The other day I told you how a University of Chicago law professor had blatantly misstated the holding of the partial-birth abortion case. Now, a commenter claiming to be a third-year law student at Chicago has the following hilarious comment:
Hey Professor Stone,
When I write my Con Law III exam, will you expect the exam answers to follow your mischaracterizations and falsely state that the Justices “reversed” Stenberg and “accepted” Congress’s findings?
Are you going to deduct points if an answer accurately describes the Court’s opinion, which distinguished Stenberg and refused to place dispositive weight on Congress’s findings?
Maybe you can tell us in class next which approach we should take.
I assume that the commenter is not really a law student in Prof. Stone’s class — but the comment is a scream, whether he is or not. And it does raise a real issue: when you are a student and your professor is advocating things that you know are factually untrue, how do you structure your answers — according to the truth, or according to the professor’s mindset?
I’m glad I’m not in a position to have to make that decision.
By the way, I am currently in an e-mail exchange with Prof. Stone regarding his misinterpretation. So far, he is standing by it. And I didn’t think my jaw could drop any further . . .
I’ll have more on that exchange tomorrow.