The New York Times has published an article about how an Ohio State professor gave oral, instead of written exams, to a star football player. This has been referred to as "unusual aid", "special treatment", "preferential treatment", etc... Not knowing all of the details, I do not want to comment so much upon the specifics of this case, but on faculty rights.

The chair of the department involved was quoted that the professor had the right to administer oral exams if she wished. Well, I should hope so! I'll be damned if administrators are going to tell me how to run my classroom. The fact that this question was even posed is absurd. Faculty have the right to assess student abilities. In a time where education studies are showing that faculty must appeal to "multiple intelligences" to enhance student learning, I find the insinuation of "special treatment" to be insulting. Here is a quote from the professor:

"I see some football players who probably should not be here, because their academic background is so wanting," Pierce said. "So I say to myself, `Do I keep shuttling them through the system, or do I try whatever it takes to get them to learn?' even if the methods I use may be seen as unorthodox."

Another point from the article:

Frantz noted a paragraph in the course description written by Pierce: "I deeply appreciate that each student is a unique individual. If you have any special needs and/or interests that it would be helpful for me to know about please take the time to inform me. I may be able to make adjustments for you. I urge you to come to my office hours so that I can get to know you personally."

Is that so wrong? Egads, to know your students well enough to address individual needs? What could she be thinking?

Have I ever given a student alternative testing methods? No, but I have allowed some to take exams in the testing center or in private rooms. More people than I ever knew suffer from quite debilitating test anxiety. To give another example, a colleague of mine last semester was very frustrated with the poor performance on exams from one of her "best" students. Why did she characterize him as a good student? His homeworks were impeccable and he could answer every question, including those he'd just failed on exams, when she asked him in her office. Finally, she offered him the chance to take the test orally in one of the classrooms with her. He got "A's" the rest of the semester. Turns out he was talking aloud through his homeworks and that really helped him to think things through. And hopefully, now that he knows this, he can address his test-taking problems.

Did this student get evaluated by a method other than his peers? Yes. Were the exams equitable? That is the key point. I can't answer for the professor at Ohio State, but I was under the impression that individual attention to students' needs was the mark of a good instructor.