State of the Profession: Teaching Evaluation or Cyberstalking?

By Martin Snyder

Daniel Curzon-Brown, a faculty member at the City College of San Francisco, is leading a crusade against what he judges to be vicious and defamatory attacks on faculty on the Internet. The specific target of Curzon-Brown’s wrath is a Web site that posts anonymous, and sometimes offensive, critiques of professors at his college. Curzon-Brown and other faculty members have documented numerous instances of vulgar, allegedly defamatory, and even life-threatening comments.

According to Curzon-Brown, the site’s administrator does not usually ascertain whether those submitting critiques are actual students at City College, or whether individuals post multiple comments about the same instructor. A disclaimer on the site reminds visitors that the opinions expressed are those of individual students. Similar Web sites edit student evaluations and remove offensive comments.

Critics have for years pointed out the weakness of instruments for student evaluation of teaching. In this issue of Academe, Paul Trout discusses the problems associated with standardized teaching evaluations and the pernicious effects they can have on the level and quality of instruction. The Association’s 1975 Statement on Teaching Evaluation acknowledges the complexity of evaluating teaching and the usefulness of student evaluations. But the Statement clearly recognizes that the primary role in evaluating teaching belongs to the faculty.

It is hardly surprising that faculty members have taken to heart offensive comments about their professional competence, teaching skills, or personal lives. Such criticism is never easy to bear. When, however, the Internet multiplies public access to such comments exponentially, it becomes possible for one angry student on an unregulated site to destroy a reputation or a career. The possibility that bogus evaluations may eventually find their way into a promotion or tenure process is not unthinkable. Under these circumstances, so-called teaching evaluations may become little more than "cyberstalking."

Of course, more than merely personal consequences are involved. Faculty members, intimidated by such Web sites, may feel that "dumbing down" their courses, lowering expectations, and giving higher grades will allow them to avoid the harsh public criticism reputedly meted out to more demanding instructors. They may well perceive that professional and economic survival is at stake.

At the moment, victims of abusive, anonymous criticism on Web sites have little legal recourse. Since 1996, when the Communications Decency Act went into effect, Internet service providers, unlike traditional media, have been immune from libel liability. The service providers argue that they are merely the conduit for third-party opinions. Some First Amendment lawyers contend that Web administrators, such as those controlling teaching evaluation sites, should be granted the same immunity as a service provider. Curzon-Brown has challenged this position in court. The American Civil Liberties Union has, however, defended the Web administrator’s position, arguing that student opinions, even if unkind, are merely matters of opinion and expressions of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

The solution to this issue is clearly not censorship. The academic community realizes the value of free speech, even if such speech at times offends, and the Association has repeatedly defended the right of faculty members to express unpopular opinions. Instead, what is needed are policies on teaching evaluation that take Web sites into account. Faculty members may wish to question the wisdom of establishing official, institutional computer links to Web sites that disseminate teacher evaluations, or to consider the creation of a campus Web site that clearly states and enforces guidelines for posting such evaluations. Alternative solutions to censorship are available. In the long run, the best antidote to bad information is not no information, but good information.

Martin Snyder is AAUP program director for academic freedom and professional standards.

 Printer-Friendly Page