Oct. 3, 2005

Cleaning Up Their Online Acts

Last year, three students had to face the University of Mississippi’s judicial system after campus police officers found out they had created a group on the Facebook, an online network for college students, that consisted of people who wanted to sleep with a particular professor.

Looking for a job?

See all 169 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,694
Administrative: 2,046
Executive: 153
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

So when a student asked Thomas Reardon, dean of students at Ole Miss, for a recommendation, he decided to take a spin through Facebook. Sure enough, he found the student had posted something that “lacked judgment,” he said. Reardon still wrote the recommendation, but he “felt obligated to call the student in and tell him about it.”

For a generation of students who grew up with blogs, online journals, and peer-to-peer sites, the Internet has become an arena to write, post and link all the things they might not be able to express normally. The difficulty now, for some, is realizing that, more and more, their “peers” include professors, administrators, prospective employers, and sometimes law enforcement personnel. Whereas administrators used to tell students to take the “Hey dude” messages off their answering machines during job hunting seasons, now some students are being told to watch their digital profiles.

“The idea that people might be accountable in the real world,” said David Papiasvili, a junior at Columbia University, “that’s a little scary.” Papiasvili started the Facebook group “Adderall you’re breaking my heart,” and said he enjoys online forums because people can feel free to be creative. He knows now, though, that even though Facebook groups are supposed to be specific to the college of the student that created them, other people are finding methods of digital eavesdropping. A New York Times reporter probed the Adderall group for sources for a recent article on drugs, such as Adderall, that students take while cramming. Papiasvili said one member of the group was upset to find the article used her first name, after she had specifically asked not to be named.

Like that student, others are learning the hard way that they are not creating private online lives, but are publishing for the world to see. Alwina Bennett, assistant dean of students at Brandeis University, was surprised when students started asking her if she would be their “friend” on Facebook. Bennett did not think she had an account, but quickly found out that a student had created one for her. She tracked the student down. “He was a little abashed,” she said, “and he gave me the password.”

Bennett noted that Facebook “does sell your information,” and said she has gotten an inordinate number “of offers in different languages to enlarge my penis” since taking control of her Facebook account. Brandeis now has an hour-long orientation that tells freshmen that “when you click ‘go,’ you lose control of this. We have an obligation to educate ourselves and them about this,” Bennett added. At the orientation, technology staff members tell students how non-secure peer-to-peer sites really are, and that people have lost their jobs over blogs.

Michele Weldon, assistant professor in Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, noticed that former students she had had in class were blogging about their internships. “They’d put their name, where they worked, and how they had fun … dancing on tables,” Weldon said. It wasn’t Weldon’s first run-in with potentially explosive content. Last winter, Weldon found some “hurtful, and possibly libelous” Facebook groups that students in her class had started, including one entitled, “I was raped by my Medill midterm.”

As Weldon browsed other groups, she said she found content that criticized and perhaps “incited violence” toward specific professors and students. (A Facebook spokesman, Chris Hughes, wrote in an e-mail that “if any user does use the network inappropriately, we throw that person off the network.”) But Weldon said nothing happened when she complained to Facebook administrators. When Weldon wrote an e-mail to her students warning them they could be sued for such content, some apologized, but among others “the retaliation was remarkable,” she said, noting that someone created a site about her that was “very sexual in nature,” she said.

In one extreme case, a student at the University of Oklahoma was investigated by the Secret Service after posting a comment about assassinating the president on the Facebook group: “Bush Sucks.” Earlier, this year, a Grinnell College student was tossed in the slammer and charged with a felony for a post in a chat forum that invited (jokingly and totally not seriously, according to the student and his friends) students to kill the police who were making drug busts on campus. Facebook employees have said in reports that administrators at a few universities have sought to charge students with drug violations based on their postings on Facebook.

