There is a wide amount of latitude given to academic freedom in a classroom but destruction of a student’s computer falls a bit outside of the norm. For Professor Justin Leroux, of the HEC Montreal (Institute of Applied Economics), however, it appears part of the lesson plan — though the question is whether this was staged or serious.
Supposedly, this encounter occurred after a student peppered Leroux with repetitive questions and challenges over the boring character of his style. This may fall into the category of “too good to be true.” There are indications that this was an April Fool’s joke. If so, it is pretty funny, though some might be put off the the violent element. On the first day of class, I also play a trick on my students by asking a plant to translate Latin and when he does not, I call on a second plant who flawlessly translates the Latin. I then throw the first student out of the class. It is cheaper than destroying a computer each term. There have been a couple of lawsuit over fake gun-touting intruders or even a faux shooting in class.
Ironically, faculty across the country have been debating the impact of computers on classrooms. At my law school, there was a serious effort to ban computers, now used by every law student in class. The feeling among many is that students have become little more than stenographers and that they participate less in class discussions. That appears to be true from my own experience, though I opposed the ban.
For the video, click here
I can relate to this story. On my second day of law school, one particularly gregarious law professor asked me to “stand and deliver” on some arcane aspect of personal property law contained in a case I had dutifully read, but understood not at all. I stammered and pontificated, and generally tried to extract the answer from any passage in the opinion that caught my eye. In his best John Houseman-esque impression, the good professor came to my seat, closed my case book, and then, taking his out his pen and crossing my name and photo from the seating chart said, “you may have a future in stand-up, but your legal career clearly is in doubt.” Thank goodness I did not have a laptop.
Well, on the basis for your entries on this blog alone, he was seriously mistaken. You are a credit to the bar and more importantly to this blog.
Mespo, I agree with JT, your professor was quite wrong in that original assessment. I really enjoy your posts here, and I’m sure you are a force to be reckoned with in the court room.
Mespo,
What JT and Susan said–for sure!
Blast, I hit the “submit” button too soon. I was going to add that I believe intentional public humiliation of a student by a teacher or professor is a very poor way to motivate that student to do better, although some will probably disagree. I think it’s better when a student does well for himself/herself, rather than solely to avoid getting publicly humiliated in class, but that’s just me.
Susan,
I agree. I can’t think of the number of times some idiot in authority told a young person they’d never amount to anything. Do they time travel? How ignorant and cruel.
On the other hand I don’t think it’s out of line to ask students to put away their laptops under the following circumstances. If you are a teacher who believes everyone in the classroom has something to teach everyone else. If you state this from the beginning of the course and explain how laptops will interfere with this type of learning, then I think it’s fair to not use them. If you don’t or can’t teach this way (due to class size or personal technique) then it is not a reasonable request.
Hi Jill!
Of course I agree with the last part of your statement. A reasonable request from a teacher for a student to put away his/her laptop is very different from that same teacher deliberately breaking it. I fully support such a request, I disagree with a teacher’s purposely destroying someone else’s personal property.
Hi Susan!
You and I are/were on the same page with this. The last part of my statement was meant to address the part in the blog about banning laptops. My wording was poor and I apologize.
It is a beautiful day here and I hope it is where you are as well!
Jill
You are all very kind, but you should know that Professor Berryhill and I were fast friends from that day on, playing racquetball and generally enjoying each other’s company. I made my arguments about the law, and he, with his Arkansas twang was good enough to decimate them for me while allowing me enough dignity to come back for more. He is still at the school. We have lunch on an occasional basis, and he is still good at skewering me when I get too full of myself.
Before we involve Socrates and de Sade into this, it might be worth pointing out that the video was an April fool’s prank. A quick search on Youtube will reveal a 9:22mn video exposing the joke.
The students where utterly fooled, and it seems they were not the only ones
Cheers!
JL.
If staged, could the professor be liable for emotional distress? intentional infliction of emotional distress?
There was a case in which a professor staged a shooting as part of the lesson (evidence class??)… wasn’t he liable for IIED?
Generally though, aren’t courts hesitant to allow IIED where no physical harm can be shown? Granted, I believe thats the rule for US courts, and not necessarily that of Canada where this occurred. Still I would think that unless one of the students could show some sort of physical harm or crippling phobia (fear of laptops or teachers for example) that arose from this incident, an IIED claim would not likely succeed.
Come on! These are LAW STUDENTS, for crying out loud, the thoughest characters in town.
bunch of babies.
After going to a Catholic grade school with Benedictine nuns, law school was a snap! After being tied to my chair and forced under the teacher’s desk a few times, I got used to unusual discipline. In fairness to the nuns, I had 50 or more kids in every class through 8th grade so they had to get creative with their discipline. Unfortunately, unlike Mespo, I cannot say that I maintained a relationship with any of them after grade school. I was just happy to get out alive. I can only hope that dealing with me enhanced their educational experience! I think Niblet could have used a few “sessions” with the good Sisters.
Alex:
Are you thinking of 3rd parties and/or transferred intent? Here, I think intent could arise if the professor, desired, knew with substantial certainty, and/or acted recklessly… provided of course that this conduct is sufficiently extreme and that someone in the class was severely distressed.
My guess is that smashing up a laptop could be molded into one of these categories; and the professor probably should have known that this act would be upsetting.
Vince: I like your law student distinction. Does the law professor owe a higher duty of care to his students than a professor who teaches a more thick-skinned audience? Law students are a bit high maintenance
O.K. I independently verified this is a fake, and may I say, great video! I still mean what I said above and would like to hear the legal arguments as if it were a true event. But I have another question.
