Professor Lawrence Connell's Hypotheticals

ICYMI, be sure to read my earlier entry, "Charlotte Allen: 'The Mess at Widener Law School."



I've been thinking about the case and will have more later. Mostly, I'm trying to figure out Deans Ammons' animosity toward Professor Connell. Charlotte Allen notes:

Connell’s most egregious offense ... and probably the offense that brought down the full-bore wrath of Ammons upon him, was a series of classroom hypotheticals. The scenarios involved Ammons herself and Connell’s efforts to kill her (hypothetically) after she threatened to fire him (hypothetically) for parking his car in her parking space. In one of the hypotheticals Connell rushed into Ammons’ office with his .357 magnum and shot her in the head—except that the “head” turned out to a pumpkin artfully painted to look just like the dean. The idea was to ask the class whether under prevailing legal rules he should be tried for attempted murder—or not, since no harm actually befell her. Imaginative and macabrely humorous hypotheticals, often pitting professors against deans and other campus authority figures, are a standard feature of Old Law School pedagogy. The idea is that the students will absorb and remember the underlying legal principles better in a context of humorous narrative. Hypotheticals show up not just in law school classrooms but in exam questions and moot-court competitions. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was repeatedly murdered in classroom hypotheticals when she was dean of Harvard Law School.

Indeed, as Professor Jonathan Turley indicates, "Widener Law Professor Suspended For Using Dean In Hypotheticals":

I must confess that I routinely incorporate the Dean at our school in the same type of hypotheticals as well as any contract professors. Indeed, my final every year involves some struggle between myself and the Dean and contracts professors. Absent something more, I fail to see the basis for such disciplinary action. Other professors have raises objections to the case on sites like Volokh.



In his letter, [Widener Vice Dean J. Patrick] Kelly accuses Connell of an “outgoing pattern” of misconduct, and cites his use of such hypotheticals, including “cursing and coarse behavior, “racist and sexist statements” and “violent, personal scenarios that demean and threaten your colleagues.” Without more, the allegations raise serious concerns over academic freedom and privilege.



I am most disturbed by the statement of Gregory F. Scholtz, associate secretary and director of the American Association of University Professors. AAUP is organization that is expected to defend academic freedom. Yet, Scholtz is quoted as saying “Education is all about pushing the boundaries, and it’s all about controversial ideas, but the question always is when does it cross the line. Given our modern culture and the violence that exists, you’re really asking for trouble when you talk about killing people.” Really? That is news to those of us who teach torts and criminal law. It is common for faculty to incorporate colleagues into hypotheticals as good-humored jokes. At my school, contracts professors respond by incorporating me into their own hypotheticals. I have never found it even remotely bothersome or insulting. It keeps the attention of students and adds a needed element of levity in lectures.

It's routine. And Turley has more on how chilling the Lawrence case is for academic freedom.



Also, at Volokh, "Interview With Lawrence Connell, the Criminal Law Professor Suspended for His Hypotheticals":

Q: Can you give me an example of a hypothetical you might have used in class, to which the students who complained might have been referring? Can you describe the context in which you would have used it?



A: Yes, here is one: The Dean has threatened to fire me if she comes to school one more time and finds that I have parked in her designated parking space. Upset about the possibility of losing both my job and the parking space, I bring my .357 to school, get out of my car, put the .357 into my waistband, walk to the top floor where her office is located, open the door to her office, see her seated at her desk, draw my weapon, aim my weapon, and fire my weapon directly into what I believe to be her head. To my surprise, it’s not the Dean at all, but an ingeniously painted pumpkin — a pumpkin that has been intricately painted to look like the Dean. Dick Tracy rushes in and immediately wrestles me to the ground. I am charged with the attempted murder of the Dean.



The hypothetical raises various issues about attempted crimes that might entail discussion that spans more than one class. Some of the classroom discussion in the first, for example, will address the two basic philosophical problems of why we punish attempts, which are failed efforts at crime, and why we punish attempts less than successfully completed crimes.



A retributive argument, on the one hand, is that the attemptor has demonstrated his moral culpability by his bad conduct, and the degree of his punishment should not depend on a fortuitous turn of luck. On the other hand, a retributivist might argue that punishment in the absence of harm is unjust. For retributive purposes, has Connell demonstrated his moral culpability by shooting what he believes to be the Dean? Or does the fact that he merely destroyed a pumpkin suggest that his punishment would be unjust?

