Homework for 3-27-18: Write a 350-word, 3-paragraph essay that shows 3 objections some might have for Singer's essay. Use at least 3 signal phrases citing Singer's essay.
Essay #3 Options Due April 17: You need minimum of 2 sources. This list includes 2 new options that were added after the syllabus was made. You do not have to do any homework based on these 2 new options.
Option One: Support, refute, or complicate the argument that Garrett Hardin’s analogy in “Lifeboat Ethics” (327) makes an effective argument against traditional liberal approaches to helping the poor.
Option Two: Support, refute, or complicate Harlan Coben’s argument in “The Undercover Parent” (65) that parents are morally compelled to breach their children’s computer privacy for the sake of protecting their children.
Option Three: Addressing Alfred Edmond’s “Why Asking for a Job Applicant’s Facebook Password is Fair Game” (68) support, refute, or complicate the argument that prospective employees are morally obligated to give up their social media information to potential employers.
Option Four: In the context of Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” (313), support, refute, or complicate that humans are morally compelled to eat a vegan diet.
Option Five (newly added): In the context of Alexandra Sifferlin's "The Weight Loss Trap" and Harriet Brown's "The Weight of the Evidence," support, refute, or complicate the argument that going on diets is a complete waste of time and actually makes people fatter than before they started dieting.
Option Six. In the context of James Q. Wilson’s “Just Take Away Their Guns” (102), support, refute, or complicate the argument that anti-gun legislation is both ineffective and morally wrong.
Option Seven (newly added in light of shooting in Parkland, Florida): Support or refute the argument that teachers should be armed.
Sources for Option Seven
"Why Arming Classroom Teachers Is a Bad Idea"
Video about school where teachers are armed
See John Oliver discuss NRA. And Oliver’s more recent video. And most recent John Oliver video.
Police Call Arming Teachers BS
Option Eight: In the context of the essays in Chapter 4 (107), support, defend, or complicate the argument that in the New Economy college is an overrated and overpriced product that should cause many prospective college students to ponder more viable alternatives to building a strong career. Also, see “College for the Masses” by David Leonhardt. Also, see this essay that is not on your syllabus: “The World Might be Better Off Without College for Everyone” by Bryan Caplan.
Tragedy of the Commons
When you own something, you take care of it, you show responsibility for it, and you do your best to keep the thing you own as new as when you got it.
The inverse is also true: When something is given to you and you have no accountability for your actions, you behave accordingly: You abuse and neglect your “freebie” and in general show contempt for all your free access.
My wife, who teaches in PV, will tell you stories of kids whose parents bought them BMWs, they never changed the car’s oil, the engine seized, and their “punishment” was to get a new Mercedes, which would also be subject to neglect.
If each neighborhood shared a car, as some people propose, the car would be treated in a brutal fashion. People would treat it with contempt.
Here is what Hardin writes about The Tragedy of the Commons:
The fundamental error of spaceship ethics and the sharing it requires is that it leads to what I call "the tragedy of the commons." Under a system of private property, the men who own property recognize their responsibility to care for it, or if they don't they will eventually suffer. A farmer, for instance, will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies. If he overloads it, erosion sets in, weeds take over, and he loses the use of the pasture.
If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility to protect it. Asking everyone to use it with discretion will hardly do, for the considerate herdsman who refrains from overloading the commons suffers more than a selfish one who says his needs are greater. If everyone would restrain himself, all would be well; but it takes only one less than everyone to ruin a system of voluntary restraint. In a crowded world of less than perfect human beings, mutual ruin is inevitable if there are no controls. This is the tragedy of the commons.
Four. Does helping the disadvantaged result in The Tragedy of the Commons?
While Hardin is correct to point out that indiscriminate giving can result in the recipients of handouts behaving in a contemptuous disregard for both the thing the receive and the generous people who provide it, such charity is only a tiny sliver of all the attempts of charity and socially responsible behavior.
To limit helping the poor to The Tragedy of the Commons is an oversimplification. In fact, philanthropists study the science of giving and hire consultants on best ways to give: how to give responsibly while having a positive impact on the entire planet, which completely contradicts the “suicidal” and “misguided” givers characterized in Hardin’s essay.
Of course, it’s convenient for Hardin’s argument to characterize all givers and philanthropists as ignorant, reckless do-gooders, even though this profile collapses in the face of evidence.
Therefore, Hardin has no warrant to connect his Tragedy of the Commons to his claim that giving is dangerous.
