|
|
Post by drbearjew on Dec 5, 2012 9:36:15 GMT -5
Here to get rules clarification.
Specifically:
1.) Naming names - what names can be named, in what contexts?
2.) Name-calling - when is name-calling appropriate for civil discourse in these forums?
|
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Dec 5, 2012 13:53:51 GMT -5
Maybe I should clarify the rules in the guidelines, but right now, here's how I operate:
No names of job candidates before they are hired, ever (even if an institution names them as a candidate in their webpage.)
Ok to name hires in the hire thread. I don't particularly like the naming of names, but since that is something that has been a part of the boards long before I took over, I think that is ok.
But no discussion about credentials or qualifications for the job, ever.
Ok to name people who are involved in issues that are in the public record. That is, it is ok to name and discuss people who are involved in public disputes or controversy. When discussing these cases, I generally just the same approach as defamation/slander laws in the US. I.e., it is ok to say that you think someone is an idiot, not ok to accuse that person of a crime or other wrong doing without evidence.
I don't particularly like when people go around calling other people "dicks" or "frauds," but I don't want to monitor language to that degree either. The basic approach here is that:
- we are all adults
- people shouldn't be harmed by anything posted specifically in this forum, so I'll intervene if I think that might be the case.
In the case of Venkatesh (or Regnerus before this latest issue), people may have said harsh things about him, but nothing that would cause any harm.
If people disagree with this approach, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by quesiton on Dec 5, 2012 14:00:55 GMT -5
No names of job candidates before they are hired, ever (even if an institution names them as a candidate in their webpage.) Just curious...why? It seems like a big point of this board is to figure out where you stand in the future job market (when you're a grad student or post doc) based on who is getting interviews and who gets hired at particular institutions. |
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Dec 5, 2012 15:29:33 GMT -5
No names of job candidates before they are hired, ever (even if an institution names them as a candidate in their webpage.) Just curious...why? It seems like a big point of this board is to figure out where you stand in the future job market (when you're a grad student or post doc) based on who is getting interviews and who gets hired at particular institutions. Because until the point where a person has been hired, divulging information about where they are interviewing can potentially have negative consequences for them. A lot of the time people who are interviewing somewhere might already be employed at another institution, or they might be in the process of negotiating an offer, or on the short list somewhere. It is not uncommon, for example, for assistant professors who are on the market to only tell their current departments about it after they have an offer from another place. Once a person is hired, it is ok to name them, because at that point very little harm can come from being named here (though people who have been named can always contact me to have their name removed). |
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Dec 5, 2012 15:46:18 GMT -5
Given that we can't possibly know how many people are on the market this year (or, if we stretch it even further, the next year), where then would it be appropriate to name someone who potentially could be on the market without causing that person harm?
|
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Dec 5, 2012 15:59:18 GMT -5
I am not sure I understand your point.
Are you referring to the people named in threads like Venkatesh's? Or to people named in the hires section?
In the case of people like Venkatesh, the fact that that information is public record and covered in places like the New York times makes the discussion over whether we can name them here sort of moot. Whatever harm or benefit that comes from those issues will exist regardless of this board. I draw the line at the slander stuff because that is where any additional harm could come from.
In the case of the hires thread, presumably that person has a contract for the upcoming year, which means that they are not in the market this year anymore. Even if they decide to go on the market again the next year, the fact that they were hired this year would not hurt them. In the past, I've had a couple of cases where people who had been hired asked to delete their names from the "name names" section and I complied, and would do so again, no questions asked. But it is quite clear that the potential "harm" of being named as a hire after the person has signed a contract and is off the market for this year is different from the potential harm of naming someone who is currently on the market and still looking for a job.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbearjew on Dec 5, 2012 16:27:08 GMT -5
I see where I caused confusion. Let me clarify. My point is specific to Venkatesh.
Suppose that he is on the market. NY Times publishing an article about him makes certain particulars public record. But much of this board is speculative. So the narrative goes from specific details regarding discretionary spending habits to Venkatesh is a dick, a fraud, and, from the latest, not a good teacher.
Venkatesh would be harmed by information circulating on this board simply because he had an article published in a widely read newspaper.
But also suppose that an ABD from Big State University had a press release about their research published by Big State University, or by a NPO. That information would also be public record. And suppose that their name begins to circulate on these boards, attributing their success to simply having a good adviser, being White/Black, man/woman, rich/poor, etc. That person is referred to as an "ass to work with", "overrated", and so forth. Would this be out of line in the current model?
