The Economics Job Market Rumors forum, known as EJMR Finance, is an anonymous online discussion board frequented by academic economists and graduate students. The website was created in 2006 as a place for students and professors to share information and gossip related to the economics job market.
Over the years, EJMR Finance developed a reputation for hosting controversial and inflammatory content. The anonymity afforded by the forum led to repeated instances of offensive speech, personal attacks, and discrimination. In particular, female economists were frequent targets of harmful rhetoric on EJMR.
With little oversight or moderation, EJMR Finance became dominated by a culture described by many as toxic. The lack of accountability for users’ anonymous posts created an environment where discriminatory and unprofessional discourse was left unchecked. This enabled ongoing issues around racism, sexism, homophobia, and harassment.
Critics of EJMR argue the website’s anonymity facilitates unethical behavior and discourages participation from underrepresented groups in economics. The lack of moderation and oversight has allowed inappropriate content to persist without accountability. This has led many to condemn EJMR as an antithesis to the ideals of equity and inclusion.
Gender Bias and Discrimination
The Economics Job Market Rumors forum, known as EJMR, has faced heavy criticism and allegations of rampant gender bias, sexism, racism, and discrimination against women and minorities.
Numerous threads on the forum contain openly sexist, racist, and derogatory comments targeting female and minority scholars. There is a notable tendency to dismiss or undermine the research and qualifications of women and scholars of color. Female academics report being labeled as “diversity” or “affirmative action” hires in a derogatory manner. Comments questioning their competence, doubting whether they deserved their positions, and objectifying them based on appearance are also common.
Quantitative analysis of EJMR forum content has confirmed massive gender disparities. One study found that female economists were twice as likely as males to be discussed in objectifying terms and receive derogatory comments about personal life and appearance. Another study categorized 8,024 threads and 70,000 posts, finding that over 25% contained unprofessional or hostile content – most commonly racism, sexism, or harassment.
The climate of bias and toxicity has concrete impacts on diversity within the economics profession. Experts argue EJMR reinforces stereotype threat, implicit bias, and a “chilly” climate for women and minorities in a field already dominated by white men. There are concerns it socializes sexism and influences hiring decisions. Surveys indicate female economists avoid the forum due to its hostile environment and feel it hinders career advancement. Some report being deterred from publishing in particular journals frequently criticized on EJMR.
In summary, EJMR Finance provides a platform for gender and racial bias to thrive unchecked in economics. This perpetuates discrimination, contributes to a toxic climate, and presents barriers to diversity and inclusion efforts within the field. Allowing such forums to operate with anonymity enables systemic issues to continue largely without accountability.
Inappropriate Content
EJMR has received criticism for some of the inappropriate content that has been posted on the forum. There have been issues with users engaging in personal attacks, harassment, and using highly unprofessional language.
Some of the most concerning behaviors have been threads specifically created to target or mock individual professors or students in a harmful way. These threads often delve into offensive personal attacks, violating people’s privacy and dignity. There is an ethical concern that by allowing this content, EJMR contributes to a toxic culture that enables the harassment and bullying of members of the academic community.
The forum contains multiple examples of threads that cross ethical lines. Some users have posted details about professors’ personal lives, relationships, families, and other private information without consent. Other threads have contained degrading language about women and minority groups. While EJMR’s policies officially prohibit illegal content, harassing content is often not removed.
Overall, EJMR has developed a reputation as a venue where users feel free to engage in harassment, personal insults, and unethical privacy violations without facing consequences. This raises concerns about the forum’s responsibility in enabling a culture of toxicity. Critics argue the anonymous format shields users from accountability and emboldens inappropriate behavior.
Arguments For Anonymity
Many EJMR Finance users argue that the site’s anonymity is necessary and should be protected. They believe the anonymous nature of the forum allows for more open and candid discussions that would not otherwise occur.