Kenneth Elmore, dean of students at Boston University, said he doesn’t want to police the Internet, but has begun talking to students about how their posts could come back to haunt them. “We’re in the process of confirming a chief justice, and this guy is dealing with things he wrote when he was a student,” Elmore said. “We live in a world now where a future Supreme Court nominee is just going to get Googled to death.” Elmore said he “wouldn’t want to gum up” the free communication that people have online, but added that he might have to if a student or parent came to him with blog material about a resident adviser and said “look at this picture, this violates the very reason for this person’s job,” Elmore said. “There should be a discussion about whether they should continue as an employee. You work for the university, you are an ambassador for the university.”

A lot of students hope, though, that professors and employers realize online forums should not be taken so seriously. Joe Williams, a 2004 Cornell University alum, said he understands that peer-to-peer sites “give this air of exclusivity, like a country club,” but that, as far as the possible viewers, “we might as well be on national television.” Williams is in the group called “I’ve kissed [name of a specific student].” “I don’t know if I kissed her,” he said, “we hung out a bunch of times wasted.” He said that the idea that “there are a million pages out there, why would anybody come across this one?” is part of the risk, but also part of the fun.

Students would prefer to keep just the fun. “I think it’s pretty lame that people are using the Facebook as a substantial indicator of someone’s personality,” said Anna Posner, a Columbia University senior who started the group called, “We like to have hott sex in Butler [Library] and then get coffee from Blue Java.” “Facebook is supposed to be…irreverent,” she said. “I’d be mortified if someone seriously asked me if I liked to have sex in Butler and then get coffee from Blue Java.”

Still, some students seem to be setting themselves up for disaster. A “live journal” from Jen, a University of Iowa junior, described Jen’s fear about a dream in which her boyfriend, Cole, found and read her live journal. “I’m thinking about making this friends only,” she writes about the blog which is open not only to Cole, but to the world.

Brandeis’s Bennett decided to open herself up to Facebook, since she had an account anyway. She does have some Facebook friends, but said “I’m of an age where I understand what it means to make friends. Listening to the same band doesn’t substitute for finding out about family, dreams, and hopes.” Added Williams, simply, “I’ve added friends I don’t even know, because rejection feels mean. One buddy is pissing in a trashcan in his picture.”

— David Epstein

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

I think that sites like Facebook encourage free expression because of the anonymity/privacy they can afford, and that is a good thing. However if the authorities regard them as reliable sources of circumstantial information that could help an investigation, then they will ise them, and consequences will arise for anyone not careful with their posts.

That to me is all fine — but the problem arises when you have posts taken out of context and you have authorities looking at posts written in a jocular fashion and attributing motivation and characterisation to them without realising that they are limited.

It boils down to Judges and whether they can spot the difference. Sadly rhetoric (which can be purchased) can cloud the issue and the Judicary are politically-appointed, so justice is not available.

Solution? Undermine the States’ omnipotence and make the Executive answerable — which leads to a transparancy and a freer judiciary. Without accountability you have action without consequence and that’s a road that no-one should be happy with.

I think it’s spelt/spelled totalita... (something)

Mike, at 3:15 am EDT on August 3, 2007

The sweet sounds of conformity

Nothing like watching students being told of the dire need to conform. Seriously, if everyone at Yale that streaked over the past 100 years or so had a webpage devoted to them, the internet would collapse and nobody would ever get a job.

Larry, at 7:53 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Quack, quack...

Pitiful.

To believe that we tap the full potential of our uniqueness by conforming to the beat of the commercial drummer is yet another sad note in our quest for, as Abraham Maslow pointed out, self-actualization.

It’s quite discouraging to know there’s a lead duck that must be followed in order to ensure the margins aren’t breached.

Pathetic and ironic that it’s okay for private information to be sold for $$$$, but creative musings —whether frivoulous or contentious— must meet the artificial standard of some self-righteous lead duck... quack, quack, indeed.

I’d argue to blog and post to your heart —and mind— is content, and then blog and post anew.

Do you really want to work for or associate with anyone who would be snooping in on your missives and making arbitrary evaluations about your value and potential based on your writings in a blog? And, if so, doesn’t “context” have any importance in that judgment?

