Deaths, Law Professors, Law School Deans, Law Schools

Widener Law School Still Isn't Telling Students Its Stance on the 'Dean Killing' Hypothetical

By  
on

Last week, we briefly mentioned the situation of Lawrence Connell. Connell is the Widener Law School professor who wrote a hypothetical involving him killing the dean of Widener Law.

Was the hypo in poor taste? Probably. At the very least it was somewhat disrespectful to his boss. But people are making a huge deal about this. I mean, it wasn’t like Connell wrote a fantasy, or a theory. He wasn’t plotting to kill the dean. He wrote an exam question, a law school hypothetical. I had a professor “hypothetically” fail me during an exam question (I got a B-something in the class I think). These hypos really aren’t that big of a deal.

I don’t expect laypeople to understand this, but I’d expect law students and professors to get it.

But not the educational professionals at Widener. In fact, the school is still kind of fanning the flames of this issue…

If you haven’t been following this story, there’s a good summary on DelawareOnline. Here are the basics:

Connell considered the pretend notion of his murdering the Widener School of Law dean an absurd example meant to help students remember a legal principle.

But at least two students filed complaints with administrators, calling it violent, racist and sexist, according to Connell’s attorney, Thomas Neuberger.

Now, the controversial classroom imagery has left the associate professor fighting to keep his job of 26 years and alleging Widener violated his right to academic freedom.

Sponsored

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Connell is white, and Linda Ammons, the hypothetically murdered dean, is black. Choose your own adventure.

If you ask me, I’d rather not live in a world where only white people can be hypothetically murdered in law school exams. You can’t tell me that law students in Ohio made it through an entire semester of crim law without somebody offing LeBron James.

Based on the information available, I think the racial issue is a red herring. And the Widener administration cryptically suggests that there is more information out there.

Not that they’re actually telling anybody what this additional information might be. Widener just wants to invoke the specter of additional facts to come without actually being open and transparent about what is going on.

Here’s the email that Widener president James T. Harris sent out to students regarding the controversy:

Sponsored

Dear Students,

In the past few weeks you may have read or heard news stories about Professor Larry Connell, who is currently on a leave of absence from the Widener School of Law. As you may have gleaned from the news coverage, you have heard only Professor Connell’s attorney’s side of the story due to Widener’s policy of honoring the confidentiality of personnel information by not commenting on such matters publicly or in the press.

We respect the dignity and rights of every member of our academic community. That is why we have codes of conduct and listen carefully and take seriously any student, staff or faculty concerns about questionable behavior. We would never enter into a public debate on a personnel matter.

I know it can be tempting to draw your own conclusions about this matter without having access to the specific details of the case, but I ask you to withhold your judgment until this issue can be resolved civilly between the parties in question. Rest assured that we are following established processes at Widener and look forward to the resolution of this matter in a timely fashion.

Sincerely,
James T. Harris III, D.Ed.
President

I really don’t care for statements like this. If you have something to say, comment. If you aren’t going to issue a substantive statement, then just give a “no comment” and get back to your day. But don’t waste three paragraphs suggesting that there is more to say but that “dignity” prevents you from saying it. That’s weak. That’s like getting punched in the mouth and yelling “somebody hold me back” and then patiently waiting for your friends to “restrain” you when you never had any intention of rising to the challenge in the first place.

Harris is sitting here asking students not to believe one side of the story when he is purposely hiding the other side of the story from his students.

And he’s talking to law students. He’s talking to a group of people who would totally understand the statement “because this matter is the subject of pending litigation, we cannot comment on specific allegations at this time.” That would have been fine.

Just don’t act like Widener is somehow above public debate about this issue because of its code of conduct and dignity. If they’re not going to dignify these allegations with a response, then don’t respond. Connell is begging for a public debate about this. Debate him, or don’t debate him. But it’s insulting to say essentially: “Oooh, I could say a lot of things right now, but… no, I’m not going to say anything at all.” Spit it out, or don’t bring it up at all.

The world doesn’t slow down because Widener Law wishes it so. Right now, it looks like the school massively overreacted to an exam question. If they’ve got information that suggests otherwise, we’re all listening.

When this gets litigated out two years from now, I’m sure Widener will claim “victory” or “vindication” over whatever (settlement) happens. But the court of public opinion is passing judgment right now. Those aren’t my rules, those are the rules.

Play the game, don’t play game, it’s Harris’s call. But don’t act like the game isn’t going on right now.

Imagery puts Widener law professor under fire [DelawareOnline]

Topics

, , , , , , , , ,