At various law schools, student groups organize what are sometimes called "canned immunity" drives — if students donate canned food that will end up going to a soup kitchen or some similar charity, the professors agree not to call on them. I've always been vaguely uneasy about this, but I'm not sure whether I should be.
Before people start bringing up general libertarian arguments, note that the question isn't whether this practice should criminalized, but rather whether there's something improper about it that should lead me to decline to participate. What do readers think?
UPDATE: I inadvertently omitted an important fact, though fortunately many commenters filled this in -- this drive lasts a day or two, as does the potential immunity from being called on.
That's an interesting concept.
But that sounds far too straightforward. What you need to do is introduce uncertainty to your students and show them that nothing in life is certain.
Flip a coin. Heads those who didn't produce canned goods get called on. Tails, those that did get called on.
*shrug* they're students. Aren't you allowed to play with their minds a bit?
Maybe a better solution is a program where you guarantee that students who donate won't be called on in the first half of class if they volunteer an answer. Otherwise, they would definitely be called on in the second half. I think that a program like this, despite being less popular with the students, would still require them to do the reading (good for you) while taking some pressure off(good for them).
This is just a game, in this case one in which students pretend to find being called on in class something terrifying. It could be worse: they could be playing one of the many variants of bingo in your class.
One thing that is hard to do in a law school is build a sense of real community, of shared enterprise. This seems an innocuous way to do that without marginalizing or harming anyone. Go ahead and participate.
Most professors at my law school participated in the program. It raises a whole heck of a lotta cans, so it's justified on that basis alone.
And besides relaxing the atmosphere in class for a day, it was usually interesting to hear what my professors came up with to fill the hour alone.
Perhaps once they get out of the coddled environment, the students will expect that, upon donating canned goods, a court will exempt them from oral argument, or overlook that they have mis-cited caselaw in a brief?
Here's a possibility: you feel you're being paid to educate these students, sometimes whether they wish to be or not (think of why you refused to allow the Internet in your classroom -- along with almost all other professors, of course). You feel that talking in class is a good thing, and you don't want to encourage those who are disinclined to do it (in fact, you wish to encourage them to talk). Canned immunity makes it seem as if being called on is a bad thing.
You also feel that calling on people in class incentivizes them to do their reading which you feel is important. Even though there usually isn't a penalty for saying "I don't know, I didn't do the reading", law students are for some reason loathe to say this.
If you think giving food to the homeless or hungry is a good idea, I think in the end, the net pedagogical loss is minor as it's only for a day. Besides which, as a libertarian, if students wish to waste their money and education, that's up to them, no? No one's forcing them NOT to do the reading, or NOT to raise their hands.
Would this mean I probably wouldn't do the reading that day? Almost certainly.
Is that something you ought to worry about, as a professor? Eh, your call.
I'm motivated to do my homework largely by the terror of not knowing the answer when called upon to participate. I suspect that that's unhealthy, but much like my "if I'm not in the hospital, I'm going to be at class, on time" rule, it is born from sad experience. I invariably do worse in classes where no attendance is taken, no grades are given on homework, no one is called on, etc. I don't pay as much attention when I know it's not going to be on the test, or when I know that no response from me will be required. I love to imagine that I would do more reading on my own, and learn the subject better, if only there'd be less homework, and the teacher would just talk at us and not ask for participation -- but in practice, I don't do any reading at all (at least, not in the subject at hand.)
Maybe your students aren't as dependent. Maybe you think that even if they are as dependent, it's up to them to improve. Maybe you think giving them a day off will let them renew their commitment once things go back to normal. Maybe you hardly ever call on members of your classes? I don't know.
But if I were in the class, I'd bring a can -- and probably not do the reading.
1. Grading practices in law classes should reflect solely the students' academic performance, not whether or not they contribute to good causes. To the extent that getting called on involuntarily is one of the things Eugene's students are graded on, this violates that principle.
2. As other commenters point out, it is too easy for this kind of practice to turn into favoritism for students who support the same types of "good" causes as the professor does and penalizing those students who disagree. In this case, the cause seems to be unobjectionable, but even here there is some implicit favoritism. For example, a student who chooses not to donate because he believes that some other charity is more worthy of his necessarily limited largesse, he will not get the advantage of not being called on.
If it only happens once per year, it may only be a minor matter. But this issue must be judged by general principles, since there will be many other situations where faculty have opportunities to reward students for supporting their preferred causes and (at least if the class is graded on a curve) thereby penalizing those who do not.
