Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

I've wondered whether my having a blog might eventually become a hiring issue; it's not just academics that are affected by this. I've decided that a company which would choose not to hire me based on what's in my blog is a place I probably would not have been happy at anyway.

Tribble's argument can be extended to any kind of blogging (or nearly any sort of online participation). Perhaps politicians should not blog, because something they say might be taken out of context decades hence. Perhaps they will reveal themselves as being too unstable, too emotional... the chilling effect on expression is pernicious.

Traditional academia is shrinking or just holding steady with fluctuations in demand for services. As a result, getting a position in academia is more often a question of "why shouldn't we disqualify you?" than "what can you do for us?".

Another theme of academia is mystery. We know things you do not, so you should come to us for instruction. That is a bit the opposite of blogging.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is widely known for its dislike for technology, and so this article on blogs comes as no surprise to regular readers.

There is no reason to believe that the contents of the article reflect current practice, as blogging is now widely used in academia, with thousands of teachers and professors blogging themselves and encouraging the use of blogs by students.

I've been blogging for more than 3 years and I work in academia. I know for a fact that many at the university read my blog. So far no negative repercussions. I wonder, though, how my online presence might affect my candidacy for future positions at this and other institutions. This article is worrisome, but it won't stop me.

One reason I started my blog was so I could screen out potential employers like Tribble.

Seems like common sense to me. If I met a potential employer in the grocery store, whatever I say to him or her can be factored into their decision to employ me. Why not what I blog?

Also I'm sure there are plenty of examples out there where blogging secured somebody a job rather than costing them one.

Sure, Brad. I don't think anyone is saying that potential employers shouldn't read blogs. But Ivan is reading them unsympathetically, without understanding the nature of the discourse, and primarily as a reason to disqualify people.

I can't speak for academia, but here's how it works in corporations. Many HR departments (if not 98% of them) operate on the "rule out" principle. That is, they do everything they can in the initial screening and interview(s) to rule a candidate out. Those who make it through this gauntlet are then passed on to the person who will actually make the hiring decision, for further interviews. The person who makes the hiring decision will frequently want to be "safe" and therefore may also go with the "rule out" approach.

So, given this environment, it shouldn't be surprising that a candidate who has taken a public stand of any kind on any topic in a Weblog runs the risk of being ruled out by a recruiter, HR interviewer, or decision maker who does not agree, who fears making a hire that could come back to haunt, or who is not comfortable with people who are sometimes politically incorrect (and the criteria for being PI seem to increase in number every day). This is not news. It is human nature.

If one has an opinion, one should not fear to express it, but any more one must realize that the chance to defend that opinion may never be offered. On the other hand, if one is not hired by some gutless wonder into a dead-end job at Everybody Here Thinks Alike, Inc., is that a loss?

David: yeah, the guy's definitely hamming up the negativity, no doubt. I guess I just take that part for granted.

The part I think is interesting is that people write things on their public blogs that they probably wouldn't want to say to anyone they were trying to impress. And then some are shocked when there are negative repercussions.