Five. What is Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater Fallacy?
We can find several instances of charities gone wrong in which their best-laid plans backfired and created more problems than they solved.
But does incompetence in any field—charity, education, philanthropy, health, nutrition, social work compel us to abandon the project?
Remember Sturgeon’s Law: Over 90% of everything is ****. We must seek the 10% of excellence in everything, including the art of giving.
Six. The editors of our book point out that Hardin uses a reductio ad absurdum argument in paragraph 41. What is this argument and how does it apply to the paragraph?
In the Logically Fallacious website we see the definition of reductio ad absurdum as follows:
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to be reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
Reductio ad absurdum is neither intrinsically valid or fallacious. It depends on how it’s used.
Here are some McMahon examples of reduction ad absurdum:
Surely, diet books don’t work. If a diet book worked, we’d all read that diet book, and diet books wouldn’t have to be written anymore.
Clearly, psychotherapy is dangerous. We’ve had psychotherapy now for over 100 years, and human beings are crazier than ever.
Eating popcorn at night will make you thirsty.
Being thirsty will compel you to drink copious amounts of liquids before you go to bed.
As a result, you’ll be up all night going to the bathroom.
As a result, you will get a horrible night’s sleep.
As a result, you will be tired all day at work.
As a result, your work performance will be substandard and you will be fired.
As a result of losing your job, you won’t be able to pay your bills, and you will be homeless.
Therefore, we can conclude that eating popcorn will make you homeless.
A mother, concerned that her thirty-year-old son, who is still in college and spends much of his time in the mother’s basement wearing a robe while eating Hot Pockets at his computer and has never been on a date, has this exchange with her son.
“Honey, have you ever tried going out on a date?”
“I can’t date, Mother. I’m getting my Master’s. Dating will provide too much drama, which will compromise my academic performance.”
“But, honey, you’ve been going to college for over twelve years now.”
“Precisely. All the more reason I shouldn’t be dating. Now leave me alone. I’m doing research.”
Now let us look at the reduction ad absurdum in paragraph 41 of Hardin’s essay:
We Americans of non-Indian ancestry can look upon ourselves as the descendants of thieves who are guilty morally, if not legally, of stealing this land from its Indian owners. Should we then give back the land to the now living American descendants of those Indians? However morally or logically sound this proposal may be, I, for one, am unwilling to live by it and I know no one else who is. Besides, the logical consequence would be absurd. Suppose that, intoxicated with a sense of pure justice, we should decide to turn our land over to the Indians. Since all our other wealth has also been derived from the land, wouldn't we be morally obliged to give that back to the Indians too?
As we read the paragraph above, we must ask ourselves: Must our hunger for moral justice and social responsibility for the sins committed against Indians in the form of genocide and thievery push us to the extreme of giving up all of American land to the Indians or are there more measured ways of finding justice?
By proposing the most extreme and absurd measure for exacting justice, Hardin is conveniently saying, “Screw justice.”
It’s like a wife wants her husband to stop gambling and drinking with his buddies every night, and he says, “Are you trying to lock me up like a caged animal? Yes, we’re married, but I need my freedom.” This translates into him being irresponsible husband who recklessly drinks, gambles, and cohorts with juvenile slobs on a nightly basis.
Essay Option One:
Support, refute or complicate the argument that Garrett Hardin’s analogy in “Lifeboat Ethics” makes an effective argument against traditional liberal approaches to helping the poor.
Sample Thesis #1
Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics is a veritable treasure trove of logical fallacies, humbug claims, and morally bankrupt rationalizations, which in sum make it the most egregious essay I've taught in my 30 years of teaching.
Sample Thesis #2
Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics" is a toxic smokescreen of flimsy rationalizations for the Haves to to conceal their morally bankrupt agenda of promoting flagrant xenophobia, encouraging narcissistic indifference to the needs of the disadvantaged, and for dismissing all forms of social service as "suicidal" and "misguided" enterprises worthy of scorn and contempt.
Sample Thesis #3
McMahon's excoriation of Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics" is rooted in liberal bias, zealous moral rectitude, and the stereotypical do-gooder's outrage, all of which makes McMahon blind to the many virtues of Hardin's essay, which include a persuasive critique on foolish social engineering, the Tragedy of the Commons, and the do-gooder's failure to see the unintended long-term consequences of his philanthropic campaigns.