It's obviously a powerful heuristic.



More on this tonight. I'm checking around for more on Deans Ammons' motivations to persecute Professor Connell.

Charlotte Allen: 'The Mess at Widener Law School'

At Minding the Campus (via Glenn Reynolds):

Old Law School culture revolves around a traditional curriculum—those torts and contracts courses—and the Socratic method of instruction, with its pointed and rigorous give-and-take between professors and students. Old Law School assumes that the process of training lawyers is training them to a centuries-old Anglo-American tradition of lawyerly thought, which rests on the careful crafting of legal arguments and the relentless challenging of those arguments, often by the professor in the classroom. Old precedent-setting cases may be supplanted by newer cases, and legal principles may shift, but the underlying methodology of close analysis of written court opinions and the arguments on which they rest, along with certain assumptions underlying the American legal systems—that human beings are generally capable of exercising reason and free will and thus should be held responsible for their actions—are Old Law School constants.



New Law School culture, growing out of the Critical Legal Studies movement that first surfaced in law schools during the 1980s, is quite different. In New Law School thinking, the law does not embody a rational system of justice—or even strivings toward such a system—but is essentially a political construct that has historically operated to keep the rich and powerful in their places of wealth and power and other groups—women, racial minorities, the disabled, and the poor—in their socially subordinate places. If this characterization sounds Marxist, that is because Critical Legal Studies—and its intellectual progeny, Critical Race Theory and Feminist Legal Theory—grew out of the New Left radicalism of the 1960s, which viewed American governmental and social structures as systems of oppression. It has also been influenced by postmodernist literary theory, with its assumptions that there is no objective truth or reality. In New Law School thinking, reason, free will, and personal responsibility are illusions, for all legal battles are actually struggles of race, class, and gender, in which power, not justice, is the ultimate goal. In New Law School scholarly writing, rigorous analysis of court opinions and the drawing of fine distinctions underlying legal arguments have been supplanted by “story telling": personal narratives typically involving the law professors’ own experiences as members of an oppressed group with the race-gender-class matrix that is the source of their oppression. Since a shift in the power structure, not justice, is the goal, any tactic that coerces the recalcitrant into conforming to the new power regime is permissible in New Law School thinking.

Continue reading. Especially good is Allen's discussion of Linda Ammons. I wrote briefly along the same lines here, "Widener's Dean Linda Ammons Goes After Law School Professor Lawrence Connell."



And from Allen's conclusion, she notes that Professor Lawrence Connell was exonerated of the allegations against him, yet Ammons still prevailed on her preposterous charge that Connell "retaliated":

What is appalling is that, despite both exonerations, Ammons appears to have gotten her way in the end after all, exacting sanctions against a tenured professor that are not only costly but humiliating (he is supposed to apologize to the complaining students. The charge of retaliation, based on a vague prohibition in the faculty handbook, seem especially flimsy. Connell’s e-mail to his students in December neither named his accusers nor referred to them in any way. As for the lawsuit, Connell never waived his right to seek redress in court against individuals whose false accusations have already cost him quite a bit of money and promise to cost much more. But that is the way of New Law School. It is perhaps only Old Law School, with its emphasis on fairness, reasonableness, and color-and gender-blind justice, that would find something totalitarian in Widener’s treatment of Connell and accordingly demand Linda Ammons’ resignation. In New Law School thinking, where power is everything, and the claims of grievance-bearing identity groups will always prevail over fairness, it is perfectly fine to strip your perceived opponent of his livelihood and to consign him to the ministrations of your own Nurse Ratched—and there is no such thing as abuse of power.

The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher

From Ellie Herman, at Los Angeles Times:

The kid in the back wants me to define "logic." The girl next to him looks bewildered. The boy in front of me dutifully takes notes even though he has severe auditory processing issues and doesn't understand a word I'm saying. Eight kids forgot their essays, but one has a good excuse because she had another epileptic seizure last night. The shy, quiet girl next to me hasn't done homework for weeks, ever since she was jumped by a knife-wielding gangbanger as she walked to school. The boy next to her is asleep with his head on the desk because he works nights at a factory to support his family. Across the room, a girl weeps quietly for reasons I'll never know. I'm trying to explain to a student what I meant when I wrote "clarify your thinking" on his essay, but he's still confused.

It's 8:15 a.m. and already I'm behind my scheduled lesson. A kid with dyslexia, ADD and anger-management problems walks in late, throws his books on the desk and swears at me when I tell him to take off his hood.

