(Image
via
Getty)
According
to
a
now-deleted
post
on
Reddit,
a
constitutional
law
course
at
the
West
Virginia
University
College
of
Law
“showed
us
3-4
min
of
hardcore
porn
in
class.”
Presumably
as
part
of
an
unconventional
approach
to
teaching
about
the
Third
Amendment’s
proscription
on
quartering
troops
in
private
homes.
We
reached
out
to
WVU
for
comment
and
they
did
not
respond
one
way
or
the
other,
though
multiple
posters
in
the
ensuing
thread
either
claimed
to
be
in
the
class
and
confirmed
the
story
or
purported
to
be
past
students
and
confirmed
that
this
comports
with
their
experience
in
class.
On
behalf
of
professors
everywhere,
I
am
once
again
encouraging
you
to
read
the
syllabus.
Where
it
says
“Debbie
Does
Blackacre,”
that’s
your
queue
to
gear
up
for
a
wild
ride.
Delivering
a
cold
pizza
might
trigger
the
implied
warranty
of
merchantability
and
that
kid
is
NOT
missing
those
points.
In
fact,
this
is
one
of
the
power
moves
that
forced
a
federal
judge
to
resign.
But
as
the
response
above
notes,
it
does
seem
as
though
whatever
pedagogical
value
exists
in
regaling
the
class
with
visual
aides
would
be
equally
if
not
better
served
by
showing
Last
Tango
in
Paris
or
something.
Deciding
not
to
show
the
stuff
falling
on
that
side
of
the
border
in
favor
of
someone
riding
a
sybian
(which
one
post
claimed
to
have
been
part
of
the
materials)
is
a
choice
to
be
provocative
for
the
sake
of
provocative
without
adding
much
educationally.
Though,
and
hear
me
out
here,
you
also
don’t
have
to
show
anything.
This
routinely
comes
up
whenever
some
white
libertarian
bro
professor
decides
to
drop
the
n-word
in
class
to
talk
about
free
speech.
It’s
always
defended
one
of
two
ways
(sometimes
both
at
once).
First,
the
classroom
performance
art
is
described
as
“necessary”
for
students
to
understand
the
underlying
controversy
as
though
every
law
student
in
America
is
breathtakingly
stupid.
As
we
wrote
before:
This
is
the
recurring
theme
of
every
one
of
these
incidents
—
there’s
never
a
scenario
where
just
saying
“racial
epithets
were
used”
doesn’t
accomplish
every
conceivable
pedagogical
goal
unless
you’re
teaching Intro
To
Correctly
Pronouncing
Slurs.
And
yet
we
keep
having
these
incidents
where
white
professors
seem
convinced
that
without
their
elegant
recitation
of
these
terms,
law
students
will
be
left
befuddled
as
to
what
could
have
possibly
been
said.
There
is
a
grand
paradox
in
how
these
professors
routinely
manage
to
cast
aspersions
on
the
maturity
of
students
for
needing
events
“sugar-coated”
even
though
it’s
precisely
because
these
are
highly
educated
and
sophisticated
students
that
they
don’t
need
to
a
full
dramatic
reproduction
to
be
able
to
fill
in
these
gaps.
This
goes
for
porn
too.
Every
other
law
school
manages
to
teach
students
how
to
navigate
Jacobellis
v.
Ohio
sufficiently
well
enough
to
pass
a
test
without
having
to
watch
The
Fertile
Octogenarian
(the
most
terrifying
legally
themed
porn
title).
Second,
they’ll
dial
up
the
toxic
bravado
and
explain
that
lawyers
need
to
be
tough
and
if
any
law
student
who
can’t
take
a
few
slurs
—
or
in
this
case
a
few…
other
things
—
they
aren’t
cut
out
for
the
profession.
Which
is
bullshit.
Some
aspiring
ERISA
attorney
isn’t
disqualified
from
the
profession
because
they
don’t
want
to
be
forced
to
experience
the
fact
pattern
of
every
case
they
read
in
law
school.
Seriously,
do
not
make
people
watch
porn.
This
shouldn’t
be
so
difficult.
Earlier:
Stanford
Joins
List
Of
Law
Schools
With
White
Professors
Using
The
N-Word
In
Class
Joe
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 or
Bluesky
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.