptible in a professional sense." One guy he took to task because he seemed too interested in computers to be a good humanities teacher, and another guy got in trouble because a friend of his (located through a Google search) overstated the importance of his research. These two examples are so extreme that it makes me hope that this article really is a satire, because if it isn't, that's just messed up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]plural
Date:July 12th, 2005 08:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
See, I thought the technophile example was perfectly legit as you dont want to hire someone who would prefer to work a different type of job especially one at which they could make more money, because as soon as they find one, they split and you are left holding the bag and having to spend the time and energy to find a replacement all over again.

As for the second, I may have misunderstood the story, but my impression was that the guy misrepresented his research to more directly apply to the job in question, and his buddies blog let the cat out of the bag.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]whorlpool
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:19 am (UTC)

..

(Link)
I was under the impression that the article might be satire.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:35 am (UTC)

Re: ..

(Link)
That seems to be the newest suggestion, but satire only works when hits a nerve, right?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:(Anonymous)
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:15 am (UTC)

Re: ..

(Link)
Apparently, it's hit a big nerve; I've seen references to that article all over the place.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:17 am (UTC)

Re: ..

(Link)
I know...maybe it's a Monday thing?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:avagabond
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:40 am (UTC)
(Link)
Who blogs using their real name these days? Lunatics!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 12th, 2005 02:45 am (UTC)
(Link)
Anonymity is so 2004, though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]libertango
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:18 am (UTC)

Real names

(Link)
Let alone, if anyone still believes "computer security" isn't a humorous oxymoron, and thus, thinks their paid account data with their real name can't be cracked...

Well. How quaint. :)

(Not that I could do it, personally. :) I guess I'm just saying, since my name is out there, one can never surprise or blackmail me. Someone who tries to stay anonymous, though, can only be disappointed. Secrecy is never permanent.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]libertango
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:05 am (UTC)

Blogging and prospects

(Link)
I understand the basic point being made by the author of the article... But it's no different than the usual stuff presented by people as to why businesses and their employees shouldn't blog. The reasoning is, say something that might possibly be offensive to someone, somewhere, and they'll get offended by it, thereby reducing sales / enrollment / what-have-you.

Here's the problem with that argument: I think people are coming to expect a public face for professionals -- regardless of the profession in question. So, when you don't have one... You make it appear you have something to hide, or you don't have the courage of your convictions, or you simply lack the will or imagination.

If I'm about to do business with someone, I Google them. And a company that has an open blogging policy is one more likely to get my business than one that doesn't. When I've had to choose primary care physicians in the last few years, same thing. When I'm considering prosective employers. Anything.

I find it difficult to believe that, if an old fart like myself does this, younger people aren't doing it as well. Which means if a prospective student Googles their potential colleges and professors, they're more likely to attend the ones they find than the ones they don't.

Which means the whole thing may well bite the more cautious institutions right back in the ass.

Now, as Zen Master Yogi Berra said, It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future... But this just feels very accurate to me, and where the wind is blowing in the long term.

Or, to put it a different way: If you're the kind of institution that won't hire me because I blog -- I don't want to work for you, anyway. And neither does anyone else under 40 who's at all valuable. What is that going to do to your talent pool in the long run?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]tsenft
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:17 am (UTC)

Re: Blogging and prospects

(Link)
oh, snap!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]libertango
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:27 am (UTC)

Re: Blogging and prospects

(Link)
Glinda the Good Witch sez: Was that a good snap, or a bad snap? :)

Hal the elderly DJ sez: Did you ever get a chance to hear the radio show SNAP in LA, hosted by Deirdre O’Donoghue?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]trochee
Date:July 12th, 2005 03:20 am (UTC)

Re: Blogging and prospects

(Link)
Yes! I agree with you completely here. The Chronicle is just not yet on the Clue Train.

Open communication is the only thing we'll respect. Otherwise we're wondering what you have to hide -- or is there nothing on the inside?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]boobirdsfly
Date:July 12th, 2005 08:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
Fascinating thread.

I'll also add that it entirely depends on what professional world you are a part of though I would tend to think that if someone is willing to share, that's their business, not the business of the people on the other end to decide whether they should share or not.
As a performer, the more exposure the better. There is no sense in me hiding at all when my headshot and resume is actually what gets me work. If people find my blog too... oh well... they will find out I am someone with a rich varied complicated life. Like every other human being.
I would say as long as people protect their students identities , what's the problem ?
People are so threatened by the blogosphere lately, it's funny.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]chrisbynum
Date:July 13th, 2005 01:36 am (UTC)

PC Police ;)

(Link)
> Bloggers Need Not Apply

(I think they prefer the terms "Blogro" or "Blafrican American"... [VBEG])
(Reply) (Thread)
From:tama_says
Date:July 13th, 2005 06:56 am (UTC)
(Link)
From my side, I've got to say that I think of my blog as a substantial asset in terms of my employability in the tertiary sector. Sure, my blogs posts aren't always serious or confined to my thoughts about academia, but the majority of what I comment on is in some way related. It does help that I position myself broadly at the interesections of Media Studies, Communication Studies, Literary Studies, Digital Humanities and New/Digital Media, so there isn't a lot that happens online or in the media more broadly that I can't justify writing about. That said, I think it is important for all academics to have some sort of public voice in order to maintain a rich, vibrant and engaged relationship between academia and the public more generally; blogs are one of the best ways of maintaining such engagement. Moreover, on a personal note, while I have some wonderful collegues in Perth, it is the most isolated capital city in the world, and the blog is a wonderful way to build, maintain and enhance my connections with scholars (and others) across the wired world. [More...]
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:[info]projectjulie
Date:August 8th, 2005 01:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
it's really [about] intellectual freedom... When someone hires me, I assume they've done due diligence and are comfortable with someone for whom the personal, the political, and the pedagogical are of a piece.

this is my favorite of the responses to the chronicle article, because of the way you rousingly reframe the issue of the appropriate relationship between one's academic and other selves. on a personal level, I've always been frustrated and baffled by the assumption that the professional (or "public") subject should be segregated from the "private" one (in my "personal statement," I wrote, "I acknowledge the academic disposition of my project, my objectives, and my audience, but my four primary interests are also deeply personal (as the name for this type of essay suggests). So, for each of my imaginary chapters, I introduce the academic and the personal aspects of my commitment in parallel") -- even more so with respect to academia, which is, it seems, supposed to be a sort of all-consuming vocation. as a child and scholar of new media, I've always considered the web to be my milieu, the place where my "self" lives -- the idea that I shouldn't be as downloadable as possible runs counter to my work. and as a sex radical, I've always considered my sexuality to be both a political and an intellectual (and thus very much a "public") project. I made the decision to publish my pornographic work on the web under my real name when I was 20 or so, before I could fully imagine all the implications for my future career -- but I did know that the two are inextricable.

so, brava for giving voice to all this.
(Reply) (Thread)