As I�m trying to get my job portfolio whipped into shape, I�ve been running to the Chronicle of Higher Education every other minute to look stuff up. In the process, I came across this pseudonymous article on academics who blog and the ways in which they imperil their careers (this link may require a subscription to the site, but I�m not sure. The title of the article should give you a pretty good idea of the whole: �Bloggers Need Not Apply�). I can�t help but feel that the author is somewhat misguided on the subject of blogs.

First of all, I do think anyone who is trying to get a job (academic or otherwise) who writes a blog dealing with subject matter along the lines of what I tend to write about and who attaches his or her name to said blog or, even worse, lists the url in his or her c.v. gets what he or she deserves (and the article suggested that there are some who do this). Although I may occasionally be proud of some bit of writing I chalk up here, there is no way that I want to police the content the way that I would if I thought it were going to represent me professionally. Hell, I don�t even copyedit (as if that isn�t painfully obvious). I am possibly a little more paranoid than I need to be, though. I do check search engines regularly to make sure no searches of my real life name link back here. Despite the airing out of my grey matter in public on a blog, I still wish to maintaint a healthy separation of my private and public life.

The author of the article rightly points out that if more information is available on a candidate, the search committee will read it. This is why internal candidates are not necessarily advantaged in an open job search. They know more about you than they do about the other candidates, who have the advantage of presenting their best side only. If you submit an url, they will read your blog. If your name can be googled, they will find you. Yes, this may sound big brotherish, but if you can do it, so can they. If you don�t want them to read it, hide it well or keep it off line.

But the author goes on to query the purpose of blogs:

The pertinent question for bloggers is simply, Why? What is the purpose of broadcasting one's unfiltered thoughts to the whole wired world? It's not hard to imagine legitimate, constructive applications for such a forum. But it's also not hard to find examples of the worst kinds of uses.

A blog easily becomes a therapeutic outlet, a place to vent petty gripes and frustrations stemming from congested traffic, rude sales clerks, or unpleasant national news. It becomes an open diary or confessional booth, where inward thoughts are publicly aired.

Worst of all, for professional academics, it's a publishing medium with no vetting process, no review board, and no editor. The author is the sole judge of what constitutes publishable material, and the medium allows for instantaneous distribution. After wrapping up a juicy rant at 3 a.m., it only takes a few clicks to put it into global circulation.

We've all done it -- expressed that way-out-there opinion in a lecture we're giving, in cocktail party conversation, or in an e-mail message to a friend. There is a slight risk that the opinion might find its way to the wrong person's attention and embarrass us. Words said and e-mail messages sent cannot be retracted, but usually have a limited range. When placed on prominent display in a blog, however, all bets are off.

Well, of COURSE it�s a therapeutic outlet. A blog by nature is personal, not professional. What�s wrong with public airing of inward thoughts if you are so inclined? No one�s forcing anyone to read them? And yet, I wouldn�t want said gripes to get back to any search committee or, for that matter, colleagues. Thus I feel it is my own responsibility to set up a certain amount of cloak and dagger games. At the same time, I am vigilant about not writing anything here that I wouldn�t want someone to know about me. I don�t actually feel I have too much to hide, but I operate under the assumption that any other person I write about could possibly read what I am writing someday and make sure I could live with the consequences.

But my greater beef with the author is his dismissal of the expression of �that way-out-there opinion.� Because frankly, those are the types of opinions that make academia interesting. If we don�t take risks, we don�t expand our knowledge, we are not doing our best work. I certainly don�t mean to say that all risky opinions or half-baked ideas have value. But one of the things I like about blogging is it gives me a chance to work out some of those ideas in writing in front of other people without those professional repercussions that so often terrify us into the safe perimeters of academic traditions. I like having a space where I can be opinionated and not worry about what other people think about those opinions. By the time those opinions work their way into any kind of formal academic argument, I�ve had a chance to think through possible resistance.

But mostly, academics who blog (and there are a lot of us out there) are just relieving stress. We�re verbal people who find solace in writing down our frustrations and describing the rest of our lives � the non-academic parts. It makes us feel more like people.

0 people said it like they meant it