A few weeks ago, it was parents' weekend at George Washington University, where my daughter is cultivating her budding political career (and presumably is a student, too). My wife and I were on the way to her apartment when she called, just to give us a little heads up: She had pierced her nose.
After I peeled my wife off the ceiling of the cab, we reluctantly agreed that the good thing about piercings is that they heal, and that she hadn't asked our permission in any case. Instead of righteous futility, we agreed to use this as a teachable moment.
"Honey," we began, "piercings go away, but tattoos don't. There are no cabinet secretaries with visible tattoos. Remember that those things are forever, and some day you will not want 'I heart Bobby' showing up from the podium on C-Span." So far, she seems to have bought it.
Having sold my daughter on that view of the world, though, I started to wonder whether I am just old school and the future will prove me wrong.
Much has been said and written about the differences between the Gen Xers currently in the marketplace and the baby boomers who hire and supervise them. We are now beginning to experience the phenomenon of Gen Xers who are hiring and supervising Gen Nexters. If history is predictive, the impact of working in the professional world will be homogenizing, and the executive work force of the future will look remarkably like the one we are so familiar with right now. After all, there are no college presidents I am aware of who wear love beads and open alumni dinners with the peace sign.
To be frank, though, I am just not sure that this traditional paradigm will hold. There have been revolutions in the past. The emergence of women in executive leadership, for example, may provide a better model for the changes we face in the future. With 40 years of experience behind us, it is pretty clear that the executive marketplace has changed to accommodate the presence of women. If you don't agree with me, watch one episode of Mad Men. Today's is definitely not your father's workplace.
But will the executive workplace morph to accommodate people who inquire after one another's well-being by texting "r u ok?"
My daughter's story came into sharp relief when I remembered an incident that occurred recently in one of the presidential searches I was supporting. I had interviewed a terrific candidate via videoconference and touted him to the search committee—successfully, as it turned out, because they agreed to interview him in person. That conversation went exceptionally well. The candidate truly was outstanding in comportment and credentials, and he was recognized as such by the search committee.
I, on the other hand, was taken aback. The institution I was serving had a reputation for being a fairly conservative place—Midwestern, faith-based, dedicated to its traditions. As soon as the candidate left the room, I stood to address the search committee with what might only be described as a frightening combination of bemusement and real concern. "I want you all to know that on video I could not see the earring!" Happily, the room erupted in laughter. My candidate had the tiniest little diamond stud in his ear. I truly hadn't noticed it at all until he sat down next to me; some committee members at the other end of the table couldn't even see it. It was there, though, and it was discussed.
As far as I know, the earring is no longer an issue now that my onetime candidate is well ensconced in that presidency.
So if that search committee and board were not negatively disposed toward a candidate's earring, should I stop worrying about this? Should tattoos and piercings be filed with bow ties, red pantsuits, and lapel pins as quirky but ultimately irrelevant personal expressions?
I just can't bring myself to go there, yet. After all, my fellow search consultants and I are still neurotic about things like shined shoes and jewelry that matches. The presidency in particular, and all executive leadership positions that require extensive contact with, and advocacy to, widely diverse publics, are still positions that are seen as personifying the institution. Especially in areas like fund raising and government relations, that means working closely and building sincere relationships with people of multiple generations with diverse political and cultural outlooks and sensitivities. The faculty and the campus community as a whole may well embrace such outpourings of personality, but the president stills spends a lot of her time in the halls of the state capitol and in the dining room of the country club. Like it or not, there are simply different standards.
And it isn't simply the visuals that matter in that regard. Much has been written about the demise of proper English in the world of instant communication that we occupy. I can get my head around that in terms of everyday social exchange. What is worrisome, though, is that proper written and, especially, spoken English is not, in my observation, evenly distributed across society. It seems to me that this is more than a matter of educational inequity. I am no sociologist, but I sense a growing cultural divide in which the ability to express oneself articulately in the sort of language that predominates in the workplace will be extremely significant, perhaps even dispositive.
I am not speculating about split infinitives or dangling prepositions. I am anticipating an entirely different language that is spoken on the street and in the clubs but will be at best useless and at worst disqualifying in the executive workplace. Those who can speak both—like my daughter, with her suburban upbringing and access to a wide range of both popular and classical culture—will be fine. But about those who can't?
As the colloquial takes over the conversation at home, how easy will it be for less privileged young people to become fluent in what may well become a foreign—or at least a second—language? Do we risk raising a generation of people who cannot adjust to the ways of the workplace? Or will this simply mean that there is a new and different sort of social elite, one identified as much by language as by any factor?
