There have been numerous stories over the last year or so regarding the potential negatives with having a blog online. Employees have been fired for revealing company secrets, complaining about the workplace in general, or just posting material online period. Every institution apparently has its own set of guidelines to follow regarding what types of activities are condoned and what is unacceptable. Since blogging is such a new and recent phenomenon, it has probably caught a lot of people off guard, and it makes the task of enforcing some sort of acceptable guidelines that much more difficult. As if the above mentioned instances weren't enough, an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education only served to highlight yet another troublesome aspect of blogging, having potential employers read your blog.

In a column entitled "First Person," Ivan Tribble, a pseudonym for a humanities professor at an unnamed college in the Midwest, the title pretty much says it all, "Bloggers Need Not Apply." This is followed by a subtitle/quote, "Job seekers need to eliminate as many negatives as possible, and in most cases a bloc turns out to be a negative." Tribble explains how three potential candidates were undone, not completely mind you, by the content of their blogs. One devoted his to a topic other than the humanities which worried the hiring committee that they would be devoting more time to this other area. Of course, you're not paying someone to be a humanities professor only to have them hang out in a the computer department, but this strikes me as nothing more than a hobbyist's outlet for a subject near and dear to them. Another had a personal blog that "scrupulously avoided comment about the writer's current job, coworkers, or place of employment." This was troublesome only because it had some content that was heartfelt and opinionated. The third apparently divulged how they had misrepresented some aspect of their resume to sound much more involved and important than it really was. Fair enough, but depending on the degree of exaggeration does that really disqualify a candidate? Who doesn't misrepresent themselves to some extent in a job interview?

Granted, some of these candidates actually chose to include the address to their blog with their application materials. Others were found easily by searching their names on the internet. To me, this seems wholly unfair when weighing a candidate's credentials. Sure, if you lie outright, that's a problem, but if you have a blog that isn't something you publicize yourself, then it seems to me like the most glaring form of gossip mongering. Tribble even mentions that it's hard to turn away from a blog filled with such juicy revelations. It seems hypocritical to indulge in such an activity only to then turn around and condemn the writer of the bloc as being not quite the applicant to fill the job. He also mentions that the blog wasn't the only factor in deciding against a candidate, but it's hard to imagine someone who spews such venom against the concept isn't weighing it pretty heavily in the end.