With the advancements and rapid growth of technology, more people are becoming concerned with what should be considered private on the internet.  It seems as though the younger generation who have been raised with the internet at hand, is less likely to be concerned with what information they expose of themselves on the internet whereas the older generations are more concerned of what they put out on the web and the feedback they may receive.  Due to the younger generation relying more so on the internet, and being they are less concerned with what they expose to everyone on the web, it is a good indication of how privacy is going to be perceived in the future.  This new generation believes that they should be able to express themselves on the internet without there being consequences by employers, clients or anyone else related to a work force. 

                One of the major concerns with amount of exposure one gives over the internet is the risks it creates when coming to ones career.  Should possible future employers be allowed to judge a possible employee based on their Facebook or Twitter?  Should employers be able to judge what a current employee does based on how they choose to spend their own time on the internet?  No.  If one is well equipped for a job, why should it matter what they choose to post on the internet.   Yes, the things one views on the internet may be misconstrued, however, not to sound cliché but “you can’t judge a book by its cover!”  For example, if you have any form of social networking account and your profile picture is of you on Halloween or at a themed party, that picture can easily be misinterpreted! The employer has no right to base one off this first impression.  Before the internet even existed, people where hired based on interviews and resumes and this technique worked!  Why now just because we have the resource of the internet, do we have to change the way we judge if someone is a good person or not?    According to an online blog, a college graduate was applying for a job and during the interview process, was asked if he would give the company permission to view his Facebook pictures (Eunice).  He responded with no and informed the company he did not wish to work for someone who would judge him based upon his pictures (Eunice).  He believed that his pictures did not represent his work potential (Eunice).  This scenario occurs all the time for college graduates.  People say that college is the best years of your life.  Well if you attended college, and you know what occurs during those years, then why feel the need to judge someone based on their college experience?  Most likely, the other candidates applying or even the current employees working have had similar experiences.  If their resume is up to par, obviously, these candidates are cable of separating work and play and therefore that should be respected and not involved in the hiring process.  For recent college graduates, it is difficult enough trying to be hired in this economy let alone having the internet as a handicap.    

People are even judged when it comes to blogging.  Why should their opinions, which they express through this source of technology, determine their work ability?  Employers should not be able to form an opinion about someone based upon a blog they wrote about their political views or any views for that matter.  In a sense, by judging one based on their views is profiling!   This form of discrimination is unethical.  Whether one is a liberal, conservative, catholic, atheist, black, white, red, why should it affect the way they are perceived? These factors do not influence ones work ability and therefore should not be considered in the hiring process.  This goes along with the idea previously mentioned, what importance does what one chooses what to do on their own time away from work have to do with their performance on the job.  It is rare, if nonexistent, to hear stories about one who blogs their ideas on the latest issue on CNN or Fox representing their workforce in a negative way.  The employers are taking advantage of the internet.  If a company were to reflect on how many different views their employees had maybe, they would rethink analyzing these candidates they are contemplating hiring.

Employers already have a list of procedures they use in order to check the background of a prospective employee.  Does stalking possible future employees via Facebook like a teenage girl really make themselves feel more confident about whom they are hiring? Even for current employees.  If the current employees are not abusing the internet privilege on the job, then why should what they do at home on the internet affect their career?  I believe that it can be agreed that if on the job one abuses the privileges of the internet than there can be a debate over that employees career.  Nevertheless, when one uses social networks on the internet during their own time there is a difference.  According to an article in the New York Times, “45% of employers questions are using social networks to screen job candidates” (Wortham).  This number is outrageous.  When has checking ones background become not enough to determine ones creditability?  This article goes on further to say “The study, which questioned 2,667 mangers and human resource workers, found that 35 percent of employers decided not to offer a job to a candidate based on the content uncovered on a social networking site.”(Wortham)  The internet is the most useful resource available today yet, it is also the most dangerous resource. 

Another issue with attempting to form an understanding of someone based on the social networks they use and what they post or blog about is the issue of fake profiles.   For example, say Jane Doe is applying to work for your company and you decide to search her on the internet, how do you know that when you come across her name it is the same person who you are looking for?  What if for some reason, someone made up this profile in attempt to steal her identity?  What if the person you found on the internet, has the same name but is a completely different person than the one you intended to find?  There are so many variables that play into this issue that it can be very tedious task to make sure you are accurate on the information you are getting regarding someone.  It would be unfair for an employer to not hire someone based on an error on his or her part when attempting to do research on the possible employee.  The current people working for ones company did not have to be subjected to this invasion of privacy, thus making it unacceptable to start doing it to new candidates.  If a company wants to include it in its policy that all current employees and future employees are subject to search on the internet that is a different story, but randomly start giving unfair treatment to new employees is unjust. 