I'm not posing these questions for the sake of argument. I'm concerned that if these things aren't clarified, certain threads have the potential to get out of hand very quickly. I like these boards because, compared to others, they are less volatile. People tend to be very respectful, and that makes the job hunt a lot more manageable than if I had to come to these boards with the fear that my name should be bashed before, or after, I become employed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Dec 5, 2012 17:29:21 GMT -5
Discussions about whether a specific, named person is qualified for a position are never ok. As such, your example about the ABD form big state university would be deleted.
In the case of Venkatesh, I doubt that anonymous posters calling him an idiot would really affect him one way or another, especially given the magnitude of the charges against him in the leaked report (though if you can make a convincing argument that that is not the case, I'd be glad to hear it). I've since deleted the link to the anonymous undergraduate comments, because those are not pertinent or related to the discussion taking place in the public media. It is not that I agree with the particular posts about whether Venkatesh is a "dick" or a "fraud," but again, regulating language like that is a bit much in my opinion.
So when it comes to people discussing things that are out in the media about sociologists, I generally follow what I outlined above with regards to slander/defamation. I'll delete unsubstantiated accusations of crimes and information unrelated to what is in the public record, but other than that, I won't intervene much.
|
|
|
|
Post by sc member10 on Dec 6, 2012 9:52:09 GMT -5
Naming names can actually hurt candidates. Let me explain.
Last year we invited someone to campus who revealed that he was also about to interview at another SLAC like ours. We wanted this candidate, and made the offer a bit quicker than we might have otherwise. However, once we learned that he did not get the other SLAC job (the person who got it was named on this forum), we realized we had a slightly better negotiating position.
I don't think this person lost much money on the deal, but we didn't make as forceful a case to the dean for little things (start-up money, travel funds) than we had in the past. Money is tight, and pushing for extras for an incoming hire would mean not being able to ask for other stuff that existing faculty need.
SC members read this board (I used a past iteration of it when on the market in 2007).
Most of the time the opaqueness and secrecy of the job market works against candidates, but in some cases (like when SCs are wondering if the candidates they invited to campus might have other offers), it works against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by sc member10 on Dec 6, 2012 9:53:49 GMT -5
ugh... Typo in last paragraph. You can figure it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by not quite on Dec 6, 2012 10:33:34 GMT -5
Except that it wasn't the name of the new hire at the other SLAC that that tipped you off but the fact that the offer (from the other SLAC) had been accepted. It was the latter type of intel (which appears in these fora independently, and quite frequently before, the name of new hires) that may potentially have put your potential new hire at a disadvantage and not the name of the other person as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by another example on Dec 6, 2012 11:00:57 GMT -5
Here is another example of how naming names can have negative consequences: last year I was fortunate enough to have two competing offers for places I was very interested in. After making my choice I called my current chair to let them know and was planning to decline the other offer after lunch. On the way to lunch I saw a colleague and shared the good news. This stupid asshole immediately (I'm taking within five minutes) posted my name here. Problem was, I hadn't informed the other school yet--the news was only a few minutes old for me--and I could tell from the chair when I emailed that they already knew I was turning them down. I can't imagine that learning that I declined the job via rumor mill didn't cause some of the faculty at the second institution to develop negative sentiments about me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sc member10 on Dec 6, 2012 11:06:50 GMT -5
Ok, I see your point. I still can't quite convey the internal dynamics that result from learning that one of your top 3 did NOT get the other job they were after. It changed the framing of the candidate in the eyes of some dept members and had an impact on the negotiations, that's all I can say.
I guess the larger point is that SC members use information on this board to gain a strategic advantage relative to other schools. I don't think the people advocating naming names had that in mind when the policy changed (we hardly named names at all in 2007 on this forum).
Naming names may satisfy your curiosity, and it may help you gauge your application materials vs other candidates, but it also helps people (like me) who do not necessarily share your interests.
|
|
another perspective
Guest
|
Post by another perspective on Dec 6, 2012 11:41:09 GMT -5
I think scmember10's comments also point to the importance of discretion on the part of the interviewee. I'm not sure it would generally be in one's interest to state *where* other interviews/offers are/might be taking place. It can give a candidate an advantage in saying that there are other "bites" out there and even letting a school know if they're more than bites. But, I'm not sure how it could be in one's best interest to say where those bites are coming from. Things to remind oneself while conversing with departments--discretion can be very important.
|
|
|
|
Post by sc member10 on Dec 6, 2012 11:48:09 GMT -5
In the case of our hire (and he's a great guy and friend, btw), revealing the other SLAC's name likely worked in his favor. It was just the kind of place we were trying to emulate. It was a risky gambit, though.
|
|
