Law School Prof Says ACTUALLY Asking Me For A Longer Exam Window Is A Lot Like Killing George Floyd

This is ill-advised at best and potentially racist at worst.

Everyone is stressed out about trying to make law school work during a pandemic. That includes the professors who are attempting to reinvent the wheel on the fly too. This has created some turmoil with three professors teaching one Civ Pro class (and reportedly forgetting to cover estoppel in the handoff) and more than one school accidentally sending the exam out early and requiring professors to craft new tests overnight. So we feel for professors letting the stress get to them.

But, you know, don’t ever write emails like this one.

An SBA representative at UCLA Law wrote Professor Taimie Bryant after hearing concerns from 1Ls that the remotely administered final exam would be shoehorned into a 3 hour and 40 minute window:

I will admit that I am not well versed in the finals decisions that each professor makes and the overall process that goes on at the law school, but, from my understanding, I thought professors were strongly recommended to have a 24-hour window for students to take their exams in this semester. This is in order to take into account that students are in different time zones, students may have different peak hours of internet connectivity depending on the other members in their households and their internet usage times, and students may have different hours of availability as I know students are juggling a lot right now with managing parental duties, managing sick family members (as I know, personally, there are students who have family members currently battling covid), and other things that pop up.

Excellent points about virtual testing, connectivity issues, and the importance of flexibility in a crisis. And the fact that other professors seem to be adhering to this advice is also compelling. In response, the professor wrote:

Thank you for your representation of some students in Section 2. I appreciate your comments but I will not be changing the window.

Faculty were told initially that all exams were scheduled at times that Records and IS staff could assist students with technical problems. That is, all exams were scheduled to begin in the morning. This would accommodate students in different time zones in the United States, and if someone were in, say, Europe or Asia, special arrangements could be made. As it stands now, a student on the east coast can begin any time between 12:30 pm PST and 4:10 pm PST. Starting as late as 4:10 pm puts them outside the window for technical support not long after the exam begins. A student on the west coast can begin any time between 9:30 am and 1 pm. This is fully within the window for technical support.

“Sorry, but we’re doing this to guarantee everyone has technical support, and I feel like that’s the most important thing I have to ensure for the students,” is an entirely reasonable response. Had the email ended here, student government could report back to its constituents that there is a reason for the window, even if it seems harsh, and everyone could go on about their day.

Sponsored

But instead what happened was…

While I do not mind giving reasons for many decisions I make, I do mind being told that “other faculty are doing things differently than you.” I gently recommend that you not rely on such reasoning in this day and age (after Mr Floyd’s murder) when people are trying to think conscientiously about their decisions so as not to be mere thoughtless followers.

I’m sorry, what?

Somehow the prospect of an overnight exam window doesn’t feel as though it’s of a moral equivalency to standing by while a man is slowly choked to death. It’s like she took the “if everyone jumped off a cliff” logical fallacy and decided to dial it up a notch by injecting some fresh racial trauma. And as offensive as that should be in any circumstance, that a white woman would pull this bizarre analogy out of her bag of tricks to respond to a Black woman carries this well over the line.

Maybe Bryant’s got some sort of explanation for how this makes sense to her. But this is one of those cases where the document speaks for itself. Whatever rationalization might exist, this is the artifact that she chose to freeze in time and certainly the one that she expected the audience of a Black law student to read stripped of any semblance of a justification. Not that I can imagine one.

Sponsored

Besides, objectively speaking, it is not a strong argument in most cases because it depends on there being a persuasive underlying reason for those others to be doing what they are doing.

“Not a strong argument”… you mean, precedent?

Because citing the practices of other professors is just persuasive precedent. If anything it’s exactly the sort of argument that law school is designed to drill into students as paramount. There’s a distinction between the argumentum ad populum fallacy and precedent and, yes, it’s partially about a “persuasive underlying reason,” but there’s also value to learning from the experience itself. To wit, if everyone jumped off a cliff… and survived because it was only a 1 foot cliff, that’s important to your decision.

Here, it’s all about understanding that the student isn’t saying the professor should offer flexibility just because other professors have, but that based on the experience of other professors, Bryant can feel secure that there are minimal risks and that students can and have successfully dealt with it.

I’m not persuaded by the time zone rationale for reasons I explain above. Also, as a law-trained person, I gently suggest that you refrain from statements like this: “l know your students have been diligently studying for your exam and are not using the extended window to somehow get an advantage.”

Actually, no… you do not know what all students are doing, and such a statement affects your overall persuasion and credibility in two ways. First, that thought had not occurred to me until you wrote it, as I was focused on the technical support issue. Raising that idea actually weakens your argument by suggesting an additional reason that might cause someone to remain even more committed to their initial decision.

Actually, as someone who litigated instead of joining a law school faculty the year after getting a J.D., let me suggest that lawyers should foreground and address the other side’s best arguments rather than hoping to hide the ball. That the professor wasn’t thinking about the impact this might have on the sanctity of the exam until the student raised it is unfortunate but probably says more about the professor in this case. She goes on to argue that it’s impossible to really know that students wouldn’t abuse the extra time as if law students aren’t placed in the situation of 24-hour take homes all the time without the credibility of legal education collapsing. Somehow, the bulk of the entire email is devoted to making ultimately defensive arguments against this point.

Again, I appreciate your willingness at this busy time to expend energy and time to assist others. I could tell from your beautifully written email that you invested much time and thought crafting it. I acknowledge you for this and believe that it indicates a strong moral compass. In recognition of that, I have similarly invested energy and time in responding to you.

I think she genuinely believes that she’s done that here. Except… she didn’t. The email was certainly long, but not particularly responsive. Despite all the digital ink spilled, there was never an answer to the family care issues or the general sentiment that flexibility is valuable during a pandemic. The entirety of the SBA rep’s argument was reduced to “time zones,” which was the only part where the professor had a good answer and, then the reply devolved into this “taking advantage” hypothetical and making absolutely inexcusable comparisons to how joining her colleagues in offering flexibility is of a kind with complicity in killing unarmed Black people.

If this represents investing energy and time into crafting a response, might I suggest that next time the professor give herself a 24-hour window to get her thoughts together first?


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.