Damn, I thought that was a primer from college education... oh well.

For me, the road less traveled seems remarkably more exciting and potentially more fulfilling than following the lead duck!

Michael, at 8:46 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Oh, I get it. Growing up and becoming a responsible citizen is considered “conformity.” Committing libel is following “the road less travelled.” Acting like a jerk and then publishing your actions for all the world to read on the web consititutes some kind of romantic heroism.

I dunno. I’m an old lady, though perhaps not so “ladylike” because I see this stuff as a metaphorical circle-jerk (for male and female alike).

If you write a diary and keep it under lock and key so other people can’t read it, well, then, write away and say whatever you damn please. If you are going to publish it — and posting on the web constitutes PUBLISHING — then accept the consequences of your stupidity.

Gloria, at 9:33 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Amazing Mental Disconnect!

Wow! Here’s a shocking way to look at things, Miss Posner: If you would be “mortified” to be asked if you like to have sex in the library, perhaps you should not declare to the world that you “Like to have hott sex in Butler [Library]. Eh? Seem reasonable?

“Anna Posner, a Columbia University senior who started the group called, “We like to have hott sex in Butler [Library] and then get coffee from Blue Java.” “Facebook is supposed to be…irreverent,” she said. “I’d be mortified if someone seriously asked me if I liked to have sex in Butler and then get coffee from Blue Java.”

Cicero, prof., at 10:12 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Put down your copies of Catcher in the Rye and grow up

Kids, it’s important that you understand that what you say has consequences, whether it be Nazi/Facist rehetoric to saying you want to have sex with your professor. You have the right to say whatever you want, provided you don’t shout “Fire!” in a theater or commit libel/slander, but what you say and how you act can have consequences you might not imagine. Here’s an experiment: Go put your name or on-line handle into Google and see what pops up. You’d be amazed. You’re not anonymous, and Google has likely indexed something stupid you’ve said or done that you might not want other people to know about it.

Thinking that you are able to do and say whatever you want, consequences be damned, is a childish and immature attitude that is unfortunately all too common among college aged students. And I say that as someone not from the outside looking in, but as somone who has returned to campus and cannot believe that “young adults” act this way.

If you want to join NORML, go ahead! Just don’t be surprised when a future employer finds out about it on a background check and doesn’t appreciate your recreational chemical experimentation, or maybe it was “political activism.” The mythical freedom you think you’ve found on campus coupled with the illusion of anonymity of the online world could set you up for a nasty surprise.

Joseph, at 10:12 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Gloria,

The problem with this is that no matter what anyone says it is a sure bet that it will “offend” someone now or at some time in the future. Guaranteed. To tell people to not say things out of fear that it would do this is to, essentially tell people that it is far more important to worry that a potential future employer will look down on one’s point of view than it is to actually express that point of view.

Now, I agree with you in part. College students usually don’t have anything too good to say, anyway. Most of their rants are underresearched and most of their personal lives are shallow and pretty much a waste of time. On top of that, many people are able to get jobs precisely because they wasted their time in college and were known as “friendly” rather than bookish. But that isn’t the issue: the issue is whether students should be discouraged from expressing themselves simply because the future may be filled with people that disagree with them (or think they will make friends by disagreeing with them.)

But, there are larger issues at stake here. For one, being able to express oneself in public on controversial issues is an important skill (at least for some). If everyone conformed to certain norms no artists would be able to create, no lawyers able to write briefs, and no pundits about to pontificate. Indeed, it is even unlikely that any scientific hypothesis that differs from a previous one could ever even be articulated.

Nobody is saying that people should not “accept” the consequences of their actions (whatever this means), but the question is whether students should be discouraged expressing their views on anything at all.

