It’s interesting how small a world Southern Methodist University is, but neither my wife (a professor in the business school at SMU) or I have met the Phantom Professor pointed out by Inside Higher Ed that may have just gotten dooced (i.e., fired for stuff written in her blog). Or perhaps the person was not dooced according to the SMU spokesperson in the blog entry I’m pointing to. From Inside Higher Ed:
But at SMU, at least some students and faculty members (and the
university’s legal office) did become aware of the Phantom Professor
and the many similarities between incidents at the Phantom’s campus and
at SMU. And in SMU’s Department of Corporate Communications and Public
Affairs, people recognized themselves and their colleagues. And word
got around that the author was probably Elaine Liner, a popular writing
instructor and a theater critic for a local alternative newspaper.At about the same time this spring that people were guessing that
Liner was the Phantom, she was being told that the university no longer
needed her services after the spring semester. Liner and her many
student fans think that SMU is punishing her for expressing pointed
opinions about the university.
The blog post goes on to write:
University officials don’t see it that way. They won’t talk about
the specific decision not to continue offering courses to Liner, who
had taught at SMU since 2001, but they say it had nothing to do with
the blog and that they didn’t know for sure that the author was Liner.
But they acknowledge that they were worried about the blog.Rita Kirk, the department chairwoman, says that she received
complaints about the blog from students and parents, and that she
consulted with university lawyers about what to do about it. Kirk
describes herself as a strong First Amendment supporter, but she says
she worries that the blog violated students’ privacy rights and upset
some students. “People need to remember that words can hurt,” Kirk says.
Tough call. Not enough facts from my vantage point to weigh in although I originally honed in on "worries that the blog violated students’ privacy rights and upset
some students". What also seems pertinent is that some of the Phantom Professor’s posts may have had direct negative marketing effects on the university. Regardless of freedom of speech rights, this does seem to be a tenuous position for the Phantom. I wonder if things would have turned out differently had the Phantom been blogging under their real name from the beginning. Seems like irreconcilable differences, but then presuming the posts have had negative marketing effects (note I have not read any of the Phantom’s posts), all parties would have had the opportunity to get things on track. Blogs should not just be venting mechanisms, especially for those with formal positions within an organization. They should be constructive too. If one is going to blog as the Phantom, then I suggest blogging as Peruna (SMU’s mascot) too from time to time.