Several years ago, I enrolled in a nineteenth century literature class in which we were assigned the standard readings, novels by Dickens, Eliot, Gissing, the Bronte sisters, Gaskell, Hardy, Wilde, and Thackeray, and then an anomaly: a hefty work of fiction entitled The Heavenly Twins and written by a relative unknown named Sarah Grand. I remember feeling somewhat annoyed with the instructor for asking us to read a non-canonized novel. What a waste of time! We were there to learn about and from the real literary giants, were we not? What could this Grand woman possibly have to teach us that we couldn’t learn so much better from her more highly respected peers? Well (surprise, surprise), her novel and her biography left a more lasting impression on me than anything else I studied in that class.
An acute observer of human behaviour, Grand depicts the hardships and challenges of three very different middle class Victorian women with unflinching honesty. Yet despite the riches her writing had to offer, Grand had to self-publish, and her book was met with rather harsh criticism. A good many critics derided her style of prose as exceedingly plain and consequently were quick (and perhaps eager) to dismiss all that she had to say.
Sarah Grand’s Birth Place: Donaghadee, Ireland
So what does the preceding have to do with social media? All too often when I visit interactive sites on the Internet, I find that discussions quickly degenerate into childish personal attacks, and of all the various types of attacks I witness, the ones I find the most annoying are those from clearly well-educated individuals who, rather than set an example and elevate the discussion by paying attention to the arguments being forwarded by participants, simply exercise their “literacy privilege” (more about that in a moment) by pointing out the grammar and spelling deficiencies of others.
A couple of weeks ago, a colleague of mine shared a link to a wonderful blog written by a woman named Chandra and called Painting the Grey Area. An entry there entitled “Literacy Privilege: How I Learned to Check Mine Instead of Making Fun of People’s Grammar on the Internet” has captured the attention of many and has certainly held mine. The writer of this entertainingly clever and informative piece admits to being a “recovering grammar snob.” At one time, she took pleasure in deriding the comments of those she disagreed with or whose attitudes she disliked by criticizing their grammar and spelling. Her later experiences as an adult literacy teacher, however, have dramatically changed her views on this practice. She now recognizes that such actions stem from a lack of awareness surrounding literacy issues and do nothing to improve conversation quality. Instead, this type of public shaming encourages others to engage in online bullying, silences people who may already exist on the margins of society, and reveals a smallness of character in those who do it.
Keep away from small people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. ~Mark Twain
If you haven’t already read this blog, please do. I think this piece should be mandatory reading for all librarians and information scientists because most—if not all—of us will teach literacy skills of one kind or another in our professional lives and will likely be responsible for establishing connections with individuals and organizations through various means, including social media. It’s important, then, that we cultivate a strong understanding of literacy issues in order to become more effective communicators.
Further, if social media is going to play a significant role in our quest to become a more just, inclusive, compassionate, and wise society, then we have to be willing to excavate through poor grammar, bad spelling, and non-standard dialects to the heart of a message, keeping in mind what Chandra reminds us of early on her blog: that there is no correlation between intelligence level and literacy skills.
Please do not misunderstand me. I admire elegance, wit, sophistication, and polish as much as the next person, but I cannot help thinking that in this age of branding, we’ve become far too enamored with packaging (of all kinds) at the expense of substance. The co-existence of substance and style are ideal, but if I had to choose between the two, I’d pick the former.
Social Media Use in the Workplace: The Conundrums of Free Speech
Should a workplace have the right to fire employees or pass them over when considering promotions based on their social media usage? Should a business make a practice of suing professionals for libel? These are questions raised by a recent New York Times article “Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected” and another article in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Librarians Rally behind Blogger Sued by Publisher over Critical Comments.”
The latter article describes the case of Dale Askey, a librarian at McMaster University, who in a blog in 2010, described Edwin Mellen Press (EMP) as “dubious” and many of its publications as examples of “second-class scholarship” (New, 2013). A sympathetic commentator on Askey’s site then went on to call Herbert Richardson, the founder of EMP, a “’fascist and evangelical Scientologist’” (New, 2013). Richardson, in his claim, ascribes the commentator’s words to Askey: the Internet Archives, however, disprove that claim (New, 2013). According to a CBC article, Richardson also says that Askey’s posting “badly hurt our business….[and] the reputation of our authors” (Ruf, 2013). Askey is now being sued by the publisher (which is also suing McMaster) and by Richardson.
By the way, if you wish to read the blog entry that has led to these lawsuits, you will find a copy in the action notice served by EMP. The original blog has been removed from the web.
The joys of blogging
Fortunately, many in the academic community have rushed to Askey’s aid, including York University Faculty Association’s library chapter, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the Canadian Association of Professional Academic Libraries (CAPAL), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and its Canadian counterpart CARL. In addition, Askey supporters can sign a petition started by Martha Reineke, a University of Northern Iowa professor.
While I do support Askey’s right (and duty) to critique publishers, I think his case raises , among other questions, the question of how information professionals should critique publishers, works, vendors, and the like in their blogs and other social media platforms. As the CAPAL site recommends, reading the HLWIKI entry on “Blogging and the Law” is an excellent place to begin this question. I took their advice and found that the following points stood out for me in this entry:
Askey will be able to defend himself successfully if the fair reports privilege holds for him, but he might fall short on the third point.
A blog posting in Percolator entitled “How Rude! Reader Comments May Undermine Scientists’ Authority” highlights the third point. It describes how a recent study (presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science and soon to be published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication) demonstrates that rude reader comments result in more people feeling negatively about a given topic. In this instance, the topic was the risks of nanotechnology: after reading the article, a greater percentage of those who then read rudely expressed comments (as opposed to those who read only politely worded comments) thought that nanotechnology posed high risks (Basken, 2013). So, moderating comments may serve purposes other than lawsuit prevention.
And while I have focused thus far primarily on academia, social media usage is a topic of hot debate in the broader business world as well. In his NY Times article , Greenhouse (2013) draws attention to several cases of perceived inappropriate social media use in the US which have led to employee termination. Of course, what is “inappropriate” is currently being determined by policy makers and the National Labor Relations Board (Greenhouse, 2013). The legal system has yet to catch up with technological changes, but labour lawyer Denise Keyser advises policy makers to write clear and “specific” policies (Greenhouse, 2013).
In the meantime, social media users and information professional especially (we have an example to set, don’t we?) will need to exercise ever greater levels of restraint in media forms that make impulsive behaviour all too easy.
References:
Blogging and the law. (n.d.) In HLWIKI Canada. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Blogging_and_the_law
Basken, P. (2013, February 14). How rude! Reader comments may undermine scientists’ authority [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/how-rude-reader-comments-may-undermine-scientists-authority/32071
Greenhouse, S. (2013, January 21). Even if it enrages your boss, social net speech is protected. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-come-under-regulatory-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all
New, J. (2013, February 14). Librarians rally behind blogger sued by publisher over critical comments. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Librarians-Rally-Behind/137329/
Ruf, C. (2013, February 14). Book publisher sues McMaster librarian, university for libel. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/02/12/hamilton-librarian-lawsuit.html
3 Comments
Posted in comments, lawsuits, legal concerns, libel, netiquette, workplace social media use