Lives Online: CyberCultural Studies

Over at academic blog Crooked Timber, Harry Brighouse brings us an ethical dilemma.

Harry asks whether it is ethical for a graduate admissions committee to take into account information applicants post to online sites (not connected with the department to which the applicant has applied). And if so, how much weight should this information carry? Read the details and then let me know what you think. For my take on this situation, click the link below. (You, however, are encouraged to disagree with me. Explaining your own position, and why I’m absolutely, completely, 100% wrong about this, should give you more than enough material for an exciting meditation.)

Here’s my response.

1) My biggest concern is the anonymous-but-identifiable nature of the grad site. Sure, it may seem likely that the candidate really is “SuperStudGradWannabe97,” but how can you know for sure? And what if you’re wrong? This gives me pause.

2) While I don’t have a problem with admissions (or hiring) committees perusing the online writings (such as blogs) of candidates, I wonder about the expectations that this sets up. F’rinstance, say an admissions committee reads Candidate A’s blog, but not Candidate B’s blog. The committee really likes the blog, and accepts Candidate A. Does the commission have an ethical obligation to Google all candidates and read (carefully, mind you) all of the material they find? If so, what’s the use of the candidate-prepared dossier?

3) Ultimately, most graduate programs (and academic tenure-track jobs, sadly) receive far more applicants than available positions. This means that most programs are forced to reject fully-qualified applicants. Thus, departments are often looking for reasons to reject people. It also means that departments are under no obligation whatsoever to accept a candidate simply because he or she is qualified for the position, since so are many other people. This leads me to think that even if the candidate were not “SuperStudGradWannabe97,” rejecting the candidate based on SuperStudGradWannabe97’s postings, while sad, is acceptable. It also means that in their search for reasons to reject enough people to get down to the target number of acceptances, reading some but not all online (even anonymous) writings is also acceptable.

4) Writing online is still writing. And everything that gets written has a lifespan of its own that is, often, completely (and sometimes distressingly) independent of its author. Socrates (via Plato) argues (via Plato’s writings in the Phaedrus dialog) that this is a viable reason for distrusting all forms of writing and instead sticking with good old fashioned verbal bullying and abuse, preferably with attractive young men (such as Phaedrus). Anyway, what I’m trying to say here (or, rather, what I’m trying to write here) is that written materials can bring you glory or disgrace, and we need to become more aware of the ways that writing in online environments actually works.

5) I don’t see how the public/private school question makes any difference whatsoever.

6) Why doesn’t English have one of these gripe-your-heart-out sites? What the heck’s wrong with us? (Not that I would ever post to one, of course.)

But that’s just me. What say/write you all?

(X-posted to Digital Digressions)