There is also the asymmetry that while a student gets a quiet investigation that attempts to find all of the facts in a (hopefully) unbiased manner, the videotape of the teacher can be edited to remove all context and publicly posted thus destroying their reputation and possibly their career.
Can a teacher successfully sue if that happens?
I’m a little unclear as to the nature of the class, as there are multiple different ways that a course titled “human sexuality” could be set up. Is this a biology or psychology course, about the nature of human sexuality, what causes it, how it manifests, and so on, or is it a sociology course about how sexuality is addressed within society?
I recognize that a sociology or history course must inevitably touch upon political issues. I still think that the teacher’s own personal views should be insulated from the curriculum. It’s a much more difficult task than it is in less-political subjects, and I’m not entirely certain precisely how it should be done, but then, I’m not a sociology professor.
Of course, it can be edited, taken out of context, and yet will have the weight of accuracy. How do you argue against a tape when that wasn’t the context or exactly what you said?
They way it works is that the chair or Dean interviews students from the class and gets multiple points of view, discusses it with the professor, looks into the past performance of the professor and student as relevant.
Y’know- not a dramatic, Perry-Mason-type reveal of recorded evidence to bring the accused to their knees. Just a straightforward looking into of a situation.
Record dinner conversation between you and the Missus tomorrow. When she asks what the fuck you’re doing, explain.
Let us know how that works out for you.
Which I think is part of the problem. Over the years she has gotten used to being able to say and do anything she pleases. Nobody gave her boundaries.
To get an idea of her “no limits” style I looked online and she basically explores all types of human sexuality. Here are some examples under “Rate My Professor” site:
“I loved olga. she was a great teacher and she made class really interesting. if you look at the book while you take the quizzes, they’re cake. all the speakers (porn star, BDSM, cross dresser, etc) are FANTASTIC. take her class!!”
“You are better of taking a workshop on how to improve your sex life. I felt like I was in a junior high sex education class. She does not teach anything beneficial or relevant. I wanted to learn about psychology and the way it relates to human sexuality - as described in the text (Which is great) - Not how to jack my boyfriend off.”
“Took this class in summer and pretty much enjoyed listening to ejectulations and penatrations 
There are 2 take home test and a couple of essays. Also 4 hrs of class is SOO tiring. You guys should see the last 2 hrs of class…all quiet and sleepy =O”
So after years of this kind of talk she probably had forgotten “teach, dont preach” and that no, you can NOT say that.
When I went to college, it was not out of the ordinary for students to record lectures/classes. They did it instead taking notes. Then they had a full record of the material.
I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Teachers should remain unbiased regarding political, social, cultural, and other perspectives.
First, thanks for sharing.
Question - how long does this take?
The problem with that is it IS very slow. A complaint lands on the deans desk and they start this long process of looking into it. In the mean time its tearing around the internet and before the dean has time to interview the first witness millions of people have seen it and the Google searches and emails start flying. Before long here come the tv cameras. This story made Drudge in I believe 3 days.
People dont want to wait for the slow wheels of justice to do their work. Not in this case. Not 11 years ago in the Duke lacrosse case. Back then within days SJW’s didnt want to just wait for the police to do their investigation. They were holding marches and clamoring for blood. A modern day lynch mob really.
So what to do about it?
Is banning students from recording the answer?
Same with me and that was 25 years ago. But the difference is back then it was this big VHS camera or sometimes people used a tape recorder but that had to be on the front row to pick up sound. I remember one time in a biology class the teacher was mad at a coteacher and on purpose, told every student to shut off recording devices and he personally walked around to make sure it happened.
However todays recording devices are tiny and varied and could be anywhere or anything plus it can quickly be downloaded to social media for millions to see.
No. No. No. A thousand times NO.
