|
|
Post by Archivist on Apr 6, 2016 20:56:40 GMT -5
As a reminder, one of our general guidelines still stands:
|
|
|
|
Post by ElDuderino on Jun 1, 2016 9:25:37 GMT -5
Created subforum for 16-17 new positions of interest. In a few weeks, I will move the 15-16 boards to archives and create the remaining 16-17 subforums.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Oct 5, 2016 21:19:33 GMT -5
It is not appropriate to disparage specific departments or individuals within them based on speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Sept 14, 2017 17:05:35 GMT -5
As a reminder, we never discuss the possibility that internal candidates have an "inside track" for a given position. Do not speculate on whether there is an internal candidate, or whether a specific search is intended to favor an internal candidate. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Nov 21, 2017 19:35:45 GMT -5
As a reminder, this is a longstanding rule in the "General Guidelines" post that you'll find in nearly every forum on this site:
We only name names after they have been made public, and that definition generally requires something beyond random anonymous posts on some other website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Jan 28, 2018 10:56:05 GMT -5
This is not a good forum for the first public allegations of sexual harassment/abuse/assault. As we all know, just the suggestion of these behaviors can ruin careers. This is obviously an anonymous bulletin board, and it does not allow for the accused to respond or the general public to properly evaluate the veracity of any claims being made.
Please restrain yourself from engaging in gossip. If anyone is bringing up issues of faculty members' behavior in this area, it should have already been made public.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Feb 5, 2018 0:18:51 GMT -5
I understand how frustrating it can feel when a candidate with a previous connection to an institution received an interview or an appointment in an open search. From the outside, the search can look tainted, rigged, unfair. And I get that saying that things are rarely as clear-cut as they appear isn't very satisfying either.
The urge to vent is natural. However, to publicly and anonymously disparage or discredit a candidate in that situation is not only unfair, it is unprofessional and immature. It is simply not acceptable to single out one candidate or ultimate hire for increased scrutiny and begin questioning their credentials for a job.
The desire to encourage or engage in harmful speculation is perhaps unsurprising, but it's the job of the moderator to curb some of the worst compulsions in order to protect those who have done nothing more than apply for a job -- just like you -- hoping to achieve some stability in their career.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Feb 5, 2018 14:26:26 GMT -5
An offer has been made to [snip]. Why are you deleting this information about the position?! Transparency matters! Who knew that academia can be worse than Washington DC.
We have guidelines in this forum. These include
- Don't identify or discuss individual job candidates
- Don't identify those that have received offers.
- Don't identify hires until it is public knowledge.
- Don't accuse an institution of unethical behavior unless it is in the public realm.
- Don't question the credentials of somebody who has landed a position.
This guideline in particular should stand out:
If you don't care for these guidelines, you are free to stop visiting this site.
-- Archivist |
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Oct 16, 2018 12:43:14 GMT -5
As a reminder, we do not discuss the qualifications of applicants or hires here. Also, we have some established rules that discourage speculation about possible internal hires. See the Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" thread for more information. |
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Oct 23, 2018 7:09:17 GMT -5
I have my doubts that this anonymous forum is an appropriate or effective place to discuss our discipline’s role in combating or propping up white supremacy. If you want to have a go at it, please do so in a new “general” thread, not in a “status” thread.
If you do so, please do it in a way that does not invite further scrutiny of the perceived identities of specific candidates. All applicants are under enough pressure as it is, and they don’t deserve being used as data points to further this goal.
If you want to discuss this moderation decision, do it here, but keep it meta: avoid identifying the institution or hiring line that prompted this note.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Dec 28, 2018 19:50:52 GMT -5
It is not appropriate to disparage specific departments or individuals within them based on speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Dec 28, 2018 19:55:34 GMT -5
Just another reminder that needs to be repeated every now and again: we never discuss the possibility that internal candidates have an "inside track" for a given position. Do not speculate on whether there is an internal candidate, or whether a specific search is intended to favor an internal candidate. Please see the thread Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" if you need more clarification. This moderation rule is always in effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Mar 19, 2019 21:48:13 GMT -5
As has long been the case, we discourage speculation about the possibility of internal hires. This includes before, during, and after a search is conducted. See the Moderating Claims of "Inside Hire" thread for more information. |
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Apr 26, 2019 8:55:51 GMT -5
A recent set of posts described a poor interviewing experience that took place several years ago at a specific institution, detailing the interactions with one specific faculty member. (Editorial comment: it sounded horrible.)
The institution is small enough and the description of the faculty member was specific enough that this individual could be easily identified. A representative of the institution contacted us and respectfully requested that the disparaging posts be removed, noting that "they contain an accusation that has not been investigated."
The representative also stated "Even the mere possibility of discrimination on the basis of race will not be tolerated at [snip]. I thank you for this forum that can make us aware of the job candidate’s experience during their visit." I am confident that these allegations have been taken very seriously by the institution. I do not see any further added value in keeping these anonymous posts available in this public forum, so they have been deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archivist on Oct 14, 2019 16:26:51 GMT -5
We have longstanding policies about only naming names when a hire has been publicly announced. We do not speculate on who might be in the hiring pool or their chances of being a successful applicant. We do not provide names of candidates who have received invitations for interviews or offers of employment. Until these policies change, anybody who disagrees with them is welcome to stop visiting this site. Future requests for names may be treated as troll-posts and be deleted without comment.
If anybody wants to further discuss the policies of this discussion board they should raise them in the "General > Meta Forum" section.
|
|