Throughout the New York Times article, a list of “warning signs” was given (Wortham).  Some of which include “provocative pictures”, “Drinking and drug use”, as well as “bad-mouthing previous employers and colleagues” and lastly “poor online communication skills” (Wortham).  Like mentioned before “provocative pictures” can be misconstrued, therefore this is not a valid “warning sign” in evaluating a candidate (Wortham).  If someone is of age and drinking, than what does it matter if there are pictures of it this activity on the internet?  If the pictures of them drinking are clearly during their free time and off work hours, there is no possible reason for the employers to judge. Regarding the drug use, if an employer is concerned with this than make it standard protocols to have employees take a drug test.  You cannot form a conclusion that someone is involved with drugs unless you have hard evidence. Concerning the issue of “bad-mouthing previous employers and colleagues”, it can be agreed that this is very unprofessional, however there is this small Amendment concerning freedom of Speech (Wortham).  Consequently, it is not ethical to fully base someone on his or her thoughts.  People could be in a heated situation and write about their experiences and thoughts without thinking twice.  They may possibly regret what they wrote about their previous job however, the intimidating factor with the internet is once something is posted, it never disappears.  When it comes to the last sign mentioned, the “poor online communication skills”, this is the most pathetic excuse to base someone’s work ethics (Wortham).  When somebody is blogging or using their preferred online social network, they are not acting in a business like fashion because they are off the work hours!  What they are writing about obviously does not regard their job hence the reason they are not writing in appropriate business fashion.  There is a universal language with using the internet, especially on someone’s free time.  For this reason, people do not think that they should speak in business like terms and why should they?  If they are off the clock, it should not matter how they choose to speak to a friend or anyone else for that matter.  These so-called “red flags”, are merely excuses companies have developed in order to justify why they think it is acceptable to extend research on candidates applying for their company. 

In spite of what the privacy issues regarding the internet may be, people and employers will continue to judge one based on their internet habits, making the workforce even more competitive. Even though this sort of discrimination is unethical, this should encourage one to be aware of what they are posting until some sort of law is created to control this time of hypocrisy.  As this younger generation who grew up with the internet becomes more dominant in the workforce, the thought is that the fine line between what is private on the internet will start to diminish. 

 Works cited

Eunice, “Do You Judge Someone Based On Their Pictures?” April 21, 2010. April 21, 2010

http://eunicecho88.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-you-judge-someone-based-on-their.html

Wortham, Jenna. “More Employers Use Social Networks to Check Out Applicants” New York Times.

August 20, 2009:  

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/more-employers-use-social-networks-to-check-out-applicants/

Cultural Events

Courtney Jacobs

Jill McDonough’s “Habeas Corpus” addresses the issue of determining the fine line regarding capital punishment.  This collection of sonnets challenges the readers to attempt to recognize and understand the division between one’s interpretations of what is ethic to another’s perspective.  Specifically, with the sonnet “September 18, 1755: Mark and Phillis”, the reader witnesses Mark and Phillis’s perception on the crime they have committed yet it may go against the viewers believes of what is right and wrong.  Although it may be easy for one to agree with the idea of punishing Mark and Phillis for their actions, it is just as simple to understand their reasoning and though process behind it.  After becoming aware of one’s personal thoughts on the crime, some, however, may not agree with the punishment that they were sentence to for their crime.

The two-stanza sonnet begins by reenacting the trial that took place.  The reader is introduced to Phillis by means of questioning about her “master” (1).  Phillis admits, “He was” her master and that she believed he was “poisoned” (3).  The sonnet goes even further and gives the information that “she’d been his for thirty years” (4).  Given the information that this trial took place in 1755 allows the viewer to take into consideration that slavery was still prominent during these times.  Therefore, by Phillis saying that her “master” was “Poisoned” sets the stage for the assumption that Phillis and Mark are on trial for the murder (1).  The reader then learns that two of them murdered their master with the “white powder behind the black jug” (5).  After hearing that Phillis and Mark poisoned the water, the observer is then informed importantly “his daughters, Miss Betsy and Miss Molly, served their dad” (8).  This statement suggests that the daughters were the ones who actually did the deed of giving their father the poisoned water glass. “It was Mark who first contrived it, he had read the Bible through.  Laying violent Hands by sticking or stabbing or cutting his throat to shed his blood’s a sin” (9-12).  This quote brings in the question of religion into position.  As one may conclude, Mark and Phillis believe that because they did not violently attack their master causing him to bleed, in turn means that they did not commit a crime. 