1) Enforced charity sends the wrong message. The amount of food donated will probably be small in the grand scheme of things and connecting charitable donation with reward may very well make these students less likely to selflessly donate much more valuable things (legal aid) in the absence of a reward.
2) Even in a private school it is just wrong to distribute academic privileges based on non-relevant acts/properties. I think we can all recognize that it would be wrong to preferentially distribute academic privileges to the prettiest students in the class, or the ones who have done the most to elect republicans, promote gay rights, or remained abstinent. I don't see how this is any different. Even if you never have a single student who objects to this kind of 'forced' charity on principle surely some students feel that this sort of donation is more or less worthwhile imposing differential costs on the students depending on their views on the efficacy/morality of donating food.
Ultimately a large part of what gives a school it's value is the assurance that the work/ability required to get a degree (as far as pragmatically possible) the same for everyone regardless of political/social beliefs or their parents donations to the school. Enacting this policy chips away at that foundational principle.
3) If the threat of calling on students in the classroom is a harm to the student you shouldn't be calling on them in the first place. If the threat of being called on is beneficial then you certainly shouldn't take it away and punish them for giving to charity. Furthermore the law school must already subscribe to the notion that teaching law can be more important than giving food to the poor or they would be skimping on materials/teachers/whatever and using the money for the poor. If calling on students is not just a cruel hazing ritual it is unlikely that this is the most efficient trade off between food for poor and teaching efficiency they can make (cut off some invited speakers or scrimp on chairs).
4) Even if you don't believe 3 such a policy clearly encourages students to see the professors as adversaries and their questions as deliberate attempts to humiliate rather than a well intentioned part of the learning process. This further harms professor student relations on this already touchy subject.
5) Such a policy is effectively letting students buy their way out of questions. This seems unfair to students with lower incomes. On the other hand if the required donation is quite small the benefit is small as well (I'm assuming it is empirically known that not everyone will opt out).
6) If the burden on students to bring in cans is small and the benefit sufficient to overwhelm these concerns why not just mandate that all students donate cans and either don't allow any exception to questions or make an academic requirement for an exception.
--
I suspect the motivation of this program is not really to bring in cans but rather to alleviate the suffering of being called on for the most sensitive students while not abandoning the Socratic method entirely. If this is the case then any activity will do so long as it takes the appropriate amount of effort.
Instead of having students bring cans have them do some sort of academic exercise on those readings. This makes sure that the timid students who don't want to be called on still have a similar inventive to follow the material and avoids the fairness concerns above. Surely you wouldn't want to check all these exercises but you don't have to. Each time randomly pick a few students and verify they made a reasonable attempt penalizing those who try and claim the privilege who did not by revoking their option to avoid questions permanently.
That does not even take into account the tremendous benefits -- a net increase in student giving as well as the creation of student sense of community. Indeed, given the trifling dangers (even if the arguments are perfectly cogent and the dangers are legitimate), publicly bucking the trend may be significantly worse than silently not participating, which option may not be possible.
I don't know how much the students have to contribute to qualify, but I would guess that both the mean and the mode contributions are exceed that minimum. The students simply are not treating this as merely an opportunity to purchase an escape.
Besides, questioning the student is supposed to be a benefit equally for the whole class -- it shouldn't matter if the interlocutor is changed if the professor is adroit. And why coddle poor students who are using the threats as a crutch?
If that is the case, then there is no real reason to oppose a canned food drive. The effect on the students will be slight and a good cause gets some support that it otherwise would not.
That is absolutely wrong. Having seen such programs at work, the motivation is certainly to encourage bringing in cans.
But, as you point out (and as should be obvious), this is not a transaction where its effect is felt through the values of the apparent goods (the cans versus the privilege of not being called on). Instead, the effect is intended to arise in collective encouragement. This is just like a pat on the butt in a football game, which likewise has very little value other than signaling. As I wrote earlier, I would guess "that both the mean and the mode contributions [] exceed [the contribution] minimum."
(Moreover:
1. My experience, which is solely that but is all I've got, is that those who are induced or compelled to donate learn the habit and practice and carry it on, while those who do not, rarely ever pick it up later.
2. The tremendously low cost - you can buy a can of food for a quarter - means that this is a financially immaterial transaction. While I am sure there are other costs, no one is "distribut[ing] academic privileges based on non-relevant acts/properties." There is no real privilege involved, since it is available virtually without cost to anyone (as opposed to the pretty-student argument).
