No professor enjoys poor teaching evaluations but University of Wisconsin-Whitewater communications professor Sally Vogl-Bauer has taken a more aggressive approach. She has sued former student Anthony Llewellyn who took her class last year and wrote a scathing evaluation. She says that the evaluation contains untrue and defamatory statements, but the lawsuit raises troubling questions in the pursuit of a former student for expressing his opinion of a class and a teacher.
Llewellyn posted videos on YouTube and wrote comments on Blogger.com and TeacherComplaints.com. He wrote comments that said that Vogl-Bauer criticized his intellectual ability, treated him unfairly, and was the reason that he failed out of school. He also says that he spoke with Vogl-Bauer about these concerns two months before he was told that she had failed him.
Attorney Tim Edwards is representing Vogl-Bauer and says that the review was not an honest evaluation but “a concerted effort to attack somebody’s reputation because things didn’t go your way, that’s much different.” Llewellyn was asked to take down his comments and videos but refused. Vogl-Bauer then sued him for punitive damages and fees. The case has not been dismissed and will receive a jury trial in September.
Vogl-Bauer’s author bills her as an “award-winning teacher” and she has co-authored a book on “Interpersonal Communications.”
Llewellyn suggests that such interpersonal skills were lacking in alleged comments that he was a terrible student and did not belong in college. Vogl-Bauer calls such comments libel, plain and simple. The lawsuit charges that Llewellyn “engaged in an intentional, malicious and unprivileged campaign to defame Dr. Vogl-Bauer, resulting in substantial economic, reputational and emotional injuries.”
Llewellyn said that he tried to contact the school officials to object to what he called Vogl-Bauer’s “degrading, demeaning, verbally attacking” of him as well as various outside groups.
I have not been able to locate a copy of the complaint, but much of the quoted comments appear to fall into the category of opinion which is not actionable. There does not appear to be a question that the defendant was indeed in the class. Such opinion may be demeaning and degrading but still protected. My concern is that we have seen an increase in actions against people posting reviews of restaurants, hotels, and others on sites inviting reviews. The sites themselves are generally not liable for such comments but they have been hit with lawsuits to strip commenters of anonymity.
The question will come down to what is demonstrably untrue and what is merely an opinion.
The case reminds one of Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur, 759 F.2d 219, (2d Cir. 1985), where a Chinese restaurant sued a food critic for a negative review. The reviewer made the following allegedly libelous comments:
(1) “It is impossible to have the basic condiments … on the table.”
(2) “The sweet and sour pork contained more dough … than meat.”
(3) “The green peppers … remained still frozen on the plate.”
(4) The rice was “soaking … in oil.”
(5) The Peking Duck “was made up of only one dish (instead of the traditional three).”
(6) The pancakes were “the thickness of a finger.”
The jury found for the restaurant and awarded $20,000 in compensatory and $5 in punitive damages. However, the court of appeals reversed and found that the statements were protected as “opinion.” Notably, the statement about the Peking Duck came closest in the court’s view since it was a factual statement, but the court still found that it would not support the verdict due to the absence of malice:
Because of the absence of evidence showing either that Bridault or Millau knew that Peking Duck was not traditionally served as three dishes or that they subjectively entertained serious doubts about the accuracy of the statement that it is traditionally served in three dishes, we cannot say that the existence of malice has been established by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, this statement cannot support the judgment entered below.
I do not see the Peking Duck comment in the coverage of this lawsuit but that is why it would be good to review the complaint.
Source: Gazette Extra
” I talked to my cousin, on the board of regents”
Privileged much?
The syllabus of the classes I went to all stated plainly that attendance was expected and that my grade would reflect whether I was there or not. Why should the teacher expect the people enrolled in the class to show up and participate?
Pale Scot – I do remember a graduate class in which only 3 of us were enrolled and we all decided to take a mental health day. The professor was not a happy camper.
This one’s tough because of the student’s extensive campaign against the prof. I would hope that if the court (jury?) finds against the defendant, the court includes a caution that the finding doesn’t mean reasonable opinion can be suppressed capriciously.
Paul,
Let’s just say, I didn’t pull that card until I had to. Something that I thought was interesting is I was on the Presidents Advisory Board for a year. Never figured out why.
keebler – I am on the President’s email list and I do know why.
Reblogged this on Gottalovethenavy.wordpress.com and commented:
Thank You and Kudos to the Blogger!