Sample Thesis #4
While McMahon accuses Hardin of relying on ad hominem and other logical fallacies, it is our professor who, in an act of supreme hypocrisy, relies on the same fallacies: ad hominem, Straw Man, and faulty comparisons, which in sum prove that our instructor is a lifelong mountebank and a charlatan.
Sample Thesis #5
While both McMahon and Hardin are guilty of relying on unconvincing rhetorical excesses and logical fallacies to support their claims, both make a lot of good points, and I daresay, in spite of the fact that many find the two characters antithetical to one another, I could find some common ground that would bring McMahon and Hardin together.
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like a cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an oversimplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
"The Undercover Parent"
Example of an essay that acknowledges opposing views: Harlan Coben’s “The Undercover Parent” (24)
Not long ago, friends of mine confessed over dinner that they had put spyware on their 15-year-old son’s computer so they could monitor all he did online. At first I was repelled at this invasion of privacy. Now, after doing a fair amount of research, I get it.
Make no mistake: If you put spyware on your computer, you have the ability to log every keystroke your child makes and thus a good portion of his or her private world. That’s what spyware is — at least the parental monitoring kind. You don’t have to be an expert to put it on your computer. You just download the software from a vendor and you will receive reports — weekly, daily, whatever — showing you everything your child is doing on the machine.
Scary. But a good idea. Most parents won’t even consider it.
Maybe it’s the word: spyware. It brings up associations of Dick Cheney sitting in a dark room, rubbing his hands together and reading your most private thoughts. But this isn’t the government we are talking about — this is your family. It’s a mistake to confuse the two. Loving parents are doing the surveillance here, not faceless bureaucrats. And most parents already monitor their children, watching over their home environment, their school.
Today’s overprotective parents fight their kids’ battles on the playground, berate coaches about playing time and fill out college applications — yet when it comes to chatting with pedophiles or watching beheadings or gambling away their entire life savings, then...then their children deserve independence?
Some will say that you should simply trust your child, that if he is old enough to go on the Internet he is old enough to know the dangers. Trust is one thing, but surrendering parental responsibility to a machine that allows the entire world access to your home borders on negligence.
Some will say that it’s better just to use parental blocks that deny access to risky sites. I have found that they don’t work. Children know how to get around them. But more than that — and this is where it gets tough — I want to know what’s being said in an e-mail and instant messages and in chat rooms.
There are two reasons for this. First, we’ve all read about the young boy unknowingly conversing with a pedophile or the girl who was cyberbullied to the point where she committed suicide. Would a watchful eye have helped? We rely on the real world on teachers and parents to guard against bullies — do we just dismiss bullying on the Internet and all it entails because we are entering difficult ethical ground?
Second, everything your child types can already be seen by the world — teachers, potential employers, friends, neighbors, future dates. Shouldn’t he learn now that the Internet is not a haven of privacy?
One of the most popular arguments against spyware is the claim that you are reading your teenager’s every thought, that in today’s world, a computer is the little key-locked diary of the past. But posting thoughts on the Internet isn’t the same thing as hiding them under your mattress. Maybe you should buy your children one of those little key-locked diaries so that they too can understand the difference.
Am I suggesting eavesdropping on every conversation? No. With new technology comes new responsibility. That works both ways. There is a fine line between being responsibly protective and irresponsibly nosy. You shouldn’t monitor to find out if your daughter’s friend has a crush on Kevin next door or that Mrs. Peterson gives too much homework or what schoolmate snubbed your son. You are there to start conversations and to be a safety net. To borrow from the national intelligence lexicon — and yes, that’s uncomfortable — you’re listening for dangerous chatter.
Will your teenagers find other ways of communicating to their friends when they realize you may be watching? Yes. But text messages and cell phones don’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet. They are usually one-on-one with someone you know. It is far easier for a predator to troll chat rooms and MySpace and Facebook.
There will be tough calls. If your 16-year-old son, for example, is visiting hardcore pornography sites, what do you do? When I was 16, we looked at Playboy centerfolds and read Penthouse Forum. You may argue that’s not the same thing, that Internet pornography makes that stuff seem about as harmful as “SpongeBob.”
And you’re probably right. But in my day, that’s all you could get. If something more graphic had been out there, we probably would have gone for it. Interest in those, um, topics is natural. So start a dialogue based on that knowledge. You should have that talk anyway, but now you can have it with some kind of context.