3. This is close, but it fails to recognize that this is a limited practice and that, while the "harm" may be localized in the interlocutor, the benefit is intended to fall on the audience.
4. Relieving students from being called on for 1 day per 180 in exchange for a donation of at least a quarter (or at least a claimed donation of at least a quarter) "clearly encourages students to see the professors as adversaries and their questions as deliberate attempts to humiliate"?! I'd have to see some empirical evidence, but I am guessing that very few, if any students, are so encouraged by such programs.
5. "If the required donation is quite small the benefit is small as well." This is so close. Yes, as you suggest, if (which is the case) the required donation is quite small, there is no significant income discrimination fear. However, the benefit, as I explained above, is not solely or even mainly not getting called on. This is collective encouragement (which is why donations outpace the supposed prices).
6. The rules you suggest would not achieve the benefit of these rules vis-a-vis behavior encouragement and the creation of a sense of association.
In any case, students at my school are not graded on participation, we're graded on our exams. The canned immunity program is entirely light-hearted and fun. It's not meant to be an imposition, or a requirement. Plently of people don't bring cans and don't get called on. If nothing else, it relieves a little stress right before finals.
"Enforced charity?" Professors developing favoritism for those who support the cause? "Coddled environment?" I hate to say it, but I think some of you are blowing this waaaaaay out of proportion. It is a fun activity for a good cause!
Secondly, most of the classes do not award for class participation, as far as I know. And even if for those that do, this event in no way diminishes that or "punishes" students who don't bring a can -- bringing a can gets you NOT called on. You can't participate if you're silent. Those who want to participate and maximize their chance of bumping up their grade 1/3 can bring a can AND raise their hand, or just not bring a can. Additionally, not being called on may SEEM like a reward, but in terms of what you're getting out of law school (and what you're paying for), it's actually not, as many have pointed out. So if people wish to punish themselves, why not let them?
Thirdly, Eugene is a pretty smart cookie. Even those who haven't met him can probably figure that out. I'm quite sure that if he feels it's important to call on everybody, missing one day will not prevent him from meeting this goal. However, as mentioned before, and as others have pointed out, he may not be able to get his class to do the reading for that day -- though he could be sadistic about it and put something related to that day on the final.
I just wanted to respond to the bit about needing to be terrorized in order to get your work done.
I agree that many students find themselves most easily motivated by direct parental oversight by the professor, i.e., you don't do the reading/HW this week you will be humiliated/graded poorly. However, not all students are like this and it is not clear it is beneficial in the long run.
I tend to feel it is deeply unfair to reduce a student's grade or deny them access to educational resources just to motivate the rest of the class. For example instituting a required attendance policy which helps motivate some people but screws over people like myself who find it difficult to learn from lecture and learn better by using that time to learn from the book (I went whole semesters without going to class in college and did quite well). If the professor knows he is penalizing students for something that isn't a measure of performance/ability the situation seems no different than a professor who deliberately deflates the grades of one small group (say Asian students in an overwhelmingly black university) to help motivate the other students.
Moreover, I am skeptical that this sort of hold the student's hand style of teaching is useful in the long run. Eventually the student will be out in the real world and will need to discipline themselves, often without anyone demanding they meet little checkpoints each week. It seems to me far better for the student to learn this lesson about self-discipline while still in school and they can afford to screw up (preferably as an undergrad) than out in the real world.
Also I'm bothered by the very idea of the professor deciding for the student how much work they ought to put into the class. Ultimately class isn't always the most important thing and the student needs to decide how to balance this class with others and a personal life. It seems wrong to me for the professor to try and decide this balance for the student by increasing the cost of small decrements of effort, e.g., not doing HW costs you points as well as understanding you need for the tests.
--
It might seem like I've gotten a bit far afield here but the point is that there are reasons to be skeptical of using in class questions as a coercion mechanism to make people do the reading.
I know some people who learn better after having heard the material they are to read discussed once (or a few times) and this sort of person may prefer to read the chapter after the in class discussion. Other people may simply not have the time to do the reading this week and should not be unnecessarily discouraged from attending lecture by fear of humiliation.
This doesn't mean I think the Socratic method type involuntary questioning is a bad thing. However, I only think it is justified in so far as it is necessary for the professor to achieve his pedagogical ends, teach the students to think on their feat and (randomly) sample the class's level of understanding. It's your call how much effort you want to put into the class and the professor shouldn't be trying to coerce you into putting in more (advise, warn cajole sure).
