After further reflection, I’m going to change my answer to this. I don’t think the words of the student in this case are risible enough to constutute harrassment. I would not advocate rescinding his anonymity. It does underscore my distaste and lack of regard for student evaluations, though. I always turned them in blank myself.
Gal. See the OP. Not that it matters, but facts is facts. 
Where does the OP’s link mention “lesbians”?
The later news links identify the instructor as Joseph Disponzio, use the masculine pronouns exclusively, and identify the “threat” as a hope for “choking on a dick.”
No I don’t. However, I will assume that my own understanding of “hate speech” controls.
It’s not a straw man. What I described is clearly “hate speech” by my understanding of the phrase. And it’s my understanding that controls.
You’re right:" the OP mentioned “lesbian” and the link did not mention either sex.
The students are not qualified to have an opinion on an instructor’s performance. The instructors are not there to be the students’ friends or den mothers. I think student evaluations have the effect of dumbing down the instruction, easing requirements on students and devaluing college degrees. Students should be treated like garbage and driven like slaves, in my opinion. Treating thjem like equal human beings to the instructors is a mistake. An instructor who never inspires hatred or fear is not doing his job right. College isn’t kindergarten and students should not be catered to or have their self-esttem stroked.
Reading the story behind the Ethicist column, the student involved comes off as a first-class jerk.
Nasty comments on an evaluation that do not constitute a threat do not justify breaching the agreed-to anonymity of evaluations.
Good advice for the student.
Perspectives vary, but from mine the University’s violation of its code is more egregious than the student’s comments.
No, but as I said in my last post, it’s my understanding that controls from now on.
No, it’s clearly hate speech. You believe that I know what “hate speech” is? Well, I know that this is hate speech.
I think most serious evaluations are meaningless and should be taken with a serious grain of salt (I once received an evaluation which stated: “She should give out candy like the other TAs do!” :rolleyes: )
But I think there are gems of constructive criticism found in them. When students let me know that my shyness was coming across, I sought ways to build up my assertiveness. Also, besides complaints made to the department chair and/or dean, the school has no other way of finding out how effective a prof is–particularly after a professor has reached tenure. When I was an adjunct, hired right off the street, no one came in to supervise me. I could have been teaching those kids anything.
Ultimately, I think they give students a sense–however imagined–of having some kind of control over their professors. If I’m a dean, I’d rather have students vent using pen and paper rather than hearing them whine in my office.
Correction retracted. I wonder where the OP got the idea that the professor was lesbian?
To clear up possible misconceptions
-
The evalations were presented to the instructor, not the university. The purpose was for the edification of the instructor. So much for anonymity. I wonder if the students knew that.
-
The instructor did not hire the handwriting expert. The instructor knew who it was prior to the involvement of the handwriting expert hired by the university to confirm on behalf of the institution.
See Carcasm’s second link
I’ve heard similar suggestions about how the army should treat lower enlisted, and they were always put forth by people who didn’t know jack shit about how the military operated or what motivated soldiers. Somehow, I never ran into a Noncom or Major or anyone with any experience whatsoever in the army who thought that way, not even Rangers or SF. (OK, maybe for basic training, but that’s basic, and even then, treated like garbage and driven like slaves? No.)
Those opinions sounded about as stupid as this statement does. Actually, your statement sounds dumber, because I only spent four years in the army. I’ve spent 8+ years in academic libraries working directly with undergrads and graduate students. I know that’s not how you produce a good student.
I don’t remember anyone asking me if I thought my CC was too mean in Basic Training. I liken undergrads to boot camp recruits. I was also being a tad hyperbolic but it made me sick when I was in college to see the level of entitlement in undergrads these days. Is it really asking too much to require that papers be turned in on time or that exams be taken at the time that they’re scheduled? Students these days don’t think they have to follow even the most basic rules or meet the most minimal standards. I wanted to see instructors cowboy up and say “no, you can’t have an extra week for that 5 page paper” or “no you can’t take a makeup exam because you want to stay an extra day with your retard friends on Spring Break.” Don’t get me started. My impressions of just how much the University was letting the students run the show at the expense of academic standards has greatly colored my opinion of this.
The entire situation is absurd and deplorable. Is being a bigoted asshole the act of, well, an asshole? Sure. But on! In an evaluation that was not just anonymous, but that had no real impact on anything and would’ve been totally private to boot, what the heck does it matter? When a teacher, the guy who is the actual source of authority in the power relationship, feels “harassed” because one of his students is a jerk, in private, to no effect? A “whinging in the third degree” flag should definitely be thrown on the field. That the professor then deliberately violated the school’s anonymity policy in order to attain some measure of vengeance for his hurt feelings is abhorrent.
Some professors seem not to understand some of the more ‘nuanced’ differences between a university and a re-education camp. Universities are already a bubble of un-reality, we don’t need to compound matters by teaching students that they have some innate right to avoid being offended.
