What Was This Law Professor Thinking? A Teaching Technique Triggers Terror In Students

Creativity in teaching is generally a good thing, but maybe this professor went a bit too far.

As law school applications and enrollment have dropped, some law schools and professors have responded by innovating, in an effort to make a legal education more enticing to prospective students. We’ve covered in these pages the rise of experiential learning, clinical training, and incubators, for example.

But sometimes innovation and creativity in teaching go a bit awry. Back in 2010, for example, a Georgetown criminal law professor’s unorthodox attempt to make a point about the reliability of informants caused an unfounded rumor about Chief Justice Roberts retiring from SCOTUS to go viral.

The rumor sparked a nationwide frenzy and even wound up being the subject of an NPR story (about how the rumor spread so rapidly, not about the “retirement” itself). But no lasting damage was caused — so today’s tale of a pedagogical mishap might be worse.

Here’s what one source told us about Indiana Law professor Aviva Orenstein’s ill-advised attempt to teach a lesson about eyewitness identification:

An evidence professor at IU Law has apologized after she faked an angry intruder in order to prove that eyewitness testimony is not always trustworthy. People called 911 and hid under desks, and rumor has it at least one student left through the emergency exit.

Some person no one had seen before (maybe a relative?) played the intruder. The guy came in and said “Aviva Orenstein!” … slowly approached her … “You are the woman responsible for taking away my children!” She said, “No no, not in here!” and escorted him into the hallway.

A handful of students followed her out there to make sure she’d be OK. That’s when one student called 911.

In light of the violence and tragedies that have occurred at universities around the country over the past few years (and past few weeks), this incident did not go over well. To her credit, Professor Orenstein realized this and promptly apologized:

Dear Evidence Students,

I want to sincerely apologize because of the fear and concern I caused in our classroom today. Given recent events in other universities, it makes sense that an angry intruder would be a cause for concern and real terror. I feel terrible that I clearly upset students and that it interfered with your learning, sense of safety, and well-being. Although I had planned to do some follow-up regarding the eye-witness identification, I have decided not to pursue it.

Please feel free to talk to me about this. I didn’t fully appreciate the problem until some students spoke to me after class and let me understand how harmful and terrifying the incident was for them.

Obviously, my goal is for our classroom to be a safe and welcoming environment. I cannot tell you how distressed I am that what I hoped would be a memorable example about the deficits of eyewitness testimony ended up being an frightening and painful episode.

Please accept my apology and my assurance that nothing like this will ever happen again in our class or future classes.

Thanks,
Aviva Orenstein

Sponsored

Professor Orenstein’s apology sounds quite heartfelt, but it seems that not everyone was mollifed:

Lots of people emailed her being ticked off. Even after she apologized. Imagine, for instance, if someone really thought she was in danger and hurt the actor. So many things could have gone wrong.

We reached out to Professor Orenstein but haven’t heard back from her. If and when we do, we will update this story.

Creativity in legal education is welcome and, in fact, sorely needed. But it’s possible to have too much of a good thing.

UPDATE (10/26/2015, 8 a.m.): Another student at Maurer Law contacted us to offer this version of events:

Sponsored

I just read your article about Professor Orenstein’s evidence class, and while your piece was very well written, and Professor Orenstein did act irresponsibly, I’m afraid your witness gave you an overdramatized account of the events.

I sit [in the back of the room near] the fire escape. While it is true that people were visibly concerned and shaken by the events on Wednesday, I saw no one duck behind their desk. Furthermore, the person who left through the fire escape was not fleeing. At the time he left, the professor and the actor, along with a few students, had gone into the hallway. He wasn’t fleeing, he probably left to take a smoke break, and he came back to the classroom within 5 minutes.

I thought your piece was very well written and it is a story that needs to be told. A girl who sits by me in class was so scared that she was visibly shaking 40 minutes after the incident transpired. That being said, I want to give you the most accurate portrait of events possible in the name of quality reporting.

UPDATE (10/26/2015, 1:15 p.m.): Another source wrote to us in defense of Professor Orenstein:

I was one of Aviva Orenstein’s teaching assistants when she taught at Rutgers in the 90’s. She used a similar demonstration in her classes then. While I understand the sensitivity of the students because of the recent incidents of campus violence, I am confident that Aviva did the demonstration with the best of intentions. In my opinion, in some form, it remains a valuable teaching technique.

We thank these sources for the additional information. Whenever you have something to add to a story on Above the Law, please don’t hesitate to email us or text us (646-820-8477). Thank you.

Earlier: Anatomy of a Rumor: The Story Behind Chief Justice John Roberts’s ‘Retirement’