The whole POINT to tenure is to protect professors from their viewpoints, as expressed in a classroom. They are expected to take controversial viewpoints. It’s their JOB, damnit. They aren’t there to regurgitate uncontroversial pablum; that’s available to anyone who wants to look it up in books. The job of a professor is to expand the thinking of college students, to challenge their viewpoints on subjects and make them come to terms with those challenges. They are called “professors” for a reason (hint, look up the definition of the underlying verb).
What they have to be careful of is letting their personal viewpoints impinge upon their assessment of student achievement. That is, giving a student a “C” for coursework that would have earned an “A”, had it been couched in terms consistent with the professor’s viewpoint. I had one of those once, a political science professor at my alma mater who had a particular viewpoint about the use of Mutually Assured Destruction to guarantee world peace. I disagreed with him, regularly, in class, and on my final exam, wrote what I thought was an excellent answer establishing exactly how he was wrong and what could be done to supplement his thinking. I received a barely passing grade; a friend who wrote a much less detailed, much less well-thought-out answer (his viewpoint, not mine!) which sucked up to the professor’s viewpoint (again, his statements, not mine!) got an “A”. That sort of teaching is to be avoided.
But controversial opinions? Those are expected, nay, required of a professor. God help us when the day comes that professors don’t express controversial thoughts.
(Which should not be read as a justification for what THIS particular professor said in this particular rant; as always, there are no absolutes, and some limits do exist.)
First, i sign on unreservedly to what he said ^
To be honest, i don’t care what the specific nature of the class was.
On the one hand, i think it would be inappropriate to describe the election of a US president as a “act of terrorism” in any class, no matter the subject area.
On the other hand, i think that there should be space for politics and some off-topic discussion, in basically any class, whether it’s political science, or history, or human sexuality, or physics, or mathematics, or whatever. Teaching and learning should, of course, generally focus on the specific material relevant to the course topic, but an occasional digression can be good for the class. Classrooms need not—indeed, should not—be hermetically sealed environments, never letting in any of the big, ugly, controversial world outside.
If a professor is recorded saying something racist, or homophobic, or pro-Trump, are these standards you mention still applicable?
Inspired by this column
I think that it’s a very, very slippery slope when you start to identify particular examples of “speech” and use them to sanction professors. I am always reminded that what is “offensive” speech today is tomorrow’s herd opinion; conversely what is considered normal speech today will be tomorrow’s offensive speech. I would not say that all “offensive” “speech” should be protected (what if the professor spends each and every day making a point of saying something underlining his/her viewpoint that, say, “blacks” are inferior?). But I certainly think that the general principle should be to protect the speech, not the student.
College lectures are not free and indeed college is not free, correct? Lectures are almost always in buildings on private property and you can’t attend if you haven’t been accepted to the school and if you haven’t paid for that course.
Acceptance and tuition requires students to adhere to a code of conduct, a violation of which can lead to expulsion from what I understand.
(Assumes students can’t squeeze their professors asses, drink under age, and shoot off fireworks from the lecture hall roof and when confronted by the campus security, say, “Here, Sugar, hold my beer. I’m almost done” and expect there to be no consequences.)
College professors teach best when not under threat of censorship and when professors teach best, it provides the bast value to the students in attendance (and also to any third party which might happen to be paying for it).
Some students do need to tape lectures especially in very technical classes for private study and personal educational purposes.
I’d like to assume for the sake of this debate that these are good things… good for the student, for the college, for the future employer, and for the nation.
As long as the tapes are for personal educational use without public use or public distribution, this seems fine.
Couldn’t colleges and universities update their admissions contract and student handbooks to expressly limit all recordings to private study use without express written consent beforehand from all parties?
(Something like… state law may say one thing, but to be a student here, we hold you to a higher standard, etc, etc.)
Couldn’t they require a signed document concerning educational recording, its terms, and acceptance of those terms (including expulsion for violation of those terms) to be on file before the end of the first week of classes
or the student would be dropped from all their classes by the registrars office the same as if their tuition check bounced?
Or couldn’t a violation of an updated code of conduct (once in place), like a release to the public for political purposes, be considered an ethical violation that would be grounds for expulsion?