Larry, at 10:25 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Facebook

I have a facebook account. I am glad that there is a place like the web where the usual rules don’t apply. I find it very, very irritating that the fantasy realm that most of the student webpages occupy (and I am not limiting my comment to Facebook profiles) are being regarded as the jurisdiction of various weasels who feel compelled to object to anything. For a long time, various constraints on real world speech have not been considered applicable on the web. Unfortunately, there are various people who see the web as no more than an extension of their regular communications tools. The open forum is not dead yet. Don’t let it die. (And administrators, butt out of your student’s personal affairs. Posting something on Facebook is really no more public than screaming it at a party — and most everything that was said on there would be or is said in the real world anyway. Don’t expect the antiquated pretensions to courtesy of yesteryear — your students likely criticize you openly and privately, online and off, justifiably and unjustifiably).

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 10:31 am EDT on October 3, 2005

It’s called “Taking Responsibility”

One thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is that, while the spoken word has connotations and fluxuations to determine the context of a comment, the internet does not. All that the public eye has out there is the words, so it is much easier for those words to be interpreted in various ways. How many of you have taken a high school or college literature class? You should know that there are many different interpretations of the same book. The internet is no different from that. As a moderator on an internet message board, I deal with this every day. It’s impossible to determine whether a comment is serious or should be taken as a joke just by reading it, and I have to deal with people who get angry or upset when they take something seriously that was meant to be a sarcastic joke. This isn’t a call for conformity, nor is it trying to take away your freedom of speech. It’s simply a wake-up call for you to take responsibility for what you say and do on the internet. You might understand the inside joke behind your blog or your facebook group, but others won’t necessarily get it. All they have is their interpretations of words on a screen, and that is what you will be held accountable for. It is scary to think that what we post on the internet could be misinterpreted and change the paths of our futures, but that means we have to be more careful with what we post. We have to ask ourselves, “How does this make us look to the outside world?” “Is this sarcastic comment worth me throwing away my future because someone may interpret it wrong?” Yes, I agree that the world needs to lighten up and learn to laugh more, but until that happens, we need to guard our internet communications more diligently.

Amanda, Oklahoma State University, at 10:57 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Quack on

So, in the world according to Gloria, citizenry –and a responsible form at that— is determined by the lead duck? Oh my, how would that noble label be judged if we use contemporary standards?

According to Gloria, it seems that acquiescence and spin are worthy endeavors, so as not to displace or unbalance the purposeful direction of the lead duck.

According to Gloria, the road less traveled is congested with jerks and romantic heroes –and, I supose, heroines.

According to Gloria, this stuff of personal thought, shared space, and uncommon knowledge –or, forbid, forbid, circled-jerked metaphors and misconceptions (according to the Book of the Lead Duck)—is the repository of professors, employers, and those who “know better.”

Arguably, the posting of words in a blog constitutes some form of publishing (not akin to the shouted version of PUBLISHING). However, does that space simultaneously invite commercial interests to evesdrop? As in, gee there’s a student out there that wants to sleep with me … oh my, where’s my attorney?

Or, maybe our stealth services want to purge any personality and creativity from being employed in the … the what? Is there actually some agency, some above-it-all entity out there that can stand as the exemplar of what is, according to Gloria, responsible citizenship?

Thankfully, the term “stupidity” much like the term “diversity” is imbued with the spirit of the beholder.

Michael, at 10:57 am EDT on October 3, 2005

Political association isn’t all bad

Joseph, I am curious as to what political groups you think it is acceptable to belong to. Obviously some groups that seek to change some laws are unacceptable. Of course, if NORML Is ultimately successful someone that admitted to joining NORML in college will not be viewed as a stoner but a political visionary. (Now, I happen to think that most people in NORML are completely naive when it comes to lobbying, and they should probably organize like the Young Republicans.)

Also, membership in NORML won’t show up on most background checks, and it is not grounds for denying someone a security clearance (nor would isolated experimentation with marijuana, but this is a different issue). So, stop spreading paranoia.

I thought it was obvious, but I guess I have to say it: membership in an advocacy group does not mean that someone actually indulges in the related activities. To discourage students from thinking about politics only in terms of their immediate interests is to encourage nothing more than selfishness.

