Wisconsin Campus Says Professor’s Political Comments in Class ‘Clearly Crossed the Line’

Tiny nitpick: “there’s just the one instance of it” – in your context it might be clear what you mean by this, but this phrase isn’t true on its face – there ARE multiple copies of a dropbox file, it’s just that the system keeps the version in synch. It’s an important distinction for people who don’t use dropbox right now who might worry that they won’t have access to the “cloud” when they need that file, or just the opposite, can access the cloud but not their home computer’s hard drive. There is a copy of the file on each, so if you can get to one or the other, you’re fine.

I agree with a lot of both Mark and Brian’s replies. One other aspect of this is that this shifts the presentation from using the powerpoint as a splurge or crutch to lean on to using it as an aid when necessary. For my presentations that are under 10-15 minutes, I rarely use more then 3 content slides with 2-3 very short bullets each. I use them as concept maps or a short outline and then fill in the cracks during the presentation. They are ugly as sin in a utilitarian way, but my objective is to aid my spiel and it has been successful in that regard. To put it another way; to me, powerpoint is a tool, and as a tool, I’ve replaced writing on a chalk/whiteboard during a presentation. Anything I would have written on the board while presenting is what gets put into the powerpoint and generally nothing more or less. Ymmv, best of luck.

@nacrandell – Thanks for your thorough list of tips and guidelines. I do want to clarify that my 1/1/5 rule was a rule for student presentations. Faculty should have their own set of priorities, guided first and foremost by what it is they want students to learn that day in class.

I know you’re being sarcastic, but specifically partisan speech is restricted in lots of places. Americans overuse the phrase “free speech”, using it reflexively, like you did, when just the word “speech” alone would have sufficed. “Free speech” is a legal/political systemic concept, not a description of a single specific action. People don’t engage in “free speech”, they just speak.

A public university professor who urges a partisan political outcome in class is crossing the line. Had he brought it up on his own time, and told anyone in class who asked him his position that he would discuss it on his own time, that would be one thing. But he went well beyond that in this case. Moreover, public employees at the federal level are forbidden from electioneering while on the clock, and while I don’t know specifically about Wisconsin, I believe most states have similar laws regarding their own employees.

(A professor at a private, not-for-profit university who did the same thing in the classroom would be wrong but for slightly different legal reasons — charitable nonprofits, those with 501c3 tax exemptions, are barred by the IRS from electioneering.)

But let’s put the law aside for a moment: Is it ETHICAL for a professor to electioneer in class? I would argue that it is not, but primarily because of the possibility that the professor could abuse his power to attach consequences to a student’s decision to ignore or argue with him, not because the speech itself is morally wrong or damaging in and of itself. Otherwise, such speech, although arguably an abuse of power, is pretty inconsequential. Students, after all, are almost all old enough to vote. If you’re old enough to vote, you’re presumed intellectually capable of listening to arguments and making up your own mind. And in most cases, absent the kind of abusive consequences I just mentioned, the appropriate ethical response to problematic speech is more speech, not censorship.

Bottom line on this case, though, is that the prof did something he shouldn’t have done in that particular time and place. I hope the university will make clear to all faculty why that behavior is inappropriate while encouraging civic engagement in times and places in which it is appropriate.

This is not free speech. It is political intimidation by faculty, which is an ongoing problem in the so called liberal arts. The professor must be summarily fired. Either it crosses the line or it does not.

Why is it that any phrase that contains the word “liberal” becomes an evil to so many people? What about Liberal Economic policies? Or Libertarians (sharing the same root)? Liberty? They must all be evil too. Grow up. The liberal arts teach people to think critically and analytically…something that is sorely lacking in the public discourse at this time.

The term liberal arts has its origin in the Roman Empire and denoted the educational pursuits of free citizens (male and female) as opposed to slaves. Any political association is in your imagination. I’d rather have an intelligent, educated population that can think for itself than a bunch of sheep being led to slaughter. Unfortunately the latter case seems to be the rule anymore (for both ends of the political spectrum).

While this is an obvious case conducting oneself poorly in the classroom it is hardly grounds for dismissal by itself. As mbelvadi says… if it’s a pattern of behavior, that changes everything. If it’s a one-off attempt, chalk it up to a mistake that won’t be repeated if he’s properly sanctioned.

Faculty do not intimidate any one in their classrooms beyond their ability to possibly give you a low grade and, with grade inflation, that is not even very likely. Can you actually document your accusation that faculty intimidation is “an ongoing problem” in higher education? Exactly, you have no clue and making arguments based on whatever you feel may be true or perhaps based on a personal paranoid delusion about education is a piss poor way to have a reasonable discourse in this society. Oh, and glad that you are support workers’ rights, yes, let’s “summarily” fire people based on a blurb in the CHE. That makes good sense.

So public universities may tell students what political action to take while churches may not…

An elected official of the government has the authority to deny an individual the right to explain to other individuals that a petition is available to recall a Senator if they wish to sign it? According to the 14 posts, most of you are in agreement? This is exactly the kind of activity you see in China. The Nobel peace prize was given to an academic who advocated democracy in the classroom and the Chinese government refused to acknowledge the recipient’s accomplishments. The power of government over private lives is out of control and on the verge of fascism. The power of students is over the top. The objective of education is exposure to different ideas, all of which can be debated. Any student who demands the punishment of a professor for suggesting alternatives is TOO STUPID to be in college. Any administration which bows to such demands is too greedy and self absorbed to be fit to lead an academic institution.