UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY

•

DA VIS

• IRV! NE

•

LOS ANGELES

•

RIVERSIDE

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION STUDIES

•

SAN DIEGO

•

SANTABARBARA

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

•

SANTACRUZ

90095

March 19, 2017 Greg Bryant Associate Professor and Vice Chair Department of Communication Studies University of California, Los Angeles 2303 Rolfe Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 Re: Teaching evaluation of Keith Fink To Whom It May Concern, I observed lecturer Keith Fink in his Communication Studies course CS 167 - Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus, on Wednesday, March 8, 2017. My overall assessment is that Mr. Fink's teaching is of average quality, with certain aspects being quite good, and other aspects quite lacking. Below I describe my observations in detail. The lecture I observed was essentially a review, and was the last lecture before an exam the following week. Mr. Fink began by reviewing current events which I thought should be an effective technique for a class like this. He immediately launched into an analysis of a letter written to the UCLA community by Jerry Kang, the Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. The letter is a note about recent Title IX investigations, and a rep01i of new developments. Mr. Fink had a rather combative and provocative tone, and throughout the lecture mentioned "Dean Kang" many times, all rather unfavorably. He was highly critical of specific aspects of the letter and the Title IX officers, telling the students that they were not qualified to be in their positions. While the connections to course content were not always clear, he took paiiicular issue with the SVSH mandatory rep01iing policy. This is the first instance of many throughout the class where he seemed to be using his lecturer role as a means to espouse his personal legal views. I felt like this aspect reduced his credibility, even when I agreed with his specific legal points (which in this lecture overall was often). The course is political in nature, but I could imagine his treatment of the issues being much more balanced, which I believe would greatly enhance his teaching effectiveness. Keith eventually solicited opinions from the class, and picked out certain students including one who works at the Daily Bruin (which he also admittedly criticizes regularly), and another who was a member of a campus Republican group. These students spoke, but were difficult to hear (I confirmed this by asking a student next to me if she could hear, and she could not). Mr. Fink did not repeat what the students said, so it wasn't clear how the solicitations were aiding his teaching. His comments in response were often supp01iive, but sometimes highly defensive, creating what felt to me to be a potentially unwelcoming environment for students to speak. Of course, there is likely variation in students' feelings about this aspect of his style. The discussion of this topic lasted 25 minutes.

Mr. Fink went on to another example of a recent event, and began the repeated exercise that filled the entire class time: present a relevant free-speech event, and then ask the students to identify which court case applies that was presumably covered in earlier classes. He examined recent cases of high schoolers giving a Nazi salute, anti-LGBT signs, and protests at Middlebury College regarding a scheduled speech by Charles Munay. Again, the most salient element in these examples to my mind was Mr. Fink arguing for his side of the case, and his attempts to relate them to his own issues with UCLA administration, including "Dean Kang." In my opinion, this took a back seat to substantive legal content that could allow students to better make up their own mind. Again, he would occasionally solicit students' comments, but there was very little class discussion. The cunent event portion of the lecture ended about one hour into the class. The lecture continued with various free speech instances, all interesting and provocative, that afforded opportunities for Mr. Fink to ask students to identify the relevant legal cases, but also argue his specific opinion. In paiiicular, I found his examples of art compelling, and I appreciated his defense of artists' rights to free speech. But overall, his tone continued to feel unnecessarily hostile, especially regarding UCLA administrators and policies which he constantly returned to. At one point he quipped how he was surprised that the cunent class got approved in the first place, and repeatedly attacked UCLA as not suppmiive of free speech rights. I believe Mr. Fink clearly has a right to express these views, especially in a class on the topic of free speech, but as a teaching technique, I feel the more he belabors his points about UCLA in particular, the more he undermines his credibility and objectivity as an instrnctor. Two hours into the course, Mr. Fink told the students that he had impmiant information regarding the upcoming exam, and that he did not want people to staii leaving. This signaled to me that he typically ends the class early. Soon after, he explained his policy for the upcoming exam specifically that taking it in the classroom was optional. The students would be able to take it wherever they happen to be during the exam time, and that they must follow the honor system with regards to sharing information or other cheating. This announcement was met with a loud round of applause. The class ended at 7:20, 30 minutes before the scheduled end time. Admittedly, 2:50 is a long class, and he does not give a break (presumably why he lets them out early). The students were getting restless, and from the back I could see that many of them were on social media and other web sites, including a woman just in front of me who was shopping for shoes, and using Facetime on her phone to talk with someone. Mr. Fink is a provocative speaker and is comfortable in front of an audience. He is passionate about his beliefs and I think while many students respond to that, others likely shut down. In my observation, it was not clear that his style always translated to teaching success. This review is intended to assess teaching excellence, and by our department standard I believe there is significant room for improvement. In my opinion, a more balanced approach that included substituting his personal views with more substantive content would result in a better educational experience for our students. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions. Sincerely,

Greg Bryant De miment of Communication Studies