Next, unlike many blogs, these facebooks are not anonymous. However, anonymous speech, for good reason, enjoys some first amendment protection as well. Thankfully, there is no need for individuals to take responsibility for every political position that they take.

Larry, at 12:57 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

Problems with the Google search

The problem with a Google search is that there are thousands, possible millions, of people with the same names. How many John Browns are there in the world? How many have been at your university or in your class? Furthermore, anyone can get an e-mail account under any name. Therefore, anyone can post anything on the Internet under any name. It can be difficult to know many of the things posted under the name of John Brown are truly from someone named John Brown. I would never use anything found on the Internet as my sole source of information.

GENGHIS KHAN, at 12:57 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

Perhaps...

Perhaps, if these online postings and such are analyzed appropriately and objectively, we may come to realize that certain activities we associate with negative character traits no longer apply. Less than 100 years ago the common knowledge was that masturbation made you insane, caused you to go blind, etc. Happily, nowadays, everyone realizes that was bunk. That change of thought did not come about through everyone being polite and careful and private about their real experiences.

Maybe the next step will be a realization of the true breadth of personality that exists, an acceptance of the extremity of personal fantasies, who knows...

OtakuCODE, at 12:57 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

rationally...

It really doesn’t matter how people SHOULD interpret things they read on the intarwebs, what matters is how they DO take them.

If I make some goofy facebook group that somebody gets offended by, the end result is that they have been offended, regardless of whether or not thier interpretation is valid or even sane.

People can be really silly and stupid and wrong, but that doesn’t mean that their ability to affect you in the real world should go unnoticed, and that is the whole point of the article.

Mark, at 12:58 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

We don’t live in a vacuum

I’ve sat on hundreds of hiring committees. One of the first things we do is “google” someone, which now includes blogs.

So, be 100% certain about this: if something way off-center comes up during a google — in the famous words of Ricky Ricardo, that person will “have some ’splaining” to do.”

And 100,000 lawyers can’t help that person. We go over dozens of resumes a day. It is very easy to let the unusual ones “fall off the desk.”

Persons who put themselves in that position have no one else to blame but themselves. We didn’t blog — they did.

Bob A., Tired of inane advice, at 1:47 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

End all politics, religion, and art in schools NOW !

Then I guess the solution is for schools to completely discourage any form of political expression. No Christian fellowships (yes, those are political). No environmental activism. No helping the poor. No arts (because those involve nudity). No advocacy for changes in the law. No Young Republicans. Nothing! Each of these things can (and will) will pigeonhole a student as a suck-up, pervert, bible-beater, or bleeding-heart. Schools should make discourage students from anything that might ever make them look bad.

(I only mean this half-sarcastically. Since I am against making or encouraging college students to engage in public service activities, I see “think of the future” as a great way to prevent students from half-heartedly engaging in activities that would be better done by others.)

LArry, at 1:47 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

Cleaning Up their Online Acts

Folks — besides the negative reactions that bloggers and posters to the Internet receive, positive ones happen too. Good writing by a student blogger can result in an offer to represent the university (see “Student blogs give colleges a new recruiting tool” in the current issue of eSchool News). It’s just a matter of time before advertising companies start recruiting their young talent from the sarcastic set in Facebook, if they’re not doing so already. Hollywood producers have been quoted as saying they’re spending their time surfing blogs, looking for fresh voices. So, like any kind of writing, this is a double-edged sword. It seems to me that the possibilities of positive reaction could be an even greater motivator to the student writers to pay attention to what they’re producing and write to the best of their abilities the most interesting material they can. And you know it doesn’t matter who or what the writer thinks the reader should “get” or be — once a writer publishes anything, in any medium, the reader takes control of the message. A writer insisting otherwise is whining uselessly. If a reader didn’t “get” the joke, it’s not the reader’s fault. It’s the writer’s, for not being good enough to write the joke so that it’s actually funny. A blogger who complains that the wrong people are reading his/her material is making the same basic mistake. If a screed belongs in a diary, keep it there. If it’s clever enough to entertain an audience, then post it. Beware: the audience is the judge of what’s clever. And the audience is tough. Ask any stand-up comic.