Or I could just be an old fogy going the way of fedoras and sock garters.
I suspect that the sociologists and anthropologists out there will likely respond that it is ever thus. The young have always had their own language, much of which goes by the wayside when they join the working world, and some of which makes it into the accepted argot. The world—and the employment marketplace—evolve and progress.
I am not sure, though. Never before have we been so bombarded by images and sounds, so instant, so clear, so pervasive, so permanent. People can change their words, but some of their personal expressions are there forever. Tattoos are only one example; pictures on social-networking sites are even more pernicious, potentially.
Twenty years from now, will search committees be deciding how seriously to take that picture from the '10s with the then-underage presidential candidate brandishing a joint and displaying his posterior to the admiring throng? Or will there be so much of that out there that it is just expected? And how will that presidential candidate be conducting himself on the day that decision is made? Will he be speaking anything that we recognize today as standard English?
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I remind myself of my sainted grandmother. I remember that she was shocked when, early in my career, I grew a beard and wore it into the workplace. Such things were just not done in her day. "Relax, Grandma," I retorted sanctimoniously. "It's not like I got a tattoo or something."
And the world goes 'round, IMHO.
Comments
1. tarasinger24 - November 13, 2009 at 08:18 am
I want to work for a college president who wears love beads and opens the alumni dinner with a peace sign. These should be timeless traditions!
2. grumstrup - November 13, 2009 at 09:41 am
Learning "middle class," "executive," or "educated" behaviors and/or communication modes has always been difficult for those who come from impoverished (both economically and intellectually) backgrounds -- I don't see how the current "urban" or "colloquial" speech has made this any more difficult. (The author seems to forget that colloquial language is not a new aspect of English.) Speaking as one who has 1) come from such a background and 2) has two very beautiful tattoos on each of my arms, I believe Mr. Barden needs to explore why he thinks piercings/tattoos reflect negatively on the person who has them.
3. grumstrup - November 13, 2009 at 09:44 am
Strike my comment about "not a new aspect of English." Mr. Barden did address that issue.
4. themoth - November 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I can't connect the two halves of this article. Weather I agree or not, I can understand language and "proper" speech having an impact on how someone's job readiness is percieved by others. But I can't grasp what your issue is here with tattoos and piercings-- you never really tell us what it is that they represent to you that is so improper, scary, etc.?
Claiming (perhaps to your daughter) that, like it or not, the world will see you differently (read: poorly) if you have that tattoo is a poor argument. And as a young job candidate, I am indignant and embarrased for our profession that a search committee made up of people from your generation may find a nose ring or a visable tattoo (gasp!) more important than my record of publications, my dissertation awards, and my teaching record. Your daughter should be learning from you and your wife that the nosering or tattoo makes no matter if they are important expressions for her-- what matters is her hard work, her dedication to her craft, and her continued education. And, by the way, parents like you are usually the last to know about all of those (yes, plural) not-visable tattoos!
5. greenhills73 - November 13, 2009 at 05:21 pm
Sorry, themoth, but I find nose rings, eyebrow rings, tongue and lip rings unpleasant to look at. Whether interviewing a candidate with one or inquiring of a salesclerk with one, I am going to spend as little time looking at that person as possible. The candidate will stand out in my mind negatively (and I may shortchange him on the questioning) and I am probably going to walk away from the salesclerk and shop elsewhere. Some things you just can't put a finger on as to why they are repulsive.
6. grumstrup - November 14, 2009 at 09:54 am
Actually, greenhills73, your last sentence should read "Some things I just can't put a finger on as to why I find them repulsive."
It is sad to think that you will dismiss people out of hand because you find their appearance to be "repulsive." Again, as with Mr. Barden, I suggest you think about why you find such things as tattoos and piercings negatively. (Are you afraid of pirates? Do you associate tattoos with sailors and loose women? Do tribes that practice body scarification frighten you?)
What is more important here: a person's inherent worth or you being comfortable?
7. jennamcwilliams - November 14, 2009 at 01:25 pm
You're kidding, right? You have to be kidding. The ambivalence over academics with body adornments is a throwback to the days when we used physical appearance as a gatekeeper for higher education. We want faculty who embrace the dominant (middle and upper class) ethos, and we use physical appearance to help us judge whether somebody aligns with that ethos.
But we're past that, I hope. I hope we're well past that. Today what we need is not a uniformly 'professional looking' faculty, but a faculty that represents the diversity of needs, interests, and approaches to scholarship that can keep academia viable. For goodness' sake, maybe a few tattooed academics is exactly what the institution of higher ed needs.