The student involved was a total asshole. But to pretend that there were actual threats involved is beyond Orwellian.
And yes, while it’s silly to ascribe this sort of behavior to the “Left” (as if any such monolith actually existed), there are a disturbingly large number of schools and teachers who have decided that their mission is indoctrination instead of education. It’s rather disturbing, and everybody who values the importance of higher education should be opposed to such bullshit thought-police style bullying.
Would anybody who is currently in support of speech codes actually continue to support them if their political opponents were in charge? If Libertarian wackjobs seized ideological power, would it be right for your college-going child to be punished for saying that we should raise taxes to pay for social policies, since according to Libertarian U, taxation = theft, and advocating theft is bad? What if it was that the child said that he believed the government should help solve social ills in general and didn’t mention taxes, and was still punished because at Libertarian U, believing in such things is viewed as an odious behavior?
Do we really need to expand the example? Can Conservative U punish your child for talking about “predatory capitalists and their filthy selfish policies?” Can Socialist U punish your child for talking about “welfare bums who believe that I have to help pay for them out of my own pocket?”
Indoctrination should be anathema to everybody in all academic circumstances, not just when the indoctrination happens to go against one’s personal politics.
With all that being said about the situation in general, there are some very silly things being said in this thread, in specific.
Laughable statements don’t constitute harassment in general. Were you trying to say something else?
You’re saying that if an instructor continually loses papers, doesn’t return any exam within a month’s time, is wrong on fundamental facts and/or engaged in discriminatory behaviors in the class, students aren’t qualified to note any of that? And those are just a few examples. I know engineering students at my alma mater who had professors/teachers who couldn’t intelligibly/reliably speak the language. A student isn’t qualified to note “the teacher is not fluent in English and was, as a result, worthless as an instructor?”
If a biology professor suddenly becomes a creationist, his students aren’t “qualified” to note that down in evaluations? A poli sci prof who started teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories? A sociology prof who put forward the Protocols as an authentic text? A professor who assigned seats, and made all the black people sit in the back of the room?
Come on, students aren’t qualified to have an opinion on their instructors’ performances? Why the heck not?
Okay.
Do you have any proof for that, or is it just what you think?
Something tells me that you won’t find much research in ERIC to back that up.
I think you’re confusing The Prince with, well, something.
I liken them to paying students.
Something tells me that I have the better analogy.
Again, cite? Do you have any basis for thinking this, other than the fact that you think it?
Well, gosh, Dio, I certainly wouldn’t want to get you started. It sounds like you went to a very different university from mine. We sure as hell didn’t get any of those breaks! And you know something? We weren’t treated like garbage by the professors either! It wasn’t an elite school, either. Pretty normal
If students these days don’t think they have to follow the most basic rules, that strikes me as the fault of a lax administration. I’d say that the professors and the administration need to sack up and start sticking to the regs.
Notice I said “sticking to the regs” and not “making up new regs on the spot that make Sparta look like Ding Dong School just 'cause you’re ticked at the student.” A professor can enforce a deadline without treating the student like shit. My profs sure did, and the profs at my college do too. You’ll be happy to know that there are professors all across the country who make a policy and stick to it. Strict != slavery. And while we’re at it, quite a few students show up at college wanting to learn. They leave college that way, too.
Sorry if you had a bad four years, but realize that it’s not that way everywhere. There are definite problems on campus, and I’ve seen my share of wimpy professors and self-entitled students, but even if it’s endemic–and I don’t think it is–your solution would make things worse, not better, even if colleges could enforce it, and they wouldn’t be able to.
Howevewr, it only “controls” inside your little hypothetical. When you want to bring your hypothetical back to the discussion, you need to use the meanings of the words as they are understood by your opponent, otherwise you are merely engaged in a solipsistic rant rather than a debate.
I asked what exactly was meant by the phrase “hate speech.” You and dio declined the opportunity to explain what the phrase meant, instead insisting that I already know. Ok, fine. My understanding will control.
It’s as simple as that.
I didn’t say “laughable,” I said “risible.” Did you mean to say somethiung else?
In my opinion, no.
The students can whine to the administration if they want to. That’s about the extent to which their opinions need to be listened to.
What are the first two words in my quoted sentence?
They have the wrong idea about what they’re paying for.
Something tells me you don’t know what the word “analogy” means. Likening students to “students” is not an analogy. Thanks for making my case about the dumbing down of standards, though.
I saw it firsthand.
Oh, please. That’s utter and complete rubbish. In a discussion, such as this one, we understand terms to mean what the commonly-accepted usage says they mean. Anything else is intellectually dishonest. By your rather twisted logic, I could claim I understand your quoted post to mean “Fuzzy woozy orange table nose.” Because, y’see, my understanding controls.