I wholeheartedly disagree. Though many students might not be aware of this, they're enrolled in a degree program to learn. The professor's forceful response to the student, pointing out the logical gaps in his argument, was precisely what was warranted, and all that should occur between the professor and student.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Though many students might not be aware of this, they're enrolled in a degree program to learn. The professor's forceful response to the student, pointing out the logical gaps in his argument, was precisely what was warranted, and all that should occur between the professor and student.
What happened afterwards - the student leaking the e-mail, leading to an online mobbing, then even death threats from other students - are student activities outside of the classroom. It's the responsibility of the deans and administrators (a burgeoning and very well-paid part of the university system) to manage and monitor such student activities - and in this case, to flatly reject their unreasonable demands and reprimand them for their threatening behavior. That's their job. Not only did they fail at that, they initiated more public bullying and libel on their own initiative.
Put it another way: if you observe a child hurting small animals while his parent looks on approvingly, you'd arrest the parents. If you observe an adult hurting small animals by himself, you'd arrest the adult. The social position of a student is somewhere in between these cases - where we assume they hold some moral culpability for their actions but are still receiving guidance on how to act morally in unfamiliar contexts. When it comes to protesting your educator's speech or to interfere with the structure of a curriculum - the boundaries of what is morally acceptable is *not* something that students would have understood before enrolling in a program. Nobody made them sign a statement saying "thou shall not complain about your professor" when they matriculated. So when they *begin* on a path that is clearly morally unacceptable in this regard, the bulk of the responsibility for telling them to stop rests with their current deans, not with themselves or prior authority figures in their lives. And in the case of Anderson, the authority figures not only encouraged their metaphorical act of hurting small animals, but joined in the action themselves. How then can you blame the student for thinking they're doing the right thing?
Sue the university, sue the deans, even sue the other faculty members. Not the student. All that ought to be said to the student was already said in Professor Klein's first e-mail.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Though many students might not be aware of this, they're enrolled in a degree program to learn. The professor's forceful response to the student, pointing out the logical gaps in his argument, was precisely what was warranted, and all that should occur between the professor and student.
What happened afterwards - the student leaking the e-mail, leading to an online mobbing, then even death threats from other students - are student activities outside of the classroom. It's the responsibility of the deans and administrators (a burgeoning and very well-paid part of the university system) to manage and monitor such student activities - and in this case, to flatly reject their unreasonable demands and reprimand them for their threatening behavior. That's their job. Not only did they fail at that, they initiated more public bullying and libel on their own initiative.
Put it another way: if you observe a child hurting small animals while his parent looks on approvingly, you'd arrest the parents. If you observe an adult hurting small animals by himself, you'd arrest the adult. The social position of a student is somewhere in between these cases - where we assume they hold some moral culpability for their actions but are still receiving guidance on how to act morally in unfamiliar contexts. When it comes to protesting your educator's speech or to interfere with the structure of a curriculum - the boundaries of what is morally acceptable is *not* something that students would have understood before enrolling in a program. Nobody made them sign a statement saying "thou shall not complain about your professor" when they matriculated. So when they *begin* on a path that is clearly morally unacceptable in this regard, the bulk of the responsibility for telling them to stop rests with their current deans, not with themselves or prior authority figures in their lives. And in the case of Anderson, the authority figures not only encouraged their metaphorical act of hurting small animals, but joined in the action themselves. How then can you blame the student for thinking they're doing the right thing?
Sue the university, sue the deans, even sue the other faculty members. Not the student. All that ought to be said to the student was already said in Professor Klein's first e-mail.