Parenting has never been for the faint of heart. One friend of mine, using spyware to monitor his college-bound, straight-A daughter, found out that not only was she using drugs but she was sleeping with her dealer. He wisely took a deep breath before confronting her. Then he decided to come clean, to let her know how he had found out, to speak with her about the dangers inherent in her behavior. He’d had these conversations before, of course, but this time he had context. She listened. There was no anger. Things seem better now.
Our knee-jerk reaction as freedom-loving Americans is to be suspicious of anything that hints at an invasion of privacy. That’s a good and noble thing. But it’s not an absolute, particularly in the face of the new and evolving challenges presented by the Internet. And particularly when it comes to our children.
Do you tell your children that the spyware is on the computer? I side with yes, but it might be enough to show them this article, have a discussion about your concerns and let them know the possibility is there.
Harlan Coben is the author of the forthcoming novel “Hold Tight.”
Harlan Coben Acknowledges Opposing Views
In paragraph 1, his gut reaction was to reject his friend’s use of spyware on his children’s computers.
In paragraphs 2 and 3, Coben concedes that it is scary to contemplate the ability to invade your child’s privacy with spyware, but he says it’s worth it.
In paragraph 4, he concedes that this is a scary totalitarian tactic that “reeks of Dick Cheney” but he counters by writing we’re not the government; we’re parents.
In paragraph 5, he makes a comparison argument: “parents fight their kids’ battles on the playground, berate coaches about playing time and fill out college applications—yet when it comes to chatting with pedophiles or watching beheadings . . . then their children deserve independence?”
In paragraph 6, he addresses the rebuttal that we should “just trust” our children, but he rejects this notion because we’re not talking about trust; we’re talking about neglect: “surrendering parental responsibility to a machine that allows the entire world access to your home borders on negligence.”
In paragraph 7, he counters the claim that parental blocks, not spyware, should be used by saying that he tried parental blocks, and they do not work. For example, they do not work with cyber-bullying or cyber-pedophiles.
In paragraph 9, he makes the rebuttal that the Internet already violates privacy; children should learn that the Internet is “not a haven of privacy.”
In paragraph 10, Coben rejects the comparison of private thoughts kept in a diary with Internet activities.
In paragraph 11, Coben distinguishes the notion of “being responsibly protective and irresponsibly nosy.”
In paragraph 12, Coben shows that texting on a phone is less dangerous than the Internet because the latter is more porous, allowing thousands of predators into the child’s world.
Coben concedes in paragraph 13, that there will be tough choices. At what point does a child’s curiosity for porn cross the line?
Coben concludes by saying freedom and privacy are not absolutes; they are relative terms that have to be addressed in a radically different way in our Internet age.
In “The Undercover Parent” (Op-Ed, March 16), the novelist Harlan Coben writes that putting spyware on a child’s computer is a “good idea.”
As a mother and advice columnist for girls, I disagree. For most families, spyware is not only unnecessary, but it also sends the unfortunate message, “I don’t trust you.”
Mr. Coben said a friend of his “using spyware to monitor his college-bound, straight-A daughter, found out that not only was she using drugs but she was sleeping with her dealer.” He confronted her about her behavior. “She listened. There was no anger. Things seem better now.”
Huh?! No anger? No tears or shouting or slammed doors? C’mon. If only raising teenagers were that simple.
Parenting is both a job and a joy. It does not require spyware, but it does require love, respect, time, trust, money and being as available as possible 24/7. Luck helps, too.
Carol Weston
New York, March 16, 2008
Checklist for Evaluation Letters of Response (or any rebuttal for that matter)
What assumptions does the letter-writer make? Do you share those assumptions?
What is the writer’s claim?
In what ways does the writer consider the audience?
What evidence, if any, does the writer offer to support the claim?
Is there anything about the style of the letter—the distinctive use of language, the tone—that makes the letter especially engaging or especially annoying?
A Checklist for Examining Assumptions
What assumptions does the writer's argument presuppose?
Are these assumptions explicit or implicit?
Are these assumptions important to the author's argument or only incidental?
Does the author give any evidence of being aware of the hidden assumptions in her argument?
Would a critic be likely to share these assumptions, or are they exactly what a critic would challenge?
What sort of evidence would be relevant to supporting or rejecting these assumptions?
Am I willing to grant the author's assumptions? Would most readers gran them? If not, why not?
Assumptions in Carol Weston's letter:
One. She assumes that proclaiming herself to be a mother and an advice columnist for girls gives her credibility and superior moral standing. Some might say, her opening phrase sounds cliched and pompous.