Lee Ann Fleming, at 8:07 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

Caught in the Net

I’m not sure how the students flocking to Facebook can complain about conformity. I can recall carefree college days, and the cosequences come only later. Eventually we have to face reality. In this case there is no privacy on the Net. And, as Lee Ann Fleming wrote, we cannot stop readers (and listeners in my case as a podcaster) from misunderstanding our messages. The dangers increase as you become a public figure, even if you published only with care. People will try to use you, destroy you, replace you, and so forth. Even private e-mail messages will be spammed to others to serve someone’s ulterior motives. Take a salary and give up your human rights. We have no privacy. We are free to be careful or careless, but there will always be unanticipated consequences that do not reflect our original intentions in self-expression. It’s not karma but competing interests in a world of increasing scarcity of the good life.

Japanned, Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan, at 9:20 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

Missing the point

It seems that a lot of the readers are missing the point. The only way in which the “heavies” are coming in to police the content is if it’s libelous or threatening, or impersonating an administrator. Otherwise, they’re just recommending a little restraint. It doesn’t seem that outlandish to me.

Jason, at 9:36 pm EDT on October 3, 2005

Unofficial “references” and sources?

For those who Google, you may want to email this attorney and ask her opinion.

mouser@gandv.com

Apparently there are some statutes, that allow individuals to demand something like an “open records request” to find the source of negative information about them.

As some of the posters here on Inside Higher Ed have already noted, the use and substatiation of information gathered from unsolicited internet sources is legally “suspect” and should be used only upon advice of competent organization counsel.

Behavior that may be unusual in an office setting may be quite normal and appropriate in an online forum. I can feel the ground rumble with the freelance lawyers running this way to initiate defamation suits.

Dr. F. Gump, Muckraking Provost at Mental Institute, at 4:08 am EDT on October 4, 2005

I think it is sad that so many people here seem to think that the first amendment is a license to act like an idiot. First of all, this article did not forbid you from being dumb, it simply sought to remind people that there are consequences for their actions. The interesting thing is that for many here the concept of freedom and the concept of immaturity seem to go hand in hand. When people are advised not to act immature the immediate complaint is that their freedoms are being taken away, as if the first thing a free person must do is pee in a trashcan and post a picture of it on facebook. If your society/culture asks you for some modicum of respect that does not mean you are being repressed, it means you are a civilized human being. Civilized human beings have jobs, but can not pee in trashcans, wild animals can pee wherever they want, sadly they have very little income. You can be either, the choice is up to you.

Michael D, at 4:09 am EDT on October 4, 2005

Michael:

Nobody is claiming that there is an enforceable first amendment issue! Nobody! Get that straight.

What people are concerned about is the practice of a college discouraging students from expressing themselves in ways that might differ from what the “norms” are of the day.

But, norms change. While it might be conformist to be president of one club in college – and your college might use your club as a recruiting tool (as Lee Ann Fleming alludes) to, in five years such behavior may be considered disgusting. In five years, membership in the Young Republicans might be considered worse than having the plague. In five years, being in the “band” may be considered a sign of homophobia. But, somewhere along the line people can, will, and probably should express themselves somehow.

Lee Ann, One problem with using blogs as a recruiting tool (or even students) is that they are generally hand-picked because they conform to the norm that the admissions counselors (or development types) want to project. Therefore, the rough edges that make American political discourage so beautiful are smoothed out.

Bob, There are many people that have cackled “100,000 lawyers won’t help you now” and chucked a resume, only have to have their “friends” rat on them a few years later when they are facing allegations that they discriminated for improper reasons.

Luckily, as someone who does hiring, it is fairly obvious to me what kind of a person someone is professionally from his/her resume, and I don’t need to use Google, and I don’t particular care whether they are a Scientologist or voted for Kerry or Bush. (Though I do think that membership in some professional associations indicates that they are glad-handers, but this is another issue.)

