Let me start in with this:
To base decisions or make judgments about them, I think it’s imposing, disgusting, disrespectful, and way out of line for employers to snoop upon prospective employee’s social media pages.
What a potential, or actual employee says or does off of company time is not an employer’s business—that’s why it’s ‘personal’ or ‘social’ time (not ‘business’).
I don’t care what these wide open times allow you-respect the code.
You see, if an employee doesn’t have the kind of employee-employer relationship in which their name isn’t across any of the company’s letterhead or outgoing business; what they do (or say) on their on time (or online) is their bottles up, bad mouthing, business.
In case you didn’t know, Harvard considered those findings a violation of the signed and agreed upon ‘Harvard moral code.’
On the name alone, although Harvard’s not a employer, brand, or business; its institution is branded a “brand” in and of itself.
Let the record state. I’m totally anti-brand or business bullying—you know…when brands and business go canceling the contracts of persons with whom they are doing business with (that advertise for them).
Here’s why.
Thanks to social media [like Marilyn Manson sings it best] “we’re all rockstars in the dope show.”
Far too many of us (secretly) have our souls on sale. Far too many of our ‘destined’ selves intentionally positioned in a place to become famous in exchange for being a “brand” or selling ourselves to rep one. While no one should be punished for that, if there’s any crime involved, it’s that as we live in a culture that’s become too concerned with being famous; people close their mouths for fear of not getting the silver spoon stuck in it in exchange for something that’s not even guaranteed, anyways. And rather than speaking up or out, we would rather stick with the notion that it IS ‘closed mouths that DO get fed.’
I get it.
I’m all for it being ‘business’ that a person [serving as] a representative of a brand or business’ product or service [should?] or signs on to be just that to the core: “repping” it. But we can’t [all the time] expect for our walking billboards in the form of human beings to walk like billboards 24/7.
Take Tiger Woods’ 2010 “trangressions” for instance.
Nike got major respect (and business) from me when they stuck by him during that scandal.
So you say: “Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You sound like typing contradiction. You say you’re anti-employer snooping. Then you hail Harvard for upholding a moral code yet, Tiger Woods’ multiple infidelities and “trangressions” were just about as immoral as Harvard considering what those prospective students did! Why the double-standard?”
Well, that goes back to the rebuttal posted on the BostonGlobe.com. Regarding free speech and it being questioned as to whether or not these (unidentified) students shouldn’t have gotten their offers rescinded, the debate is being had.
But let me have at it.
Free speech and ‘moral code’ is a kind of fine line like being egalitarian in your politi-social views.
Where you may (or may not be) pro or con a particular thing, the ‘thing’ that rules (either way) is what works for the literal greater majority and good.
Often times, that may be compromising what you really feel personally but in egalitarian thinking, you would forfeit your personal plight because it benefits the greater majority than that of your singular, personal feelings or views.
While Tigers Woods’ (reported) immoral behavior was a bad decision for his family and his personal reputation as being the antithesis or what had been uncovered about him, the fact of the matter is, outside of the court of public opinion, the reaping he was due to sew and repercussions of his “trangressions” didn’t affect the greater majority. It affected his personal life and family.
Considering the long standing, greater benefit he was to Nike and his public association with the sportswear giant, he was worth continuing doing business with.
It was a logical decision to keep him on board. Strategically speaking, over the fact that none of us on the outside looking on would fall out and die and cry that he cheated on his wife countless times, it was worth it for Nike to gamble on the fact that once the gossip dial was turned down, the public (too) would discover what he had to reap was perilous, personally.
His correction and redirection would be behind his closed doors. His immorality was a direct effect on his personal life yet, all but mere gossip and matter of judgment and opinion in universal life.
Whereas, when it comes to racism, sexism/chauvinism (and any other kind of “ism”), the picture is bigger.
To verbally, physically (or digitally) do or impose a behavior onto another human being is universal problem—a greater bad. In such case, redirection and/or correction becomes a necessary place. When you don’t correct the behavior or take the time to redirect the thought, or words; an entire sex/species, or group of people are affected. We can’t close the door on that and call it ‘personal’ because a group of people, sex/species makes that bigger picture universal.
Like I mentioned earlier. Free speech, ‘free doings,’ and social media shenanigans is your personal business-not a school, or a job’s business.
But when your speech, social media shenanigans and doings oppress a race, sex/species; it becomes everybody’s business.
Your speech isn’t “free” any more. It’s oppressive.
Your social media shenanigans aren’t about you any more. It’s about a lot of ‘somebody elses.’
So yeah, prospective or actual, to hell with a mere employer being nosey. Hail Harvard for snooping.