Two. She assumes that spyware means "I don't trust you." That assumption could be in error. The parent could be saying, "I don't trust predators."
Three. She assumes that because the parent used spyware to catch his daughter using drugs and sleeping with the drug dealer that the discovery is somehow compromised because it hurt the daughter's feelings. This assumption is erroneous. The girl's welfare, not her feelings about getting caught or invasion of privacy, are the priority.
Four. When she lectures Coben by writing, "Parenting is both a job and a joy," she is implicitly saying that Coben is ignorant of the hard work and joys of parenting. In fact, she has proven neither. Again, she comes across as a pompous, ignorant scold.
Five. When she lectures Coben by saying parenting requires "love, respect, time, trust," she again implies that Coben is abnegating his parental responsibilities by using spyware. To the contrary, Coben has made the case that Internet predators make spyware another took parents must use their toolbox to protect their children. Carol Weston's letter is not only wrong; it's insufferable.
Dannielle Thompson Analysis:
Analysis of "The Undercover Parent"
Although Coben mentioned many points, he fails to include several factors in his argument. Coben acknowledges the fact that teenagers will find other ways to communicate once they learn that parents are watching. He argues against this valid point by stating "text messages and cellphones do not offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet". Although cellphones may not offer quite as much anonymity, the dangers of cellphones are rather equivalent, if not higher than the Internet. An example would include one of my former classmates. She was dating a boy in middle school and entrusted him with graphic photos and videos that she sent him on her cellular device. Four years later, one particular video of her was found on a website and the majority of her classmates as well as faculty had either seen or heard about the video. Although the video was found on a website, the video was first sent between two preteens' cellphones. There was no anonymity. However, Coben fails to acknowledge the fact that not only are strangers dangerous, but people of which one may trust can be equally dangerous. Incidents such as these are far from rare among teenagers.
Coben argues further to acknowledge parents' role in spyware and apply accountability on their behalf as well. He makes the assertion that "With new technology comes new responsibility... There is a fine line between responsibly protective and irresponsibly nosy... you're listening for dangerous chatter". Although this is a good point. Coben fails to clarify the definition of "dangerous chatter". This definition may be widely varied in the millions of homes across the nation. Coben lists a few examples of nosy irresponsibility such as "Mrs. Peterson gives too much homework" or "what schoolmate snubbed your son". However, cyber bullying and snubbing are very similar. Both attacks the confidence of the victim. Both are simply harsh words. Therefore, would snubbing be just as dangerous as cyber bullying? The phrase "dangerous chatter" has not been made clear and this phrase can be widely interpreted.
Although these are simply a few points in Coben's essay that are questionable, the topic is one worthy of consideration. However, spyware is not practical, or necessary, in order to provide a nurturing, safe, and protected household. Simply providing an open avenue of communication between children and parents could be the key to a happy household.
Study the Templates of Argumentation
While the author’s arguments for meaning are convincing, she fails to consider . . .
While the authors' supports make convincing arguments, they must also consider . . .
These arguments, rather than being convincing, instead prove . . .
While these authors agree with Writer A on point X, in my opinion . . .
Although it is often true that . . .
While I concede that my opponents make a compelling case for point X, their main argument collapses underneath a barrage of . . .
While I see many good points in my opponent’s essay, I am underwhelmed by his . . .
While my opponent makes some cogent points regarding A, B, and C, his overall argument fails to convince when we consider X, Y, and Z.
My opponent makes many provocative and intriguing points. However, his arguments must be dismissed as fallacious when we take into account W, X, Y, and Z.
While the author’s points first appear glib and fatuous, a closer look at his polemic reveals a convincing argument that . . .
"Why Asking for a Job Applicant's Facebook Password Is Fair Game" by Alfred Edmund
“Should business owners be allowed to ask job applicants for their Facebook passwords?” Many people who watched me on MSNBC’s Your Business on Sunday were surprised to hear that my answer is “Yes,” including the show’s host, JJ Ramberg. (For those who missed it, the show reairs on Saturday, April 7, at 5:30 a.m.) This question became a hot news topic last week, especially in business and social media circles, when Congress failed to pass legislation that would have banned the practice of employers asking employees to reveal their Facebook passwords.
