Muddling the Online Speech Issue
“Facebook could hurt you!” News at 10, after our exclusive on KILLER SUNSCREENS! Actually, this was the topic of a recent faculty talk on “online privacy and boundaries.” Panelists agreed that “it’s naive for students to think that only their friends are looking at their Facebook profiles because often, employers and others are looking at them too” (the one dissenting voice noted in the Daily story was that of School of Information professor Paul Conway, who argued that “in the future, society might have looser standards about what is inappropriate because almost everyone will have an online past.”) Tenured faculty, of course, have academic freedom and do not have to worry about retaliation for what they publish online or anywhere else.
There is no hypocrisy involved in having a tenured faculty position and not believing that every other employee in the world is entitled to exactly the same academic freedom. But at a time when employee protections are being eroded across the board, it would be nice to see something from the academy other than uncritical cheerleading for businesses that seek to monitor and punish the online speech of its graduates.
Conway’s argument is more than reasonable and you seem to be stretching his statement way too far. It wasn’t “the only dissenting voice.” He was the only person quoted talking about long-term implications and broader social changes. The other panelists, from the employment office and A.D., were addressing the near-future, practical consequences. And your statement about tenured faculty not having to worry about retaliation is a pretty arbitrary and unsubstantiated claim.
But other than that, keep up the good work.
posted by Greg B on February 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am eConway’s argument was great; that’s why I mentioned it. He punctured all of the hysteria pretty neatly.
Addressing the near-future consequences of online speech by putting all of the burden on the prospective job applicants not to engage in such speech implicitly gives a free pass to the employers. Doing so at a nuts-and-bolts career-counseling talk for students would be one thing, but this was at an “Ethics in Public Life Initiative” symposium where I would expect a little more analysis.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 1st, 2008 at 11:27 am eMy employer said he Googled me… and apparently liked what he saw. In any case, Facebook is easily-enough modifyable to be hidden from whoever you choose. AAIO, add me.
posted by Brandon on February 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm eOkay, if you don’t think being associated with me is going to hurt your standing with employers…
I think it’s totally reasonable for employers to Google applicants and allow some of the information they find to influence them, but there are problematic aspects. There are a number of things that decrease an applicants’ chances. For instance, things like dressing inappropriately for the interview. No career counselor is going to tell you that you should be able to wear ratty jeans and be judged on your experience. On the other end of the scale, there are things like having an African-American-sounding name. Even if it helped an applicant, I doubt that too many career counselors would advise using initials or a more “white”-seeming nickname on a resume, because the advice would legitimize a repugnant hiring practice.
Posting material online is somewhere in between. Telling applicants to be careful should be balanced with exploring the social consequences of what might be a chilling effect on speech, especially in a discussion at a university.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on February 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pm e