Terri Senft - Re: Bloggers Need Not Apply
Jul. 11th, 2005
12:31 pm - Re: Bloggers Need Not Apply
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.

(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.)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
..
Re: ..
Re: ..
Re: ..
Real names
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.)
Blogging and prospects
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?
Re: Blogging and prospects
Re: Blogging and prospects
Hal the elderly DJ sez: Did you ever get a chance to hear the radio show SNAP in LA, hosted by Deirdre O’Donoghue?
Re: Blogging and prospects
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?
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.
PC Police ;)
(I think they prefer the terms "Blogro" or "Blafrican American"... [VBEG])
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.