Jamie Hoover Wrote:
> Oh, I don't know...hasn't blacklisting those for voicing their opinions
> long been a great american tradition?
>
> Jamie Hoover
>
> At 01:35 PM 7/21/2000 GMT, you wrote:
Okay, this melodramatic little post pulled me in on this thread. I tried to
fight it. It's kinda long, my apologies.
I once found myself in a job interview when the employer had surprised me by
pulling my museum-l posts in advance and using them to initiate discussion.
I was a little taken aback, as I didn't remember what I had posted. But it
made for some interesting discussion. The point is museum-l is a public
forum. Informal to be sure but public nonetheless. Each and everyone one of
us should be able (and eager) to defend and discuss our posts, and
ultimately stand by them as surely as if these writings were in a scholarly
journal, a professional magazine, or newsletter.
There are a myriad of resources for BOTH potential employers AND employees
to research each other via the internet prior to an interview situation.
This should be done by both parties to gain a more full picture of the other
party. Although the person who diverted this particular thread mentioned
only the negative information one can find by going through the net, there
are many positive things one can find, and I would like to think he uses
that information as well. Either party (interviewer and interviewee) who
does not avail themselves of all possible, public information before an
interview or beginning the hiring process is short changing themselves and
may ultimately make a bad hiring decision or step into a job they won't
like.
Now, there was one poster that said that he or she has never seen anything
on the list that would preclude an employer from hiring that person.
Technically I agree, as one post more or less should not dictate a hiring
decision. Any employer that makes decisions on such paltry evidence will
ultimately get the staff he or she deserves. But that doesn't mean there
aren't fairly regular posts on this list that would create a check mark in
the negative column for any poster. Allow me to cite three examples.
1. The person who started this particular topic stated the following: "I
have the qualifications, and I'm looking for a job, but I never apply
to positions that don't give a salary range - 'cause you know what that
means :-), also, who wants to live in Richmond?! NOT ME!"
I consider this a poor post and would count it against the poster for the
following reasons: The post jumps to a conclusion based upon literally NO
information. The lack of a posted salary means, according to this writer,
that the salary is low. The author of the post sites no evidence for this
assumption. I don't want people working for me who are so quick to jump to
conclusions. If I were to interview this person for a job, I would cite this
post and ask them to explain what they meant and cite evidence to support
their conclusions. Anything less is sloppy thinking and writing. Also, the
implication is that there is no real, logical reason why someone would
withhold the salary information. The fact is that there are very real
reasons why this information is not put into ads broadcast to this wide an
audience. You may not agree with them, I may not agree with them, but people
do it for reasons other than a low salary. This poster could have phrased it
in the form of a question thereby inviting the original poster of the job
announcement (and other job posters) to rationalize their decision and
explain their philosophy. This would have been a much more fruitful
discussion and helpful to those people currently composing their own job
announcements and de-mystify the process for those looking for work and make
them wiser job hunters. Instead the poster shuts down discussion with dead
end accusation and a sly little wink. As a professional who has hired over a
hundred interpreters and docents I want people who initiate discussion not
shut it down. The original poster, if he or she applied for a position with
me, would have to prove to me that they could participate actively in a
fruitful discussion. This post is evidence to the contrary. Then there is
the comment about Richmond. What can I say about that? No one on this list
wants someone working for them who would denigrate any group of people in
public. The short sightedness, lack of audience awareness, and geographic
bias is overwhelming. This poster would have some hard explaining to do to
me as his or her boss or potential boss to convince me they would never do
this in front of museum visitors. It's unacceptable.
2. A year or so ago there was a post by a gentleman (I have tried to find
this post on the archive to verify this information, but have been thus far
unsuccessful. If someone saved this post send it to me or, if I have it
wrong, please correct me on the list) who was involved in a debate of some
kind with a couple of people at least one of whom was a woman. This guy, at
some point in the conversation, attributed a particular post he disagreed
with to where that poster may have been in her monthly cycle (not how he
phrased it.) If I found that gentleman's resume and a copy of that post on
my desk at the same time, I cannot even imagine the verbal tap dancing he
would have to do to convince me to interview him. The complete lack of
sensitivity and blatant ad homonym attack is offensive and intellectually
careless. Neither trait I look for in an employee
3. The post that I responded to, quoted above, is another example.
Researching the written opinions of potential employees (and employers) is
just good practice for everyone. To suggest that holding a writer
responsible for their public pronouncements, good or bad, is blacklisting is
to force the discussion into defending extremes. Complete freedom and
unaccountability versus blacklisting. There is a middle ground which most of
us occupy and would be an excellent topic for discussion on this list which
would include what kinds of information are useful and where you can find
it. Again, for both sides of the hiring process. Instead of assuming that
potential employers are only looking for negative comments, the poster could
have asked for examples of what types of posts he looked for, or asked for
instructions on how they too could search for posts, maybe of potential
employers. This post shows evidence of thinking in simple terms and a
rejection of complexity. It also shows a propensity to use inaccurate,
inflammatory rhetoric (Blacklist? Spare me the histrionics) in debate. Not
something I want in an employee. This poster would and should have to
explain this post in any interview situation.
As many of you have pointed out everyone has a right to their views,
opinions, and ideas. But with that freedom comes a responsibility to stand
behind your views, especially after publishing them in public. Even in an
informal venue such as an email discussion list. A dynamic profession
demands it. It behooves all of us to force each other to think clearly,
write intelligently, and behave constructively. And yes, as one poster put
it, some people need to vent. But is this the place for it? I would suggest
it isn't. At least it should not be a place to publicly vent and then back
away from your opinions when someone attempts to debate or hold you
accountable. For me it's the difference between a "discussion" list and a
"bitch" list.
--
Matthew White
Director of Museums
Mount Washington Observatory
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