Seems like a win-win solution in that it solves the problem, promotes free thought and free speech, and keeps students focused on what they PAID to be there to do? ie LEARN?
I agree, but I feel it’s important to highlight your thought that what is considered normal speech today will be tomorrow’s offensive speech and vice versa. And to point out, as Eugene Volokh did in the column I linked, that if “Catholicism is a foolish and evil religion, because it oppresses women and gays,” is acceptable commentary from a professor, then “Islam is a foolish and evil religion, because it oppresses women and gays,” must be held to be equally acceptable.
Nah , its like the whistle blower vs. the messenger thing…
I agree completely.
However, it’s a fact of life that many professors are under pressure to ‘please the paying customers’–meaning not only students and prospective students, but also the sources of funding (whether state legislatures or corporate sponsors). This is the case at most US institutions of higher learning today, I believe, though I’ll concede that it may be different at heavily-endowed universities.
I’ve taught at two non-prestigious, not-heavily endowed institutions, and there was always an imperative, explicit or implicit, to keep things non-controversial–because controversy would hurt the bottom line.
It shouldn’t be that way, but practically speaking, it is that way.
Ok, but along with that, college professors should also sign forms stating they are to “teach, not preach”. And to certainly NOT call the new president an “act of terrorism” and tell students who voted a certain way to stand against the wall and call them out as the new enemy.
When I was in college I had many professors who were great at getting discussions going even if students opinions were different. One does not need to target students or go making crazy accusations. If they cannot do this they dont need to be in that job.
Orange Coast College
I like Volokh, even when i don’t agree with him, and i’ve read not only that column, but his earlier one about the situation at the University of Oregon.
The column you link is a little turgid and repetitive. He could have made his argument using about 50% fewer words. But i take his general point, and i also agree with the broader point that he introduced in the earlier column: that many in higher education are running the risk of undermining the principles of academic freedom by selectively targeting particular types of speech and particular points of view. If some people are going to call for the firing of a professor who criticizes Islam, or who calls for allowing students to wear offensive Halloween costumes, then those people shouldn’t be surprised when someone else calls for the firing of a professor who criticizes Christianity, or who calls Republicans homophobic.
Of course, your own formulation, lumping racism, homophobia, and political commentary all together as if they were exactly the same thing, ignores the fact that it’s a little more complicated than that. Being a racist or homophobe, and supporting a particular political candidate, are not the same thing, either generally, or in terms of their boundaries when it comes to professional conduct by academics.
Also, more generally, it’s possible to make comments about race or sexuality or politics, even ones that reflect person ideology and beliefs, without stepping over the line of acceptable professional conduct. And it’s also possible to address all of those issues in inappropriate and unprofessional ways.
My general principle is summed up pretty nicely in this comment:
And i believe this even about speech that some of my left/liberal colleagues find unacceptable. I also, as someone who has spent considerable time in the classroom, believe that some personal commentary, and the exposure of some personal political ideology, need not be fatal, or even detrimental to the classroom experience or students’ learning.
And i say all of this as someone who has, repeatedly in this thread, agreed that the woman described in the OP was inappropriate in her comments. The problem, of course, is that it’s very difficult to arrive at any consensus about what is and is not appropriate. Sure, there are some black and white cases, but as with so many other areas of politics and principle, its precisely at the margins, in the grey areas, that reasonable (and unreasonable) people can disagree.
For example, the OP of this very thread has been waxing indignant about lefty professors throughout this thread, and yet he apparently believes that it is appropriate for science teachers to discuss God and religion in the classroom, and to address the issue of “devine [sic] intervention in nature.” Plenty of people would see such an approach to science education as being no less unprofessional than a statement of political beliefs. YMMV.
Just because you never heard it doesn’t mean there aren’t laws against it, and even without laws, there might be school policies in place – the school is free to make its own rules and sanction students and teachers who fail to abide by them.