Did Michigan's Prof. Cheney-Lippold Misuse His Position in Class?

In addition to denying a student's requested study-abroad reference for political reasons (as explained here), it appears that Prof. Cheney-Lippold also misused his position in class. Here is what Dean Elizabeth Cole said in the letter informing Cheney-Lippold of the school's disciplinary measures:

[Y]ou used class time in your course Amcult 3S8 on Tuesday, September 18, 2018 to discuss your political opinions. In your meeting with me on September 20, 20I8, you contended that you spent only 15 minutes of class time on these issues. But [names redacted] revealed that you dedicated all or nearly all of class time in Amcult 358 and Amadt I03 to discuss your reasons for not writing the recommendation, as well as your opinions on the boycott movement. Beyond issues of candor, you did not honor your responsibility to teach your students the material on your syllabus related to your field of expertise. . . . Although this material was discussed in only one session, an entire class period was a significant portion of your total contact hours with students over the semester.

This use of class time to discuss your personal opinions was a misuse of your  role as a faculty member. The result was that at least [number redacted] students [dropped the course].

You can read the entire letter here. [Note: the bracketed phrase "dropped the course" was provided to me by a knowledgeable source; it is redacted in my copy of the letter itself.]

Cheney-Lippold's conduct, however, was actually worse than that. Here is how he described it himself in an interview with the Washington Post:

He also has been able to turn the dispute into a valuable teaching opportunity, he said. Cheney-Lippold, who is the author of “We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of our Digital Selves,” is teaching two courses this semester, one on cultural studies “from origins to the Internet” and the other on “the politics of code.”

In both class meetings on Tuesday, he said, he opened the floor for questions and discussion. Some of his students were critical of him, he said. Others affirmed their support.

“A Jewish student, a student who identified himself as Jewish, said, ‘All of my friends were calling this professor an anti-Semite, and I told them he’s the furthest thing from an anti-Semite,’ ” Cheney-Lippold recounted.

An open class session, with the teacher in attendance, is inherently coercive. Cheney-Lippold therefore had no business seeking support, or even accepting it, from students to whom he will later assign grades. It is impressive that some students had the courage to criticize him, but there is no way to know how many felt pressure to express approval. And even if they were sincere, they were nonetheless pressed into making statements in front of their classmates.

What student wouldn't confirm to Cheney-Lippold that he is "the furthest thing from an anti-Semite"? Seeking and invoking that sort of endorsement -- during a class period, with other students present -- is the definition of exploitation.

Comments

[David H Schraub]

I'm not sure I quite agree here. Yes, I get the problem that there's an inherent power imbalance between the teacher and students. Nonetheless, it seems obvious that teachers have to address "the elephant in the room" in cases like this, and an open forum where people can ask questions and give comments is as good as any. I know, for example, that some professors who signed the anti-Kavanaugh letter (where that issue was germane to their classroom curriculum) also were willing to discuss it in class -- with the strong proviso that such a discussion was meant to be open to all views and without prejudice to those who disagreed on the merits of the Kavanaugh confirmation -- I thought that was a wise decision on their part.

Should we read much into any statements of glowing praise made in such a context? Probably not, for all the obvious reasons. But I don't think having the discussion itself represents an abuse of professorial authority.

[Steve L.]

Thanks for commenting, David. Sorry about the delay in posting; it was stuck in the spam folder while I was in class.

Cheney-Lippold had other ways of addressing the elephant in the room, including holding an optional town hall for his students. Dean Cole specifically addressed that in her disciplinary letter, saying "If you felt students in your classes needed an opponuni1y to discuss the controversy in which you were involved, it would have been more appropriate to either invite a third party to lead that conversation, or to hold a dedicated office hour for students with questions about the matter."

[r]

When I was in law school, I had two classes in which the Professors' personal views on contentious subjects were a matter of interest to the students. In both instances, the Professors scheduled separate, optional, and non-class related question and answer forums. Both discussion sessions were well attended and students felt free to express their own opinions. I don't know whether or not the students would have felt the same freedom in an in-class session. However, I completely agree with Cole's letter that using non-optional class time for these matters would have been entirely inappropriate.

[The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated]

Somebody get him a hair cut and a shave. I think I saw him sleeping in a cardboard box with a bottle of Night Train near LaSalle Street Station. Every wonder why Union guys and hard hats voted for Trump? Exhibit #1