Involving religion with the crime may question choices made my Mark and Phillis.  It is easy for one to say that they murdered their master regardless of the process therefore, they should be held accountable.  However, if one takes a step back, they may also see Mark and Phillis’ side of the situation, however blurry it may be.  Mark and Phillis have been in their master’s control for thirty years.  This being said, it can be assumed that they have not been treated well.  If the two slaves were pushed so far as to devise a plan to murder their master, one can only imagine what they have been through.  Mark and Phillis even went as far as making certain that they were not going against the Bible.  To them the Bible was the only hope they had, their guidebook to life.  Believing that the Bible knew all and could do no wrong, Phillis and Mark believed that if they did not “shed his blood” no sin was committed (11-12).  One has to remember that during this time, slaves were not educated and only abiding by what they have been taught from generations before hand.  That lesson was that the Bible is the only way.

Continuing, even though Mark and Phillis’s intellectual reasoning for committing the crime may be disputed, a crime was committed and there must be consequences. Phillis “was burned alive at the stake, while” Mark “was hanged”.  During this time, it was typical for those who committed a crime to be hung or burned.  However, one may question why the two did not receive the same punishment?  From the text, it is assumed that the Mark and Phillis both have equally committed the same crime.  Some may consider being burned alive as more of a painful punishment then being hanged.  Why is Phillis sentence more gruesome?  Could double standards be reasoning behind the difference in punishment?  Is it more acceptable for Mark to commit this crime than Phillis?  It is interesting how the inequality amongst men and women in this society is similar with the inequality among Blacks and Whites. One can see that the difference between the two inequalities is represented in the way which the text is written.   

This sonnet is divided into two stanzas.  Each stanza tells a different part of the story.  It is interesting how the first stanza takes the reader into the courtroom.  The reader in a sense is witnessing the questioning that had taken place.  This stanza is very detailed, exploiting every detail of the crime and the history Mark and Phillis have with the family.  The second stanza is not as detailed as the first.  The second stanza, unlike the first, quotes a lot from news articles that had been printed about the trial.  In addition, the second stanza quickly describes the punishment given to Mark and Phillis.   There is not too much detail about the hanging of Mark or Phillis being burned alive.  It reinforces the idea of possibly the issue with inequality among Blacks and Whites are more important than the inequality among men and women.  The first stanza regards mostly the issue of the crime, focusing on slaves murdering their master, whereas the second stanza vaguely discusses the punishment of Mark and Phillis and how Mark’s punishment is less harsh than Phillis. 

These fifty sonnets identify different themes that can be disputed about capital punishment.  “September 18, 1755: Mark and Phillis” is just one of these sonnets.  Regardless of the disputes which may be made over the rationality behind the crime, Mark and Phillis did in fact commit a crime and did have to suffer with some sort of consequence.

This article from the NY Times shows examples of how a sentence can be too long.  However something I have noticed, is when a writer has one long run on sentence, it is usually followed by a few short sentences.  This theme is reoccurring throughout their work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/sports/olympics/15olympics.html?ref=sports

My typical weekend at Clemson consists of my friends and I making the rounds downtown or attending any party that we can possibly manage to find.  We are always on a look out for some new adventure.  For some unknown reason, when Sunday rolls around, we can never seem to remember what sort of shenanigans we actually got ourselves into.  This needed to change.

Half way through last week, my fellow classmate and friend Meaghan and I, decided that for once we wanted to remember a weekend.  We knew that if we stayed in the Clemson area that one of our crazy partners-in-crime would attempt to convince us otherwise.  So as a way to avoid this, we decided to take a little road trip to my beach house on a small island just a little south of Georgia known as St. Simons. Being unsure of what we were actually going to do for the weekend and taking into consideration that we are two very indecisive girls, we thought it would be a fabulous idea to pack my car with every piece of clothing we owned.

After the five-hour car ride that consisted of us singing every song played at the top of our lungs, we finally arrived at the house where my mother waited for us.  She had too decided early on in the week to make a trip down to the beach house in hopes of escaping the snow up north.  When we finally entered the house, my mother greeted us with a hug and a delicious homemade dinner.  After we filled our stomachs with real food, we agreed that the idea of a low-key weekend was just what we needed.   Sweatpants, tee-shirts and slippers seemed to be the outfit of choice for the rest of the weekend. We all laid in the living room watching every movie possible while catching up on the latest gossip that was in the news and in our lives. The weekend was ideal and we successfully accomplished our goal of remembering it.

Once Sunday afternoon came around, Meaghan and I decided that, it was time to get back to reality.  Our car ride back was a silent one.  We were both tired from doing absolutely nothing (yes it is possible).  The ride back gave me plenty of time to reflect upon everything going on in my life.  I found it interesting how I originally was so anxious to escape my routine weekend, yet while I was gone, I in fact missed getting involved in some chaotic mess with my friends.  By taking a break from something that is standard in your life, it in return makes you appreciate it more.