On the one hand, it’s a trivial matter no matter how you look at it.  On the other hand, it’s representative of the problems we face in raising precocious children into productive adults.  In the middle is mass media Professor Frank J. Rybicki at Valdosta State University, charged with the battery of his student.

From the VSU Spectator :

The altercation occurred when Dr. Rybicki allegedly closed a laptop computer on the hands of a student, said Dorsena Drakeford, a student in the class and Spectator sports editor.

 Dr. Rybicki closed the laptop because he thought the student was on non-class related websites. The student began to argue with Dr. Rybicki about closing the laptop and about the websites she visited while in class. Class was dismissed early because Dr. Rybicki seemed upset by the incident, Drakeford said. 

A few additional facts come from the student comments to the story, that the student involved was indeed busy using Facebook, Twitter and Youtube during class, despite her denials, and that her classtime enjoyment of social media was her norm.  The professor appears to be very well regarded by students as being one of the best they have.  The student isn’t as well regarded, her Facebook page revealing her self-assessment, “yep, I’m basically perfect,” an attitude which other students found off-putting.

There’s an argument to be made that Rybicki’s shutting her laptop computer was just beyond the line.  There’s an argument to be made that Rybicki’s telling her to stop using social media in class and to close her computer on her own should have been sufficient, thus avoiding any need to push harder.

After class, the student ran to the campus police and complained of the professor’s crime against her person.  The school, of course, has suspended Rybicki and removed him from the classroom, thereby denying the students their teacher and disrupting their course of education.  But charges have been levied, and the school has issued a generic statement in explanation:

All employees are expected to perform their obligations and responsibilities in a professional manner,

Like the Slackoisie Litmus Test, a division of thought exists as to what went wrong here.  From Gawker,

Yes, he closed the laptop of a student who was slacking off in class, and that student pressed assault charges against him, and he was literally arrested, and now he’s suspended, and the police have ordered students in the class “not to talk to anybody about the incident,” and the university is taking it all very seriously. Meanwhile all of the student feedback on the school paper’s website is in support of the teacher.

Your blueprint for success has been laid out, rude student jerks.

On the other hand,  Josh Blackman blames Rybicki’s handling of the matter.

Really, this is why Profs shouldn’t snoop and get involved with what a student is doing on his or her computer. Well, I think this result is absurd, but interesting nonetheless.

Wouldn’t it have been better if the Prof engaged the student on his computer, as I suggest, rather than slamming it shut?

Regardless of where fault is seen, reactions are fairly universal that pursuing criminal charges against Rybicki is wrong, whether because it’s seen as overkill or because viewed as generically absurd.  De minimis non curat lex, a maxim uttered too rarely these days.

The larger issue is the ongoing competition between entitlement and authority, one which presents a far more serious concern.  We’ve seen  instances of students asserting their right to challenge the authority of their professors to control the course of education and behavior in the classroom. 

At some point, they have decided that they “deserve” to be treated as equals, that the teacher’s authority comes from the student’s approval and largesse.  As with government, the power resides with the People, and only by consent of the governed is the authority recognized.

Is the analogy valid?  Does the teacher’s authority stem from the consent of the students?  Can any (and every) individual student decide for herself where the line ends, where the teacher’s authority exceeds that individual student’s right to do as she pleases?

Indeed, another analogy, the inmates taking over the asylum, seems similarly applicable.  While the days of teachers smacking knuckles with a yardstick may be gone, for better or worse, it’s unfathomable how anyone can effectively teach people who believe they are entitled to reject the teacher’s authority to dictate the norms of conduct in the classroom.  Not only would it put the power to disrupt education in the hand of every self-important student, but it would spell the death of education for those who desire to learn but, as here, find their teacher handcuffed by the limit unilaterally imposed by a student who has decided that her right to do as she pleases is superior to everyone else’s right to be educated.

The question isn’t whether Rybicki’s shutting of the student’s computer was the best way to handle the situation.  Let’s assume that it wasn’t, but rather an act of frustration on the part of the professor. Of course, it begs the question of what method of handling the student’s abject refusal to comply with the teacher’s direction would have been appropriate as well as effective.  Under modern notions of educational correctness, the likely “best practice” would have been for Rybicki to let it go during the class and complain about the student to his department chair afterward.  Of course, there’s nothing better than a professor ceding control of his classroom to a student on Facebook, but that’s correctness for you.

Whether the student was a “rude jerk,” or whether the professor was a “snoop” who stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and precipitated an incident that would never have happened if he minded his own business, the question presented is whether the terms and conditions of the classroom are dictated by the teacher or subject to the consent, perhaps the whim, of the student. 

To put it another way, are students freedom fighters or inmates in the asylum?