Supporters of EJMR’s anonymity say it protects junior academics who want to vent frustrations or criticize senior faculty at their institutions. Without anonymity, they argue, junior academics would fear retaliation if they posted comments openly. The anonymity allows them to share honest feedback without worrying about professional repercussions.
In a similar vein, EJMR supporters say the anonymous format fosters an environment for open dialogue. Users do not feel inhibited about sharing their true thoughts and feelings because their identities are protected. This allows for unrestrained conversations that supporters believe lead to valuable insights.
Defenders of EJMR’s anonymity contend that removing it would hamper the site’s discussions and sharing of information. Anonymity encourages participation from those who would otherwise be reluctant to post openly under their real names. For better or worse, EJMR’s anonymous format has created a space for candid expressions and debates that likely could not exist otherwise.
Arguments Against Anonymity
EJMR Finance’s policy of allowing anonymous comments has been cited as one of the main reasons that inappropriate and unprofessional content is able to thrive on the site. Here are some of the main arguments against anonymity on EJMR:
-
Enables abuse, discrimination, and unaccountability: Anonymity removes accountability and emboldens some users to make inappropriate comments they likely would not make if their real identity was known. This provides cover for discrimination, harassment, and other unprofessional behavior.
-
Reduces credibility of comments: Anonymous comments inherently have less credibility since the expertise and credentials of the author are unknown. This makes it easier to dismiss critiques as coming from less qualified sources.
-
Violates professional standards: Most academic journals and conferences require author names for submissions. Anonymity goes against professional norms in research fields and allows EJMR to be an outlier with different standards. Critics argue anonymity has no place in professional discourse.
By allowing anonymous comments, EJMR provides a loophole where anything can be said without consequences. Removing anonymity and requiring real names would likely elevate discussions and provide more accountability. However, EJMR has resisted changes to anonymity as a core site policy.
Petitions and Actions Against EJMR
Over the years, there have been various petitions and calls to action aimed at shutting down EJMR or reforming the site due to concerns over harassment, unprofessionalism, and gender discrimination.
In 2017, a petition on change.org emerged calling for the popular economics forum to be shut down. The petition argued that EJMR had become “a place for harassment” that was damaging to the field of economics and hostile towards women, minorities, and other underrepresented groups. It gathered over 1000 signatures, though ultimately did not lead to any changes on EJMR itself.
There have also been efforts by some academics and opponents of EJMR to reveal the identities of anonymous posters on the site engaging in abusive commentary. In a controversial move, Harvard University publicly named one of their tenured professors in 2019 as an active contributor to EJMR under the pseudonym “HUBIS”. This led to widespread debate over issues of anonymity and accountability.
Some academics and institutions have responded by boycotting EJMR, refusing to visit or participate in the forum in protest of its toxic culture. There is an ongoing debate among economists around whether completely disengaging from EJMR is an effective strategy or if active reform efforts are needed to improve the environment. But these boycotts do show a level of concern among parts of the economics community regarding EJMR’s harms.
Defenses and Explanations from EJMR Users
Some EJMR Finance users have defended the controversial content on the forum and offered explanations for why it exists.
A common defense is that inappropriate or offensive content is just satire, not meant to actually harm anyone. Users argue it’s just part of the culture of anonymous internet forums to joke around with edgy or controversial humor. They claim comments shouldn’t be taken literally or seriously.
Many also argue the anonymity enables professors to give honest advice that students need to hear. They say anonymity allows frank discussion without fear of professional repercussions. Some contend removing anonymity would limit this valuable mentoring.
Explanations for the inappropriate content include viewing it as stress relief, entertainment, or a way to bond for an insular academic subculture. Some posit it results from built-up frustration with the rigorous tenure process, competition for academic jobs and grants, or even issues in professors’ personal lives manifesting online.
Others attribute it to trolling, mob behavior, disinhibition, or a sense of power afforded by anonymity. Some liken EJMR to a locker room where people feel they can speak more crudely than they would publicly. Overall, defenders assert the forum provides value that outweighs the problems.