Dr. Gump, I don’t know what you mean by “freelance” lawyers. Apart from lawyers that work for the government or are “in-house” counsel, most lawyers can be considered “freelance.” Defamation suits (and successful ones) are generally very rare and successful ones are even rarer. Your point about open records statutes makes no sense, either. Nobody is claiming anonymity here. But even if there was, there is a first amendment right to some anonymous speech. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341 (1995) (“the anonymity of an author is not ordinarily a sufficient reason to exclude her work product from the protections of the First Amendment.”)

Larry, at 7:09 am EDT on October 4, 2005

1st Amendment

If you can put it on a bumper sticker, if you can say it at your own party, you should be able to put it on your website. Or a website you’re a member of, that “connects people through social networks at schools".

Gig ‘Em.

Mikey L, at 7:09 am EDT on October 4, 2005

Convention and convenience

Larry,

Excellent points... you last post, in my opinion, nails the essence of the issue and effectively addresses the points that were either “missed” or “spun” from the original article.

And kudos to you for refraining from using Google as a tool for “checking up on” postential employees.

To think there are folks out there using Google to assist them in making personnel decisions is frightening -and laughable.

If we follow that type of elemnetal logic then the workplace —and educational institutions— would eventually become home to every person who dared not, or could not write an expression of their take on an issue... now that’s truly scary.

Michael

Michael, at 1:04 pm EDT on October 4, 2005

Youre all old you shouldn’t even be online it’s no place for people like you. We’re talking about student websites here... yea youre a jack ass if you mention something about killing the president, but that’s different than everything else mentioned. There’s a fine line between inappropriate for the older generation and inappropriate period. If it offends you dont read it. You don’t understand what kids mean by things now. If someone said ‘omg youre so gay’, would you realize that theyre not referring to your sexuality? Probably not... and that’s the point, a lot of this stuff is said in our own way, in our language so stay out if you dont know it.

Vikki, student at Stony Brook University, at 5:02 pm EDT on October 4, 2005

Vikki, there’s nothing so special or impressive about your generation’s way of “putting things in your own way.” 30 years ago I was a little girl and my teenage babysitter sneered, “Oh my god, that is so gay,” while we were watching a TV show she thought was dumb. I still remember it because at the time it confused me, but we all know (and you need to learn) that in any generation, such insults are stupid and perceived as homophobic, whether or not you actually are a bigot.

Caitlin, professor at Ohio, at 7:09 pm EDT on October 11, 2005

Jobs Related to Cleaning Up Their Online Acts

or search for jobs directly.

Mathematics Specialist
Miami University

Learning Assistance (Hamilton Campus): Mathematics Specialist to provide leadership in development and implementation of a ... see job

Associate/Assistant Professor Doctoral Program in Leadership Studies
Gonzaga University

Leadership Studies, Doctoral Program, Gonzaga University, Two tenure-track positions see job

African-American History
Hobart and William Smith Colleges

African-American History see job

Physical Science Adjunct Faculty Pool
Howard Community College

Physical Science is a course designed for Elementary Education A.A.T. students and the non-science major. It is a general ... see job

Assistant Manager
Yale University

General Purpose
Reporting to the COO of the Yale Medical Group, this position will provide direct training and ... see job

Part-Time Master of Science in Administration Instructor
Central Michigan University

PART-TIME TEMPORARY FACULTY TO TEACH A MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ADMINISTRATION COURSES Central Michigan University seeks ... see job

Student Services Coordinator (112098)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Assistant Professor — Architecture
Johnson County Community College

A career at Johnson County Community College is more than a job. We believe it’s important to invest in our employees and ... see job

Faculty in Experimental Particle Physics, Astrophysics/Particle Astrophysics/Cosmology
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Professor, Theoretical Chemistry
University of Colorado

Posting Description: The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Colorado, Boulder ... see job