Literary analysis, and literature in general, is prone to a lot of cliquish cross-subject sniping and condescension. Bardolatry and the Authorship Question, the validity/dignity of [romance novels/YA lit/ebooks/whatever], One True Wayism with regard to critical lenses, self-publication and vanity presses, it can get vicious.
Similarly, the Stack Exchange doesn't put stock in appeals to authority as a substitute for demonstrating expertise through explanation and example--but sometimes folks throw around "I graduated college so who are you to tell me I'm not writing my question clearly" or "I played D&D for thirty years so why aren't I an expert on a totally different game?" I anticipate a lot of "I'm a lit doctorate so be quiet" to crop up on lit.se, and that's just not gonna fly.
Folks have a tendency to take what they like and equate it with who they are, making these kinds of things all the more emotionally fraught and increasing the difficulty of keeping an even keel on discussions: when my opinions are a mainstay of my identity, it can be hard to tell the difference between disrespecting me and disagreeing with me. (To borrow from RPG.SE, if I'm a powergamer and you don't like powergaming, that means you don't like me; compare if I powergame and you don't like powergaming, then you just dislike something I do.)
On RPG.SE we've had to explicitly affirm that we actively value diverse views and styles, and it still gets dicey sometimes. And that's for a subject that very few people have invested their entire professional careers in.
What will we do to defuse these minefields as much as possible beforehand, through community culture? When they do inevitably blow up sometimes, will we be ready to deal with it?
Note, this is different from "What should we do about snarky comments denigrading specific works?" -- I'm asking about more insidious cliquism where folks can feel virtuous about not being nice because they're "right" about something that's being asked about.