In short the student in some sense is purchasing an education. That means they should be given the opportunity to avail themselves of the lectures, and courses with whatever level of effort they deem appropriate.
I think most of my arguments no longer apply now that I realize it is only one day a semester. I am still a bit bothered by the point Ilya and others made about benefiting certain views but most of my objections were based on the premise that one could do this repeatedly.
At the very least, I think it's incumbent upon a professor worried about the effect of this canned-food program to demonstrate, preferably with evidence rather than anecdote, that the Socratic Method is actually an effective way to teach law, relative to other methods. After all, if the Socratic Method stinks, why worry about the canned-food program?
I strongly suspect that the use of the Socratic Method in law school is yet another example of Garrou's Law: i.e., that unregulated "selection" processes, over time, come to resemble fraternity hazing, as those who have "passed" seek to load up punishment on the next wave of initiates.
Certainly I've never heard a compelling justification for the use of the Socratic Method to teach, say, civil procedure. You, in the back row -- tell us what is important about Pennoyer v. Neff?
Puh-leeze.
Hope I spelled Pennoyer right.
(Of course, some people don't believe the Socratic method is beneficial in this way -- but in that case, the solution would be to abandon it entirely, not to define deviancy down.)
To me, it's a waste of time.
If people want to donate, provide a box at the entrance and let them place food goods inside. If professors want to honor a day of immunity, fine. As a donation incentive, structure it so those who didn't place anything in the box simply cannot "pass" on a question that day. The honor system should work for students on that level.
My law professor wasted that whole class, making it about the food drive.
He'd ask a question, someone would pull a can out of a backpack or from under their desk, then they'd walk it to the food donation box, amid comments and laughing. We didn't cover much on torts that day; the unspoken emphasis -- led by the prof. professing his years of classroom tradition in this food drive -- was on look at us, we're donating. Why not give quietly and cut the merriment, or bill this as an optional day, letting students decide if their time is better spent elsewhere? I think he was trying to bond with us in having some fun, but it was inefficient and I resented the way he conducted it.
If you can get around that though -- dropbox and honor system -- not letting it take over the class, good for you.
And I did bring in several items myself that day;
It's not being sensitive to those who forgot to grab something out of the pantry that morning.
It's that people have different ideas on how to conduct charity, and what they go to law school classes for. More mature students might balk at the waste of time playing the "I raise your can of Campbell's" game. We have other places (community, church, school) to contribute in this way. Community building surely has a place at law school, but not taking away from precious classroom time.
With exams coming up in 2 weeks I think most students are going to read the material anyway...
Sounds a little bassackwards to me.
Perhaps it should be set up so if they donate cans they WILL be called on to answer questions, although that might be unfair to those who can't afford to donate canned food.
Getting called on doesn't help you learn; it helps you focus on fact patterns you'll probably never see again. Calling on students is the most obnoxious, pretentious, and pointless practice of law school.
You'd be surprised how much money/canned food such a drive raises. If students want to give up their privilege to learn through being called on for the benefit of people who cannot put food on their own table, then perhaps the learning this instills is much more valuable than anything accomplished by the Socratic method.
So, if you have to give up students preparing for things they'll never use again so the soup kitchens can get more business, what's the harm?
One day in the whole semester, that's fine. Just sweetly remind the students that whether or not anyone gets called on, that day's material will be featured on the exam.
Having been a college professor at one point in my life, I would gladly participate, espeically if the class taught was pretty stressful. Doing it once or twice in a whole semester worth of classes is trivial.
As for students not studying... who cares?! I am their employee to some degree. They pay me to teach. If they don't want to attend the class, study, or do any of the work required to do well or even pass, that's their business. They'll fail out and find something else to do with their future. I only worry about the students that actually care to be there and participate. It's college, not high school.
I'm reminded of times when I worked for large companies, and the HR person would come around to solicit donations to cancer funds and whatnot. Did the $20 hurt me? Only insofar as I had to go to the ATM before lunch. Did it help others? I really doubt it had much marginal impact. It all is a social game, really.