The class, one of five I teach each day, has 31 students, including two with learning disabilities, one who just moved here from Mexico, one with serious behavior problems, 10 who flunked this class last year and are repeating, seven who test below grade level, three who show up halfway through class every day, one who almost never comes. I need to reach all 31 of them, including the brainiac who's so bored she's reading "Lolita" under her desk.

I just can't do it.

Keep reading to get to the myth of extraordinary teachers, although I'll add this part:

I understand that we need to get rid of bad teachers, who will be just as bad in small classes, but we can't demand that teachers be excellent in conditions that preclude excellence.

Actually, I'm not even sold on the idea of "really bad" teachers. Some aren't that great and probably shouldn't be teaching. I can think of a couple of professors at my college who have absolutely no social skills, and hence have a hard time reaching a comfortable or appropriate level of interaction with their students. But I also often hear reports about how such-and-such teacher changed some student's life. It's that level of interaction that gives meaning. The students I'm able to help most are generally those who take the time to break from the routine of just showing up. I'll be there to help students, inside the class and out. I'm especially thankful when students make an effort to attend office hours and share with me their own challenges or difficulties. That's when I can assess what needs to be done, and I can design some kind of extra program of help or attention, from either myself or other resources on campus. But all those stories Ms. Herman shares about her students, well, I have some as well. It's the inside of education that's not always known or understood. A lot of this is economic disadvantage, but a lot is just the way things are, that not every student who comes to us turns out as a Ph.D. candidate to Harvard. You make a difference where you can, helping students to learn and move forward. And hopefully you get a little recognition in return, even if it's just a well-needed thank you for your efforts.

Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action

I've forgotten now, but I'm sure I got a few NEA e-mails on this. Here's the website.

These people are angry and stupid, and dangerous combination. Video c/o Glenn Reynolds:

Lessons in Handling Plagiarism From Professor Panagiotis Ipeirotis

I had a nightmare class at UCSB in 1999, the second lecture class I taught as in independent instructor. It was a Black Politics class. I had a running battle with radical students throughout the quarter. I even had one dude pull me aside to say, "Hey, man, this is how you teach the class." I wasn't down hard enough on the Man, apparently. This dude, and some of his allies, wanted a course in victimology and racial recrimination. And I was doing straight civil rights developments and the political science of voting rights and redistricting. It started to be a nightmare. Students complained to the department that I graded their midterms "too hard." It was a big learning experience. And the final exam was the kicker. I caught a couple of black women cheating. They were passing their exam sheets back and forth with notes they'd written while writing their essays. They had arrows and diagrams tracing arguments. It was involved. When one of them turned in the exam I asked for the question sheet and she wasn't about to give it to me. I was like hello? This is what you do. So she reluctantly gave to me and later I turned the students over to the vice chair of the department. Within a couple of days I was called into the chair's office, Professor Lorraine McDonnell, who no one liked, and who had a reputation, basically, of piggy-backing off her husband, Professor M. Stephen Weatherford, a nice guy and sought-after research "quant" (a numbers and methods guy who sharpened research knives, which is hip in political science, a field that remains envious of the economics discipline for its much more formal and recognized academic rigor). Professor McDonnell threw me under the bus. (I ended up assigning grades to all students and being done with that class, and I moved on after that semester to teach at Fresno State.)

Anyway, check this piece at Inside Higher Ed, "Who Is Punished for Plagiarism?" (via Glenn Reynolds):

Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis has taken down the controversial blog post, but the debate is raging on without the original material.

Ipeirotis, a computer scientist who teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business, wrote a post on his blog last week called "Why I will never pursue cheating again." In it, he told the story of how he found that about 20 percent of a 100-person class had plagiarized -- and described the fallout from his accusations. While Turnitin led to his initial suspicions, and gave clear evidence for some of the students, it only cast doubts on other students. Many of them confessed only when Ipeirotis told the class that if he didn't hear from those who had cheated, he would report the incident immediately -- whereas in the end he included in his report the information that students had admitted what they had done.

So why does Ipeirotis consider the experience a failure? His students became antagonistic, he wrote on the blog post, and gave him lower teaching evaluations than he had ever received before. And those poor teaching evaluations were cited in a review that resulted in the smallest raise he had ever received.

Keep reading.

Ipeirotis' post is taken down temporarily. But Ruan YiFeng's Blog has excerpts. I like this:

“The process of discussing all the detected cases was not only painful, it was extremely time consuming as well.

