A fine line exists between academic freedom and politicking when it comes to classroom discussions. This week, a professor up in Wisconsin learned that the hard way.
Stephen Richards, a criminal justice professor at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, has found himself the darling of right-wing talk radio and the blogosphere for taking a position on the recall of Randy Hopper during his class. In a recently released recording of one of his classes, Richards talks for almost 10 minutes about the recall and notes that some students were hanging around with recall petitions if anyone wanted to sign them. The recording was made in March; the university dealt with the concerns and life appears to have moved on.
However, the recording landed on Charlie Sykes’ desk over the past week and has been posted on the state Republicans’ website as well. Media fervor quickly followed, as is to be expected and university officials have declined to issue any additional statements about the matter.
For his part, Richards has remained silent on the issue, saying the university told him to keep is mouth shut, a charge the university denies.
If you listen to the recording, which you can find here, it’s clear this wasn’t a passing moment of some kid asking “Hey, how can I get involved in a recall thing?” and a professor saying, “There are petitions around campus. See me after class.” Richards spoke at length on the issue and clearly brought his own opinions to the table.
While most of the crying, wailing and gnashing of teeth on this is a load of crap, that doesn’t excuse his actions. This was a ton of dumb from an educated guy.
The outcry of students saying, “I’m paying good money to go here and not have my time wasted” is total bullshit.
Spare me.
If he decided to let the class go 10 minutes early, there wouldn’t be a huge hue and cry. Also, based on the number of texts, Facebook updates and other technology-based distractions students engage in, something tells me they aren’t coveting every moment of class time. Yes, you can be upset that you were subjected to this, but let’s not pretend that a professor never wasted time in some other stupid way or that you didn’t blow off at least one minute of your academic career. To complain in this way is disingenuous at best.
The Republicans who are calling for this guy to resign are going after a fly with a sledgehammer, and for good reason as well. The recall elections will likely see six Republican senators fighting to keep their seats in hotly contested races. Hopper appears to be the most vulnerable among these. Media reports have questioned if he’s actually living in the district he represents, if he got his mistress a sweet-heart state job and other things you don’t want hanging over your head in an election cycle.
Best way to get the story to change? Make the story about someone else.
Thus the story goes from “Randy Hopper: sex machine, cheating husband and political twerp” to “Randy Hopper: target of indoctrinating professors and zombie-voting students.”
The public reaction, however, is most disturbing. The student newspaper reported that several people had heard this guy was getting death threats. In addition, the comment boards have been on fire with people calling for his job and saying he’s indoctrinating students.
First, no matter what he said in class, the threat thing is way over the top. If citizens were allowed to kill people for saying stupid crap, Glenn Beck and Donald Trump would already have their faces on a commemorative stamp set.
Second, and more importantly, no one is being indoctrinated. Most of my students (and those of most professors) will tell you that students don’t do things just because you tell them to. If it worked that easily, I’d have more kids studying for tests and fewer of them spelling things wrong.
College students are adults. They can think for themselves. Just because a professor says, “I think Randy Hopper’s an idiot,” it doesn’t necessarily follow that the students will all stagger into the streets craving brains and bad Randy Hopper jokes.
The more important argument here is that there is a perception of undue influence. Professors have authority over grades, which you can argue are one of the more important things a student deals with. A professor can fail a student, forcing the student to retake a class or costing the student access to scholarships and financial aid. If the professor is a big name in a particular field, going against that professor can be career suicide for a student.
(Should grades matter this much? Not in my book, but kids view them as important and thus they are in their world. Perception is the word of the day here at the ol’ FD.)
In this case, none of those things might happen, and only one allegation of undue pressure has come to light (An “unnamed” student made allegations here. As a journalist, this wouldn’t have passed the sniff test for me, but it is something to ponder.). However, several students noted that there was a sense that you might get a bump up or a bump down depending on your petition position. That’s not good for the classroom and that’s not good for democracy.
Richards might think Hopper should be recalled, but the classroom isn’t the venue for that discussion. Had he been in a field like political science, journalism or even a gen-ed on current affairs, maybe he gets a little more leeway in terms of the topic, but not his approach.
Regardless of if he was pro-Hopper, anti-Hopper or a bunny-Hopper, Richards should have understood his efforts put his students in an untenable situation.