The professor did explain why the request was inappropriate. The issue is with the tone he chose to use in doing so. Given the nature of the request, I don’t find the professor’s tone to be inappropriate. These are adults, not children. A certain base level of common sense should be presumed. If a student’s behavior falls woefully short of that level then it’s not unreasonable for the professor to presume that the student is wasting his time and respond accordingly.
It’s not the mere fact that the student’s request is inappropriate for a law firm that makes it inappropriate for a classroom. I believe the student’s request was inappropriate for a classroom environment, and that it would be even more inappropriate in a professional one.
I grant that it’s possible for anyone to be traumatized by anything. But I think you should also grant that it’s possible for an unscrupulous person to feign trauma for personal gain. Personally, I think the student’s request was so outlandish that it’s more likely he’s a member of the latter cohort. If you disagree then we may just need to agree to differ.
It is likely that those students were being gassed in the protests or clubbed by the police. And again, your earlier point used to minimize this by looking at other countries where the situation is worse was very underwhelming.
Well it looks like the kids that get killed by the government in Syria every day, and Ethiopians that starve to death were imaginary. /s
But getting into the OPs subject, we are still waiting for your evidence that CRT proponents are directly involved on these side issues, in reality AA or fairness to other races existed before CRT came, it is clear that CRT is being used as the latest bogeyman by right wing sources.
No one said that the existence of the other things on my list of bad things justified killing George Floyd and it’s frankly impossible that a minimally intelligent person acting in good faith could interpret it that way.
So are the the ones that have to be inconvenienced just a bit to be fairer to currently discriminated minorities elsewhere. Of course for this side discussion it is a bit of a moot point in this case as what Sam said was wrong.
A cite for the verbatim text of the student’s original request? No, sorry, which is why I put the “AFAICT” qualifier on my remark about its manner and form. But nowhere in this controversy (including in Prof. Klein’s own email response to the student) have I seen any indication that the tone or language of the request was considered inappropriate in any way.
The matter of the request, as many people have repeatedly noted, was widely considered inappropriate and out of line. But part of our job as professors is to let students know when something they’re asking for is out of line, without resorting to snarky put-downs over the mere fact that they asked for it.
While I’m inclined to agree with your ‘kids today’ rant, I strongly disagree with your conclusion. When a whole generation has been brought up this way, one professor making fun of one student is going to have zero affect. They’ll just see it as mean and unfair, and become even more of a victim in their mind, and their peers will think the same way. Whereas a polite refusal teaches them that their attitude is not effective, without giving them chance to feel like they’ve been treated unfairly.
I think if the matter of the request is inappropriate enough, the response can be sharper. I think if we are going to be condemning the professor on “tone” then I think we really need to see the text of the student’s email.
Somewhere along the line we decided that our kids were fragile. And they became fragile.
Polite refusal teaches them there is no harm in trying. Is there really no harm in trying in the real world? Or does it affect how people see you and perceive your future requests?
I think presentation has a lot to do with this. If there was an email signed by half the class asking for this, it would have seemed a lot less obnoxious.
AFAICS the fragility has now spread into many workplaces, with young employees demanding their colleagues be fired because diversity of opinion makes them feel ‘unsafe’. So…
Anyway, I reckon the professor could have got the message across that the request was inappropriate without being inappropriate himself.
Not how it works in the academic institutions I’m most familiar with, at least. “But he started it!” is not considered a valid excuse for grown-ass professors resorting to snarky put-downs in responding to student email requests.
And I repeat, nowhere in this controversy have I seen any indication that the tone of the student’s original request actually was presented impolitely or inappropriately in any way. Speculative insinuations along the lines of “well, the student’s tone must have been impolite or else the professor’s tone wouldn’t have been so snarky” are not persuasive.
There is no harm in trying. Fielding unreasonable requests from students, as long as they’re expressed in a courteous and respectful tone, is absolutely a standard part of a professor’s job.
If you as a professor want to head off particular types of unreasonable requests from students, you are expected to put that in your course syllabus that students get at the start of the term. You do that with wording such as “Extensions on assigned work will not be granted except for unforeseen emergencies confirmed by the Dean of Students” or “No exceptions can be made to the grading policies stated in the University Academic Handbook. Students are expected to be familiar with those policies, and any requests for grading exceptions that violate those policies will not be acknowledged or granted”.
Personally, I find it much simpler not to try to pre-emptively rule out all possible unreasonable requests, but just to deal with the occasional unreasonable request in a polite and professional manner. Despite the “kids today” harrumphing that seems to be taking over this thread, in my experience there are very few unreasonable requests overall.
And I have never found that being polite and professional rather than snarky and sneering in declining unreasonable requests encourages students to make more unreasonable requests.
I think we’re indulging a lot of post-hoc spin here by pretending that “the professor was disciplined for the tone of his e-mail” when it’s incredibly obvious that he was disciplined at the height of the post-Floyd backlash for swimming against the prevailing political tide.
I couldn’t find a single example of UCLA disciplining a faculty member for writing a curt e-mail besides this. That could mean that Prof. Klein is the only professor who has ever hurt someone’s feelings over e-mail in the entire history of a large university. But I find that very unlikely. I think it’s much more likely that it indicates what we all know - the alleged policy on professors’ tone in e-mails does not exist and if it were not for the subject of this e-mail it would not have been created in this instance.
I did find, in searching, lots of articles from before the current racial moment, such as this one and this one, which take it as a given that students making inappropriate requests for grading advantage in e-mails is such a common problem that professors should have a strategy for dealing with it.
They don’t advise writing mocking, sarcastic replies though, do they?
If this was a professor replying to some ordinary unreasonable request with no political overtones - something like these - would he have got in trouble? Who knows. Would we have heard about it? Almost certainly not. The connection to BLM makes it more controversial, as it could perhaps be seen as making light of those events, rather than simply mocking one student’s unreasonable request.
But there’s still no indication that anyone at the university thought the request should be granted.
The student is a grown ass adult as well. They can vote, they can go to jail, they can die for their country.
The request itself was pretty inappropriate. It;s outrageous enough that I’d like to see the email. but if you feel comfortable operating on incomplete information, then that’s up to you.
Of course there is. In the work place it can be what I cal a career limiting move.
I doubt it. But I also doubt that UCLA actually has any policy against mocking, sarcastic replies, since in the entire history of UCLA no one else has ever been disciplined for it.
Now I recognize that 24 year old law school grads are older than a 20 year old college junior but if I received an email like this from a recent hire I think word would get around and they would soon be looking for a job where their sensitivity could be better accomodated.
To some extent, the professor is at least guilty of “not reading the room”
I missed it. What kind of discipline was he subjected to? If he’s a tenured professor and the discipline is note of disapproval then, meh.
I don’t know who came up with that dumb saying but it’s obviously not universally applicable. The fact that we’ve never seen 9 foot tall green men on Mars, a teapot orbiting the sun, or any prior usage of an alleged policy against rude e-mails is, in fact, excellent evidence that those things don’t exist. Maybe you are confusing “evidence” with “metaphysically conclusive evidence.”