Students would come to my office and deny everything. Then I would present them the evidence. They would soften but continue to deny it. Only when I was saying “enough, I will just give the case to the honorary council who will decide” most students were admitting wrongdoing. But every case was at least 2 hours of wasted time.

With 22 cases, that was a lot of time devoted to cheating: More than 45 hours in completely unproductive discussions, when the total lecture time for the course was just 32 hours. This is simply too much time.”

Students, in general, are inveterate liars when it comes to grades and classroom performance. I'd need more information, but this sounds like Ipeirotis' crucible from the trenches. You can't be an excellent teacher without failing a few times. And in this case there was something wrong, very wrong, with the course design. Exams and paper assignments have to be designed to prevent cheating. If he's doing research papers, there's got to be a way to create a project that students can't easily off load from the web. I still catch about one student plagiarizing a paper every year in World Politics, and usually a couple in American Government. And technically, you can't just fail them without due process. And to provide due process requires a formal administrative review and possibly hearing, and most professors don't even grasp the legal significance of the process. Since I've been a "traditional" professor on the issues, I had some experience dealing with problems at my college and soon I ended up leading a couple of workshops on academic discipline. It's the same stories over and over again. A lot of things you hear are just like what Professor Ipeirotis recounts. And that's why each professor has to develop an assignment regime that makes cheating hard, but they've also got to be ready to uphold standards. For the most part, my college today backs professors. Maybe students at community college aren't as powerful --- or their parents have less resources --- as students at competitive universities, but it pays to lay the administrative groundwork for upholding policies inside the classroom. Without that backing, teaching, inevitably, will be no fun.

Academia's Crisis of Irrelevance

From Naomi Schaefer Riley, at Wall Street Journal, "As more students question rising college costs, professors defend useless research and their lack of teaching."

Read it at the link. The key is academe's divorce from the real world, and I'd pile on about how this is killing the education of waves of students.

Community College Worries and Challenges

At the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Business Officers. See Chronicle of Higher Education, "Community-College Officials Swap Notes on Common Worries and Challenges."

And at New York Times, "At Two-Year Colleges, Less Scrutiny Equals Less Athletic Equality."

Los Angeles Southwest College has a new athletic field house and football stadium, but almost no female athletes.

Women make up more than two-thirds of students at this community college in the city’s South Central neighborhood, but less than a quarter of its athletes. The college’s decision to suspend the track team this year left women who wanted to play a sport with a single option: basketball.

Henry Washington, the college’s athletic director and head football coach, acknowledges that his program is most likely violating federal law by failing to offer enough roster spots to women. But he said many of the female students are also juggling jobs and child care, and do not have time to play sports. Then there is the question of money. “I just keep my fingers crossed that we can keep what we have,” he said...

The situation at Los Angeles Southwest, without question, more closely represents the norm among community colleges around the country. Even as they play an increasingly vital role in American higher education — enrolling more than eight million students nationwide last fall, a 20 percent jump since the fall of 2007, just before the start of the recession — community colleges are routinely failing to provide enough athletic opportunities to women, as required under Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in education. Many community colleges offer an array of options for men but just a single team for women. And dozens of colleges over the years had no women on their athletic rosters, according to federal education statistics.

No one disputes that community colleges face distinct challenges, with a lack of money paramount. But Pensacola, one of the rare exceptions among community colleges, offers evidence that the demands of the law can be met.

Continue reading. And note the comparison to Pensacola State College in Florida. This is all about state money. Those states, like California, deeply in the hole aren't going to be able to provide the opportunities required by law. The question becomes one of enforcement. Seems like California colleges would welcome the scrutiny if it forced state officials to better fund the institutions.

Save California, Campaign for Children and Families, News Release, July 14, 2011

The press release from Save California, "Pro-Family Response to Jerry Brown's Signing of SB 48":

Sacramento, California -- One of California 's top opponents of placing "LGBT" personages in school textbooks is speaking out on the unfortunate signing of SB 48 by Gov. Jerry Brown today.