I've responded to this piece at greater length on my blog at
http://jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com/2009/11/tattooed-academics-signal-decline-of.html.
8. drdon - November 14, 2009 at 02:00 pm
http://www.webmd.com/video/body-piercing-dangers?ecd=wnl_day_111409
9. please - November 15, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I would suggest to Mr. Barden that his lawyer, his accountant, his U.S. representative and perhaps even a few of his colleagues might be sporting tattoos under their more traditional business attire. Consider the juxtaposed photographs in /INKED inc.: Tattooed Professionals/ by Dave Kimelberg:
http://www.amazon.com/INKED-Inc-Tattooed-Professionals-Kimelberg/dp/0979486807
Mr. Borden is technically correct when he tells his daughter that "[t]here are no cabinet secretaries with visible tattoos", but only technically; former Sec. of State George Schultz sports a tattoo on his buttocks. FDR had a tattoo across his chest, as does former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura.
Sen. Barry Goldwater had a very visible tattoo on his left hand. Winston Churchill sported a tattoo on his arm. The mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa isn't ashamed of his tattoo... None of these politicians seem especially so. Shannon O'Brien, former Massachusetts state representative, state senator, and state treasurer, joked about her tattoo with Tim Russert during the last debate of the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign.
If Ms. Borden wishes to enter politics in the future, tattoos will likely not factor into her failure or success.
10. velvis - November 16, 2009 at 10:56 am
In my undergrad years many of my friends and I would go out and get ink done or piercings. While I did just take my tounge stud out after deciding that 12 years of a "statement" is long enough, many of my friends who got lips done or eybrows still have the holes and will unless they want to go to a surgeon and get them respliced and then stitched closed.
I don't think that it's the ink or where you wear your jewelry that says much about you but what those things represent.
A tiny diamond isn't offensive and most didn't even notice it. What the author might want to consider is that while the interviewee was pierced he respected the interview and the institution enough to put in something conservative. So he was being himself all the while still showing that he would be an appropriate reflection of that community.
You can't see my tattoos and most people don't know that I have them, but even if they did they would see that they represent my daughter, my calling to teach and myself. Instead of seeing ink maybe those who think less of it should examine the artistry of the work or even ask the wearer what it means.
11. vicden1 - November 16, 2009 at 11:14 am
Back in my residence hall days I would tell students who asked my opinion on getting a tattoo (note to Mr Barden, they were asking me, a res hall director, as opposed to parents) I would usually discourage it as a trend, and when the trend was over they would be stuck with "A permanent reminder of a temporary feeling" (Jimmy Buffett)
I was wrong, it was not just a passing trend, like love beads and Nehru jackets. I would like to think hiring committees are growing out of the need to hire people who only look like them. Maybe not in skin, hair, and eye colour, but those who dress like they do, speak as they do, and so on. Our student populations are more diverse than ever. The student covered from head to toe with tatoos, piercings, and biker regalia is no less a student because of his (or her) appearance than the one who come in as a stereotypical preppy. Their abilities are what should mark them as successful or not.
And a note on the piercings, personally I don't like them, they hurt every time I look at them, but they certainly do draw attention. Long ago in a res hall far away, I knew a young man whose favourite hobby was vandalism. No matter how sneaky he thought himself to be, I would always be told "I don't know his name but he's that little pain in the @$$ with the thing in his lip"
12. rkt2m2 - November 16, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I am a PhD student at a major University. I sit in an office of tattoos on every visible and have been shown way too many hidden tattoos. Every time I ask the person if the tattoo will present a problem when they interview for a faculty position I am told that "if it is a problem I don't want to be a faculty member there." For those of you that have and do interview for positions on campus does this sway you???
13. superdude - November 16, 2009 at 01:08 pm
rkt2m2, no it doesn't sway me. Frankly, those that have the attitude of "not wanting to be a faculty member there" won't have any problems, since I don't want them to be a faculty member here either.
Strange piercings and tatoos are signs of immaturity, like the long hair and general filthiness of hippies were decades ago. At least former hippies could cut their hair and take baths. But a stupid tatoo is a permanent reminder of your inability to take anything seriously.
14. ann05 - November 16, 2009 at 05:50 pm
Huh. My advisor has a visible tatoo. She's also one of the leaders in our field. I don't have any tatoos, but if I were going to "dress like the most important person in the room" (advice that is often trotted out about interview) I guess I'd have to go get one. Frankly the person who wrote this article sounds a million years old, superficial, and oppressive to me. And again, I don't have any tatoos and only a normal amount of piercings.