Now, if I was asked the same question as a guest on a show called Your Career, I would have been hard-pressed to think of a situation where I would share my Facebook password with a potential employer. For me to consider it, I would have to want the job pretty badly, with the amount and type of compensation (including benefits, perks and even an equity stake in the company) being major considerations. But before doing so, I would see if there were other ways I could address the potential employer’s concerns without revealing my password, such as changing my privacy settings to give them the ability to view all of my Facebook content. If they persist with their request for my password, I would try to negotiate terms to strictly limit both its use of the password and the length of time the potential employer would have access to it before I could change it. I might even consider getting an employment attorney to negotiate an agreement, include terms of confidentiality, to be signed by both me and the potential employer before sharing my password.
Of course, for the vast majority of positions, neither I nor a company looking to hire would deem it worth the time and expense to jump through all of these hoops. Most companies would not care to have password access to an applicant’s social media accounts. (For what it’s worth, Facebook’s terms of rights and responsibilities forbids users from sharing their passwords.) In probably 99 percent of such cases, if a potential employer made such a request, my answer would be, “No, I will not share my password. Are there alternatives you are willing to consider to satisfy your concerns?” I accept that I’d risk not being hired as a result. On the other hand, if that was all it took for me not to be hired, I’d question how badly they really wanted me in the first place, as well as whether that was the kind of place I would have been happy working for. But for certain companies and positions, especially if I wanted the job badly enough, I’d consider a request for my Facebook password at least up for negotiation.
That said, my response on Your Business was from the perspective of the business owner. And if I’m the owner of certain types of businesses, or trying to fill certain types of positions, I believe I should be able to ask job applicants for access to their Facebook accounts. The applicant may choose not to answer, but I should be able to ask. Depending on the position, knowing everything I possibly can about an applicant is critical to not only making the best hire, but to protecting the interests of my current employees, customers, partners and as well as the financial interests of the company.
On Your Business, I pointed to an example where I believe a request for a Facebook password as part of the hiring process is entirely reasonable: the childcare industry. If I am running a school or a day care center, the time to find out that a teacher or other worker has a record of inappropriate social media communication with minors, or worse, a history of or predilection for sexual relationships with students, is during the hiring process—as New York City is finding out the hard way, with an epidemic of public school employees being revealed to have had such relationships with students. To me, such a request falls into the same category of checking the backgrounds of potential employees as the common (also still debated) practice of asking job applicants to agree to a credit check, especially for jobs that will require them to handle money, keep the books or carry out other fiscal duties on behalf of a company. In these and other cases, safety and security issues, and the legal liability that they create for business owners if they are not adequately addressed during the hiring process, outweigh the job applicant’s expectation of privacy when it comes to their social media activities.
Speaking of which, I can still hear people screaming (actually tweeting and retweeting), that an employer asking for your Facebook password is a horrible invasion of privacy. Well, for those of you who still believe in Santa Claus, I strongly recommend that you read The Filter Bubble: What The Internet is Hiding From You by Eli Pariser (Penguin Press). Or you can just take my advice and let go of the illusion of privacy on social media. The courts are conflicted, at best, on whether we as social media users have a right to an expectation of privacy, with many cases being decided against such expectations. The last place you want to share anything that is truly private is on your Facebook page or any other social media platform. Better to think of social media as the ultimate “Front Street.” No matter what their privacy policies are (which they can change at will without your permission) and what privacy tools and settings they offer (which they also change whenever it suits their business models), always assume that posting on Facebook is just the ticking time-bomb version of you shouting your private business from the middle of Times Square—on steroids.
To paraphrase a quote shared in The Filter Bubble, if you’re getting something for free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product. Social media is designed for the information shared on it to be searched and shared—and mined for profit. The business model is the very antithesis of the expectation of privacy. To ignore that reality is to have blind faith in Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. operating in your best interests above all else, at all times. (I don’t.)
Whether you agree with me or not about a whether a potential employer asking you for your Facebook password is fair game, I hope you’ll take my advice: When considering what to share via social media, don’t think business vs. personal. Think public vs. private. And if something is truly private, do not share it on social media out of a misplaced faith in the expectation of privacy.
This debate is far from over, and efforts to update existing, but woefully outdated, privacy laws—not to mention the hiring practices of companies—to catch up with the realities of social media will definitely continue. I’d like to know where you stand, both as entrepreneurs and business owners, as well as potential job applicants. And I’d especially like to hear from human resources and recruiting experts. How far is too far when it comes to a potential employer investigating the social media activity of a job applicant?
Comments