I didn’t watch the video before I responded (my bad). When I did see it, it did look suspicious but I only saw it after Justin told us it was a hoax. So I don’t know for certain if I would have been suspicious had I seen it before Justin’s entry.
Given the manipulation possible with the technology we have today what do people think is the best way to detect fraud (in this case a great prank)?
Rafflaw, I know it wasn’t funny at the time but I certainly loved your description of “enhanced nunual education”!!!
The laptop guy is an obvious pacifist with a pirated Windows copy. Had it been my Linux computer, there would have been a brawl.
Indeed, there have been lawsuits over staged classroom events, including a couple of fake gun incidents by clueless faculty.
Ahem – Carry on with the hypothetical, however, HEC is a Business School in Montreal and where an Applied Economics class was having
an April Fool’s joke applied to them, as well.
http://www.hec.ca/en/
p.s. mespo, you’ll always have a future in stand-up, but please don’t quit your day job or the blog!
rafflaw:
I was your typical hyperactive child with a penchant for running around the schoolroom. The good sisters broke me of this without dosing me with Ritalin. They simply stapled my trousers –not my flesh– to the seat of my desk.
When I was drafted into the Army back in ’71 & had to endure Basic at Fort Knox & then AIT at Fort Polk, I didn’t understand why my fellow recruits were whining so much. The rigors of military training were as nothing compared to the tortures of parochial school. All the Army wanted was a superficial conformity & obedience; the nuns were after your soul.
To all,
I agree that a staged event would be the equivalent of an actual event in the mind of a person who experienced it. Even if an explanation is received in short order damage might have been done. I know if someone pulled a gun on me I would be terrified and not likely mollified by learning that it had been staged.
My hunch in this case is: it was April fools and the class probably had enough experience with this teacher to know it was a joke. One thing I do know–if any of Justin’s students were injured they’ll know what to call their case now!!!
Dear Jill,
Thank you for your support of the video, and for keeping things hypothetical thereafter. Let me reassure you, no one was harmed in the video. The “student” whose laptop was smashed was actually an actor, and his laptop an antique which had not functioned in years.
Judging from the students’ reactions, even days after the fact, they absolutely LOVED the prank.
I enjoyed reading the legal arguments nonetheless.
Best regards,
Justin
I will say that the most memorable undergraduate professor I had was the one most likely to humiliate and degrade students. Not only was there a constant (and usually futile) effort to achieve his good graces, but those rare moments when a student could either one-up him or deliver a well-timed bon mot would provide a confidence boost unlike any other.
In 1968, Monroe “Monty” Freedman taught the pure Socratic method at GW Law, but with his own conditions.
First, he only called on volunteers. You had to be willing to be skewered and humiliated.
Second, he said he never reduced a students grade for bad classroom performance, but only increased it for good work. I heard (hearsay) that one student(an Army LTC)had his grade upped 15 points for classroom participation.
Third, he tipped the students off to the key method of coping. Go the the law reviews back when the case was decided and get the student case note. Use the 100 hours of student research to flatten the professor. He said that he had been told that it could be an exhilaration experience. Still good advice today.
He read one student’s answer to an exam question to the rest of to show us how it should be done. She wound up on the GW Law faculty for many years.
Vince Treachy:
Vince, I wish I would have gotten that sage advice.
Justin:
I did enjoy your prank and your French sense of humor. Just one probably ignorant question(and maybe an equally ignorant assumption), with the rich history of Gallic literary and stage humor (Voltaire is my hero), why the fascination with clumsy American physical comedian Jerry Lewis?
mespo727272:
I don’t know how to answer this one, I am actually American
An English-subtitled video explaining it all can be found at:
I would like to ask a legal question of my own. I have spent the better part of the last three days doing “damage control”, making sure that most people understood that the entire event had been a prank. I had received a fair number of threats and hate mail from the viewers of Liveleak.com in particular. My department chair and the PR-people at my insitutions had also received unwelcome comments. So here’s my question:
How liable are people who purposely edit and post videos out of context such as the first one you saw, and thus taint the names of a person (me) and of a reputable institution like HEC Montreal?
Thank you very much in advance for your feedback.
Regards,
Justin
Jill:
Thank you for your kind support and your concern.
Justin:
Sorry for the error. I read your CV on the website and saw your birthplace. I made the ignorant assumption which you clarified for me. To make amends, I should initially tell you that I am not licensed in Canada and could only be a poor substitute for local counsel there. However, in this Country most states make actionable a branch of defamation knowns as “false light.” Under that theory an actor is liable in damages and for injunctive relief if the defendant creates:
1). A publication by the Defendant about the Plainitff;
(2). made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in “Defamation” cases);
(3). which places the Plaintiff in a false light;
AND
(4). that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarassing to reasonable persons.
This is but one of several options available to plaintiffs here. You may also have a claim for tortuous and intentional interference in contract if the culprits are attempting to interfere with your employment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; fraud; unlawful appropriation of your likeness or image if done for commercial reasons; slander/libel depending on what was actually said or written; infringement of certain intellectual property rights, and probably many more claims under various Canadian common and statutory law. I would suggest a consultation with local counsel. I am likewise sure that Professor Turley could opine much better than I on your predicament, but I would nip this in the bud before anything gets out of hand. Legal shots over the bow have altered the course of many ships.
Ahh, I knew Mespo was likely from Richmond Law… but I digress.
I think law school prepares one to stand before the tough judges of the world, and therefore believe the Socratic method to be absolutley necessary and essential to a proper legal education.
It hasn’t hurt Mespo a bit.
Jay:
Right on both counts and I totally agree with you.