15. blue_state_academic - November 17, 2009 at 05:43 am
Call me silly, but maybe somebody with a reasonable piercing and/or tattoo would be easier to relate to by students (and even some parents) than someone who dresses like Gordon Gee.
16. s_loss - November 17, 2009 at 10:34 am
The author is correct: for centuries there have been accusations that youth are are ruining the English Language. The author is also not the first to suppose that this linguistic decline is associated with a moral decline (tattoos and piercings, in this case). Also, I would like to suggest that the author's fears about langauge degenerating at a faster rate due to youth being "bombarded with images and sounds" is perhaps unfounded. Most studies indicate that media does not trigger linguistic change. Rather, face-to-face interactions affect how we use language. For anyone interested in a linguistic perspective on these issues, I recommend the book "Language Myths" ed. by Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill.
17. laro1470 - November 17, 2009 at 11:23 am
I couldn't care less if people have piercings and tattoos in places seen, unseen and not supposed to be seen, as long as they don't distract from the work we need to do and get paid for. I'm going to be 63 and am getting my ear repierced because I want to but the small hoop I'll insert won't be a distraction.
But the folks who insist on wearing short sleeved shirts after getting tattooed sleeves or lilacs and hearts tattooed visibally on their neck shouldn't plan on my hiring them. God love 'em for their independent spirit but that doesn't cut it when you're trying to discipline a worker for time abuse or some other issue.
18. 22212540 - November 17, 2009 at 11:42 am
"As far as I know, the earring is no longer an issue now that my onetime candidate is well ensconced in that presidency."
So does he still have the earring?
19. tectorgorch - November 18, 2009 at 01:21 pm
Tattoos are indeed immature. One need only look at the participants at the Yalta conference. Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin all had tattoos. Not the sort of guys one could take seriously.
20. coybean - November 19, 2009 at 01:06 am
I read every comment carefully and agree with a great number of them. However, I am surprised that I am the first person to note that you could replace tattoo, earring, and pierced with brown, black, etc.
The most disturbing part of this whole article to me was that after an admittedly good candidate finished a good interview the author felt the need to immediately distance himself from him and to point out an earring that some had not even noticed. It's the white guy pointing out that I'm "uh, you know, a black" and that we might want to keep an eye out for my militancy or irreverent bursting into spirituals. It should not have been a discussion and that you made it one says more about you than the president with the tattoo. If he's "immature" as some here have suggested then you are a bigot.
We are still talking about educating students in a globalized society to deal with people from other cultures in a respectful way so that they might have a chance in h3ll of righting America's ship, right? Seems to me that a lesson in communicating with an intelligent, qualified person who differs from them in any way -- be that due to a tattoo or a hijab.
I am reminded of my own lesson: being an academic is not a sign of enlightened evolution.
21. coybean - November 19, 2009 at 01:07 am
edit:
Seems to me that a lesson in communicating with an intelligent, qualified person who differs from them in any way -- be that due to a tattoo or a hijab -- is a good place to start.
22. superdude - November 19, 2009 at 10:58 am
coybean: no. Your premise is flawed. Tatoos and earnings do not put you in a "protected class".
Professionalism is a job criteria. If you're sending the message with your "body art" that you're probably not going to be able to be professional or taken seriously, then that's a legitimate strike against you.
23. superdude - November 19, 2009 at 10:58 am
Hah! "earnings" instead of earings. Hmm. Pyschologists have at it!
24. vicden1 - November 20, 2009 at 10:29 am
I am not sure how a tatoo on the neck or a tatoo sleeve affects "God love 'em for their independent spirit but that doesn't cut it when you're trying to discipline a worker for time abuse or some other issue."
Who do you expect to be disciplining? Are you saying that people with tattoos and /or piercing can not make good supervisors, or are you saying that they they can not be conciencious employees?
How about men with long hair in a pony tail? Women who dress in a manner that some parts of society perceive as masculine? Would they also be poor managers or employees? Coybean is correct, this is judging solely on appearance.
Professionalism is an attitude. I have faced problems with my appearance and employment, but have been rated at both a good employee and supervisor. I have not seen that my lack of corporate attire has hindered me in either role, and neither, apparently have my supervisors.
Coybean, I was trying to bring up your beginning point, but phrased it poorly.
25. amnirov - November 21, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Candidates should be judged on research, publication, a record or a potential for quality institutional service, and a sample class and lecture. Every other measure is irrelevant.