Blogs and Academic Politics

The SHU blogosphere has had a few energetic and exciting debates, a few of which have degenerated into name-calling.

Here's an interesting discussion of how a departmental discussion group got ugly, and what we can learn about online methods of communication.

Chronicle Careers: 06/06/2005

Hard words, indeed. Arguably a challenge, and if so, Hank took the bait. "I guess it's inevitable that at the 11th hour, some asshole makes an incendiary posting that completely negates the spirit of discussion and rational debate that preceded it," he began circumspectly, then wrote what he really thought. "I would suggest that there are two kinds of people, right now: those who have the talent and integrity to get and keep jobs as professors and lecturers, and those who somehow get admitted to a literature/writing department without being able to use a word like 'scab' correctly." Hank concluded that he had dealt with John's type before: "When the actual demonstration or meetings occur, you're a no-show."

Well, John's posting might not have been worthwhile, but Hank's displayed everything that can go wrong with blogs and online discussion groups -- like the way the medium can encourage hair-trigger responses, snap reactions, and fierce emotional outpourings. A sudden passion seizes the e-mailer, who can be confrontational in a way that a face-to-face interaction might discourage. A bookworm who spent high school running from the jocks can now, late in life, get macho.

A stunned silence reigned for about 20 minutes before a torrent of abuse rained down on Hank's head. He issued a sheepish apology an hour later, but the damage was done -- by John's post as well as by Hank's.

There was the effect on personal relations, on what little camaraderie the department had. The flame war could affect people's careers, given that participants would one day sit on conference panels and search committees.