It is the usual story these days…If you have “Sweet things to say” you can speak all you want. If you criticize, then you are “Cut-off”. I found that out some time ago, when I complained to both Democrat and Republican Politicians about “Police” profiling/discrimination with (evidence)…..NO RESPONSE.
“Article II of the “Bill of Rights” = Liberty’s Teeth”- General George Washington…Revolutionary War 1776.
Oxa, Great comment, thanks. As I said earlier, Timothy Edwards, the plaintiffs attorney, was very harsh on the defendant. Edwards did not mention he too was “reviewed” by the defendant. Complaints filed and letters written to agencies in my mind, and I believe in the courts mind, different than making anonymous posts castigating someone.
On a personal note, I can certainly relate to the vindictive review on Amazon. I have a woman who stalks me. My wife has 2 books on Amazon. This vile stalker posted a review, crazily written, alleging I sexually abused my daughter, that my wife ignored it, and that my daughter is obese because of it. Amazon took it down quickly. Then, this crazy stalker posted a review alleging I was a stalker and my wife an abuse victim. That was also taken down. So, now the review is that my wife is a terrible writer. It’s laughable because the crazy woman says the same for both books!! If the first was so horrible, why would you buy and read the second.
So, Oxa, you have swayed me. I still would like to read the complaint. But, your superb comment makes me lean significantly toward the plaintiff. That said, I think she still has a tough road. I am VERY EMPATHETIC to her plight.
Nick – The student didn’t keep his comments to 3 venues, and yes, he was trying to destroy her. He complained to the university administration, he complained to the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission, he posted 4 videos on YouTube, he wrote a letter to the Eastern Communication Association, he sent an email to every colleague of hers in the department, he wrote tirades on 4 different Blogger.com blogs, he submitted a complaint to Ripoff Report (http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/university-of-wisconsin-whitewater/whitewater-wisconsin-53190-1790/university-of-wisconsin-whitewater-uw-whitewater-uw-whitewater-teachers-outrageous-lawsu-1146321), and he called her lawyer “dirty and incompetent” (http://warningabouttimothydedwards.blogspot.com/2014/03/serious-warning-about-lawyer-timothy-d.html). In his rants, the student has urged readers to not buy her book, and the direct result is a 1-star review of it on Amazon. Mr Keebler is on target when he says that the single course this student took with this professor was not likely to be the only reason for his departure from the university. Commenters should read some of the student’s screeds before opining. [Apologize if this comment is a duplicate. The spam filter apparently ate my earlier one, probably because of too many URLs.]
Darren, Wi has no anti-SLAPP law on the books. Some have tried, including Newspaper Associations. But no success yet.
Good Lord!
We have issues of vulgarity police;
and now that of blogging/critic authoritarianism.
Next thing you know, Romney will sue me for being a pain in his ——
100 years from now, you’ll have permission to raise your hand at 9:15 am only
If you do it at 9:16 am, the Time Police, will go to civil war with the raised hand out of sync Police; and will not see any blogs about such
because the Blog Police will have been the one
who raised the hand at 9;16 am!
The lesson being taught here is perhaps not what the professor thinks they are teaching. “Call me bad names and I will sue you!” One has to wonder why the teacher is taking these comments from a failed student so seriously.
I had an issue with a grad student professor that gave me a C when it should have been an A. No problem, she wouldn’t change it because I rarely showed up to class. I talked to the Dean, she upped it to a B. I still not was not satisfied. I talked to my cousin, on the board of regents. It’s amazing how quickly the grade was changed.
It is my understanding she switched from the business school to the college of RTF and finished her degree. Never had a problem again.
Now with this case, I am sure that this one class was not why he got kicked out of college. It’s best to take responsibility for ones actions and not do stupid like this student. Say that she gets a judgment, is the kid collectable? Or is all she wants is the stuff taken down, she probably has a good chance.
keebler – it is not what you know but who you know. If I had a hook in the board of regents for my university I could have had one of my idiot professors fired for incompetence. However, I didn’t and couldn’t. Nepotism always has an upside.
I wonder if Wisconsin has SLAPP laws
If not, it certainly would be a good time to enact such laws.
We have all had whiney babies as students. I remember being told by a law student that I couldn’t possibly give the student a D as all of the student’s other grades were A’s. The entire exchange was done by email. There was a deep silence when I said the D was a gift. I am sure my evaluation by that student was not stellar.
Justice Holmes – the current president did not happen to work at your school did he? I am sure he was guilty of inflating grades since he really knows little or nothing about the Constitution.