Potential Reforms and Changes
One of the biggest questions around EJMR Finance has been whether the site can or should implement reforms and changes to address some of the issues that have been raised. There have been several ideas proposed:
Stricter moderation policies
Some believe that stricter moderation of comments could help cut down on inappropriate content while still allowing anonymous discussions. This could include proactively screening comments, quickly deleting abusive posts, or banning repeat offenders. However, this would be challenging with limited staff and resources. It could also potentially undermine the ideals of free anonymous speech that EJMR was founded on.
Removal of anonymity
Removing anonymity has been suggested as a way to help promote more accountability and cut down on harassment. However, many users strongly defend anonymity as core to the site’s purpose. Removing it could undermine the candid discussions EJMR was created to host. It may simply push inappropriate behaviors to other platforms.
Shutting down site entirely
Given the many controversies, some believe it may be best to shut EJMR down entirely. However, others argue the issues could simply migrate elsewhere. Shutting it down also means losing any potential value the forums provided. Some contend that EJMR should be reformed instead of simply eliminated.
Alternative anonymous forums
There have been some arguments that the solution is not removing anonymity but creating alternative, well-moderated anonymous economics forums. These could focus on upholding norms of constructive dialogue. However, creating thriving alternative communities can be extremely difficult. The network effects and draw of EJMR’s large, existing user base could be hard for new platforms to compete with.
Lessons Learned
The controversies surrounding EJMR Finance several important lessons for academia and online forums:
-
Dangers of unchecked anonymous forums – Anonymity can remove inhibitions and embolden some users to engage in unethical, offensive, or even illegal speech. Without proper oversight and moderation, online anonymity can enable discrimination, harassment, and other harmful behaviors.
-
Need for ethical standards and moderation in academia – Like any institution or industry, academia is not immune to issues of bias, discrimination, and misconduct. Maintaining high ethical standards, enforcing codes of conduct, and moderating forums and communications is necessary to ensure all academics feel welcome and safe participating.
-
Improving diversity and inclusion – The reported experiences of women and minority academics on EJMR underscore the work still required to improve diversity and inclusion in higher education. Academia should continue efforts around cultural change, policies, training, hiring practices, mentoring, and creating support structures so all scholars can thrive.
The EJMR experience serves as a case study for the potential pitfalls of unchecked online anonymity and the need for integrity in academia. These lessons can guide the path forward to more ethical, inclusive scholarly communities where everyone feels valued and empowered to participate.
The Future of EJMR
The future of the controversial Economics Job Market Rumors forum is uncertain. Some predict that mounting backlash and campaigns against EJMR’s toxic culture may result in its demise, while others argue the site satisfies a niche demand that is unlikely to disappear.
Many advocates for shutting EJMR down or heavily reforming the site to curb racism, sexism and other abuse. They argue that EJMR’s harms outweigh any benefits it provides. However, given EJMR’s persistence despite past criticism, it seems unlikely the site will disappear entirely unless its hosting is revoked.
Potential reforms could help improve EJMR’s culture while maintaining some of its utility for sharing job market information and advice. For instance, switching from anonymous to pseudonymous posting could discourage the worst trolling while still allowing some privacy. Requiring moderation of posts and blocking hateful speech may also help. However, EJMR’s owners and users largely resist reforms so far.
In the long run, greater awareness of issues like implicit bias in academia may gradually improve EJMR’s discourse. The rise of more inclusive economics networks and journal ranking systems could also reduce reliance on the site. But EJMR currently dominates its niche, so is likely to retain some user base unless non-anonymous alternatives can compete.
Overall, EJMR Finance will likely persist at least for the near future, albeit with calls for reform continuing. Its ultimate fate depends on whether external pressure, internal changes, or new alternatives arise to address longstanding issues of discrimination and toxicity. For now, many believe changing EJMR’s culture or limiting its influence should be priorities. However, eliminating such forums without addressing root causes may just displace issues elsewhere.