My school did it and even added a twist. If the professor called on a student, that student could put the can on their desk and were immune. However, the professor could match the can and remove the immunity. The student could put another can and the professor could match. In theory this could keep going. Only one of my classes did this actually happen. The professor was known for being beyond mean (a characterization that I think was really unfair, tough does not equal mean) but he had a playful side to him. He walked into class that day with two bags full of canned food and said "Okay let's see how much we can raise today." We did it the day the final Writing and Research paper was due so it was really targeted at the 1L's. Everybody knew that none of us had read for class anyways (the only day I've ever gone to class without having read).
Here, the benefits so far outweigh the costs that I'm not even sure that's debatable.
On a philosophical level, I'm not sure what you'd argue. That you didn't get to call on someone? Irrelevant. That they didn't read for class? That will affect their final grade, so it shouldn't concern you for that particular day.
This is supposed to be a fun, charitable activity. The fact that someone gets out of class participation for the day doesn't really matter. If they won't read that day, there are ways that situation will harm them beyond them sitting on their butts listless for the class period.
That way, if the student doesn't get to practice their lawyerly think-on-your-feet skills, they at least have to practice writing a reasoned position.
I'd like to expand it, though -- maybe we could get judges to rule on objections with a canned food competition, too. If my opponent objects to my question, I could give the judge a can of Campbell's chicken noodle soup to get his objection overruled -- unless my opponent can match my can of soup and raise me a can of something else, in which case the objection is sustained -- unless I can match his can and raise again, etc. We could place limits on the number of cans and types of products so that there would be a strategic element to it, too. You'd have to prioritize your objections in order to save your cans for the most important issues.
Maybe we could apply this to jury selection, as well.
If it's the first, I would guess the policy isn't so bad. If it's the second, I think it's a ridiculous trade off (that is, assuming both the actual calling of students, and the threat of calling both have good pedagogical purposes.)
Apart from that, I find coerced participation in life's little group practices to be the essence of religion. For that reason, I always refuse to participate in saying grace, holding hands around the table, moments of silence, wedddings, birthday parties and funerals.
An Individualist's Club is the only club Groucho and I would ever join.
I've never been to graduate school, but I did once have a boss who told the entire development department to be in for a 9am meeting the next day. He brought us all together and said "You've all been working very hard, but production is slipping, and if we're going to stay cohesive and make our delivery in two months and all the others to come, we've got to do something innovative. Here is a box of game software. You are all forbidden to do any work today. Go, play games, and you've got to stick around for a few hours at least."
It worked. The dividends from that one day of lost production exceeded the costs.
Why?
Am not a lawyer, so I have can't really evaluate the specific pedogogical purpose of calling on students in law classes.
When I taught introductory fluid mechanics, initially I never called on students because it seemed odd to call on students when working fluid mechanics problems. I then read a bit about teaching theory, started calling on students and found they learned better.
Questions were ususally things like "Is the flow in or out of the control volume?" "Should the sign be positive or negative?" If nothing else, calling on students helps the person teaching focus on the students and enforces a pace that lets the students absorb the material instead of just transposing note to read later.
I'd assume that if calling on students helps in fluid mechanics, it must be even more useful in law.
There's a phrase I've heard that's used to describe this pheonomenon--it's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't quite remember it. Perhaps it's familiar to you, Eugene?
Slippery slope?
I think some of the discussion here makes me think of how some workplaces handle the United Way drives.
Sure you have to encourage charitable giving, and some professions are more "competitive", but at some point, doesn't it get a bit silly for adults, who could easily donate $20 to an organization and probably annually donate on their own time? Really, you don't have to bribe people to give cheap canned food and macaroni boxes. It worked in high school, but law school or the workplace? Silly
Any harm here to the law students, law professors, or law school academic environment is minimal.
Such programs generate food donations for needy people. That's a good thing. Such programs also incentivize charity among a class of people about to become part of the nation's elite (at least in terms of academic attainment, if not salary). That is also a good thing. And, charity drives help to promote a sense of community and service in the law school, which are also good things.
Collective drives like this are common at law firms, public offices, and elsewhere, and I see no reason why law schools should not prepare students for kinds of charitable activity which they will see after graduation.
Actually, I had some of my best answers in class when I had only skimmed the case, some when I hadn't looked at it at all.
I'm sure that if someone had say, criminally violated my privacy, and professors and classmates knew how much preparation I had actually done, they would be quite irate. Possibly to the point of harassing me, trying to get me drummed out of school, etc. But nice law students and law professors would never do something like that, would they?