Nick – The student didn’t keep his comments to 3 venues. He complained to the university administration, he complained the Better Business Bureau, he posted a video on YouTube, he wrote a letter to the Eastern Communication Association, he sent an email to all her colleagues in the department, he wrote comments on Blogger.com (http://uwwhitewaterwarninggarbageuniversity.blogspot.com/2013/08/uw-whitewater-warning-garbage.html) and TeacherComplaints.com, he submitted a complaint to Ripoff Report (http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/university-of-wisconsin-whitewater/whitewater-wisconsin-53190-1790/university-of-wisconsin-whitewater-uw-whitewater-uw-whitewater-teachers-outrageous-lawsu-1146321), and he called her lawyer “dirty and incompetent” (http://warningabouttimothydedwards.blogspot.com/2014/03/serious-warning-about-lawyer-timothy-d.html). I think we need to look at the totality f this student’s campaign.
The student sounds a bit off kilter, since corroborating evidence is absent showing that the teacher was toxic.
But it appears that opinions and reviews can be costly. Now banksters and other money handlers are getting into the ‘don’t blame me’ game:
Joseph and Neidin Henard thought they had finally fixed the mortgage that was crushing them.
In January, the couple reached a settlement with every company that had a stake in the mortgage on their house in Santa Cruz, California, a deal that would have slashed their monthly payment by almost 40 percent to $3,337. It was the end of a process that started with their defaulting in 2009.
But when they saw the final paperwork for their settlement, they found that Ocwen Financial Corp, the company that collected and processed their mortgage payments, had added an extra clause: they could not say or print or post anything negative about Ocwen, ever.
The Henards’ experience was not unusual. Mortgage payment collectors at companies including Ocwen, Bank of America Corp and PNC Financial Services Group are agreeing to ease the terms of borrowers’ underwater mortgages, but they are increasingly demanding that homeowners promise not to insult them publicly, consumer lawyers say. In many cases, they are demanding that homeowners’ lawyers agree to the same terms. Sometimes, they even require borrowers to agree not to sue them again.
These clauses can hurt borrowers who later have problems with their mortgage collector by preventing them from complaining publicly about their difficulties or suing, lawyers said. If a collector, known as a servicer, makes an error, getting everything fixed can be a nightmare without litigation or public outcry.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/us-banks-mortgages-insight-idUSBREA4K03U20140521
Hush money by any other standard…..
The entire episode is unfortunate.
Does it not harm the teacher’s reputation more to aggressively sue a former student because she did not like his review? I would be more put off by her actions than by one negative review.
What seems better is for there to be a mechanism in place for these review sites to investigate and remove reviews that seem untrue or retaliatory.
Does the school have a position about a professor suing one of its former students in such a way?
I saw the plaintiff’s attorney, Tim Edwards, interviewed on local news. He didn’t seem like the kind of attorney I would hire. He was too emotional for my tastes, really blasting the defendant. Not knowing the plaintiff or defendant, and not seeing the complaint, it’s difficult to evaluate. But, from what I can tell, the defendant kept his comments to 3 venues. It’s not like he was writing to every newspaper in Wi. or buying full page ads, trying to destroy the professor. The only judgment I would make is the professor seems a bit thin skinned, not unlike our President. Professors can be that way.
According to Inside Higher Ed (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/23/professor-sues-student-over-his-online-reviews-her-course), the student also sent written complaints about the professor to the Eastern Communication Association and to her colleagues in the department. It also says the student did not drop out of the university, but was dismissed.This is more than a simple negative review. The student was engaged in a widespread campaign against the professor, so the totality of his efforts must be taken into account. Unlike the Peking duck reviewer, this student is obviously motivated by malice and engaged in a vendetta.
Often teacher evaluations by students are done with the results unexposed to the student body. At a big university, it is often important to know how you are going to interact with a particular professor. At my alma mater, the students started their own unofficial evaluation of professor, rating them on a variety of things. However, they did not include personal comments.
I do know that complaining about either a grade or a professor does you no good at a university. At best you can embarrass them, but you cannot get them to change the grade. And any complaints just fall on deaf ears.
I think that if the student did try to go through administrative channels, he would have had little luck.
Then there is the matter of perceived damages. I cannot see how a tenured professor can come to financial harm. Additionally, if this was an Interpersonal Communication class, surely there was a failure to communicate to the satisfaction of both parties.