"Jerry Brown has trampled the parental rights of the broad majority of California mothers and fathers who don't want their children to be sexually brainwashed," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which helped lead the opposition to SB 48. "SB 48 has no parental opt-out. The only way parents can opt-out their kids from this immoral indoctrination is to opt them out the entire public school system, which is no longer for morally-sensitive parents and their children." (Source: RescueYourChild.com and SaveCalifornia.com SB 48 veto request letter)

In 2009, a KPIX/SurveyUSA poll found that four out of five Californians did not support giving homosexual activist Harvey Milk a statewide day of significance. "With the signing of SB 48, even more California parent will be shocked to see the glorification of Harvey Milk and other homosexual-bisexual-transsexual role models in school textbooks," Thomasson said. "SB 48 is the eighth school sexual indoctrination law forcing immorality on kids in California K-12 schools. It's time for parents who love their children to match their words with deeds and do what's necessary to get them out of the immoral government schools and into the safe havens of homeschooling and church schools."

*****
"It's ridiculous that Jerry Brown says he's making history 'honest,'" Thomasson added. "The bill he signed prohibits teachers and textbooks from telling children the facts that homosexuality has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, higher cancer rates, and earlier deaths. These important facts about lifestyles children will being forced to admire will be omitted. And Brown calls this 'honest'? This revisionist history will actually make more children believe a lie -- that homosexuality is biological, which it's not, and healthy, which is isn't." (Source: "Not Born This Way")

Brown signed SB 48 despite it being completely unnecessary to deal with school bullies. There are existing laws that already strongly address this issue, such as: AB 1785 (2000) requires public schools to coordinate with local law enforcement to suppress and report both "hate crimes" and "hate-motivated incidents"; AB 394 (2007) requires K-12 schools to "post antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies in all schools and offices, including staff lounges and pupil government offices" and requires the State Department of Education to "display information on curricula" relating to "antidiscrimination and antiharassment" in regards to "sexual orientation" (homosexuality and bisexuality) and "gender" (cross-dressing and sex changes); ACR 82 (2010) permits participating schools - pre-kindergarten through higher education - to become official "Discrimination-Free Zones" that "enact appropriate procedures that meaningfully address acts of discrimination that occur on campus."

"These existing laws, in addition to other campus anti-bias and anti-violence laws, are certainly strong enough to quell physical and verbal bullying, rendering SB 48's broad curriculum indoctrination unnecessary even to satisfy the stated anti-bullying goals of the bill's sponsors," Thomasson said. "SB 48 is a revisionist history, sexual brainwashing bill, not an anti-bullying bill."

Continue reading.

See also, Rescue Your Child, "The Problem Facing California Public School Parents":

What your child is guaranteed in California public schools -- Because of bad laws, lack of pro-family laws, and politically-correct trends, here's what kids are guaranteed to receive in California public schools:

1. Homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination
2. Pro-abortion indoctrination, "confidential” abortion referrals and off-campus "counseling", without parental consent
3. Condom/birth control pills indoctrination and distribution without parental consent; no teaching children how to truly avoid STDs; "abstinence-only" education prohibited
4. Anti-God, pro-evolution indoctrination
5. Political correctness
6. Dumbed-down academics, less academic success, on average, than private or home school
7. Negative socialization and peer pressure
8. Less safety, on average, than private school
9. Anti-Christian indoctrination and widespread rejection of religious and moral values
10. Anti-parent sentiments

More at that link.

Pat Dollard Slams California Gay History Law

On Twitter:

PREVIOUSLY: "California Textbooks to Include Gay Achievements."

Pat Dollard's page is here.

California Textbooks to Include Gay Achievements

Governor Brown has signed the bill.

At Los Angeles Times, "New state law requires textbooks to include gays' achievements":

Reporting from Sacramento

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Thursday making California the first state to require that school textbooks and history lessons include the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.

Brown took the action as lawmakers sent him scores of bills, including one that would allow undocumented immigrants access to privately financed student aid at state universities and colleges.

Before adjourning for a monthlong summer recess, the Legislature also proposed changing the way California holds presidential primary elections and awards its electoral votes.

In accepting a mandate that California students be taught the accomplishments of gays and lesbians, Brown said that "history should be honest." The bill, he said in a statement, "revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books.''

The measure had sparked hot debate in the Legislature, where Republicans argued that it would force a "gay agenda" on young people against many of their parents' wishes. State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said the new law, which he wrote, will reduce the bullying of gay students by showing role models in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens.

"Denying LGBT people their rightful place in history gives our young people an inaccurate and incomplete view of the world around them," said Leno, whose bill, SB 48, also covers the role of the disabled in history.

The governor's action drew criticism from conservative groups.

More at that link above.

And in related news, "Many options for parents who want to homeschool kids."