Correct. Not being called on in class is a privilege, not a right. It's a private law, reserved only for some and not others. A hard working, motivated student who paid their tuition should be able to expect to be treated the same as similarly situated students. The notion that one student can dig a little deeper financially to get access to a private law in a shared classroom setting is anathema to traditional college ethics of fairness and equitability. It also offends the idea of "charity" as I prefer to define it.
Whether not being called on in class is ultimately a benefit or a punishment isn't at issue. The fact is that it's being offered as a benefit and accepted as such. No one can seriously argue that the exemption from being called on was put in place to discourage donations.
Withholding the presumed benefit from those who do not give "charitably" according to the professor's values and predetermined manner of giving is coercive. And the compensation for the act of giving renders the act somewhat different than true charity (again, my definition of. YMMV).
As an aside, I'm curious - is it true that because some students will not be called on and yet questions will still be asked, the non-participating students will bear a disproportionate responsibility for answering questions during the session? Or are fewer questions asked or answered as a result?
The real harm is almost certainly de minimus, but ethically it remains troubling regardless of scale. I would be interested in hearing alternative proposals that still benefit charitable organizations without resorting to miniscule bribes or coercion. I dislike the "honor system" idea since it doesn't affect the underlying ethical issues and in fact compounds it with the implied option of lying to obtain the benefit. I like the idea of Prof. Volokh dressed as a turkey for a day. :-)
-E
PS: In my case, I donate semi-monthly to a charity that supplies food to shelters for the homeless. I chose this charity based on their mission statement and efficiency rating. I would personally not appreciate having to decide whether or not to donate to a charity with a lower efficiency rating simply to obtain access to special treatment for myself.
The second best is random.
The immunity policy is not a good idea. You are right to question it. Is is really charity if student buy their way out of a question for a can of peas?
This is mildly OT, but the whole thing reminds me of a (IMHO) fairly ingenious thing that one of my high schools did last year: They allowed students and teachers to buy their way out of the dress code for up to an entire week. Everybody had a great time with it, and they raised a ton of money.
He didn't quit for 20 years.
If you're in law school to learn, you do the reading, plain and simple. If you are counting on a can to get you out of being called on for the day, that's your choice. If it hurts you on the exams, that's your own fault. However, to stick your nose into a person's business and say that bringing a can is counterproductive to their learning style is ridiculous. We are the only ones that can be detrimental to our learning...
whether or not I bring a can to school will not determine whether i read for the class. If i want to learn, especially in the weeks so close to finals, I will still read. If you choose not to read, then you're the only one suffering...
If not bringing a can causes you to get called on, well, you're in law school, you're going to get called on at some point and time no matter what. So if you happen to get called on in the week where others are bringing cans, so be it. It's not a huge issue. Being called on in class is something everyone goes though, and if you're that worked up over a professor calling on you, then you shouldn't be in law school in the first place. I personally didn't bring cans every day and still wasn't called on in every class. Cans aren't a guaranteed immunity if there are bidding wars, and not bringing cans are not a guarantee to BE called on.
This whole argument honestly seems like the pettiest, most ridiculous thing i have read in a long time. People need to get off their high-horse and stop being so selfish. I think we are all mature enough people that we don't expect an award to immediately follow a charitable act. It's demeaning to associate law students with a five-year-old, getting a sucker after a doctor's visit or getting $5 for every 'A'. I think our minds can wrap around the concept of altruism.
I understand this is a rant, but people need to realize that a little charity in the form of a game is not only productive and useful to those less fortunate than yourselves, but a way to make donating fun, which drums up a lot more for charities. So, when you're attending a fancy dinner down the road for "charity" while you enjoy a 5-course meal and schmoozing with the big-shots in the town, maybe you should look at your own logic and not do it, because apparently "coercion" into attending an event or doing something fun for charity doesn't lead to good charitable habits.
In light of that, let me revise my remarks - the reason to oppose it, for the day involved, is that you are not capable of giving a coherent lecture for the entire class period in question.
It is reasonable for a professor to use relatively modest suasion to attempt to get students to do some sort of minor, action for some relatively noncontroversial good cause or other.
Highly stigmatizing or punitive forms of persuasion, highly controversial causes which a substantial minority of students may (rightrly or wrongly) be uncomfortable with, and other factors mive one from the reasonable use to the abuse of the perks of professorial authority. A difference of degree rather than kind, perhaps, but degree matters.
Well, I thought it was funny, anyway. (They really did put four exclamation points on the flyer.)
What did you decide to do?
Nick