PHILADELPHIA – Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law has a simple mission: “To educate students to become knowledgeable, skilled and engaged lawyers.”
Mindful of the times in which we live, graduates of Kline “have a deep understanding of the context of legal practice in a technologically sophisticated, increasingly specialized profession.”
Unfortunately, some of the professors at Kline, it appears, may not share the “deep understanding” of certain elements of modern digital technology. Specifically, it seems associate professor Lisa McElroy may have a little trouble with the high-tech practice known as “cut and paste.”
Like many law professors, McElroy often uses TWEN (The West Education Network) to do things like update assignments and communicate with her students. In attempting to share a link to an article about writing legal briefs, McElroy recently shared something possibly more intriguing and decidedly more titillating: a link to an anal-sex-themed video on a certain popular adult tube site, the name of which rhymes with “corn-nub.”
Whoops!
Thus far, McElroy has declined to comment about the presumed error — or, if the link-sharing was not made in error, to offer an explanation as to why she believed the video in question would prove helpful in writing legal briefs, seeing as how the video’s primary focus reportedly centers on the proper technique for the insertion of anal beads.
Drexel, meanwhile, sent a statement to AboveTheLaw.com saying the school “has been made aware of the email that a professor sent to her class of law students that erroneously included a link to inappropriate material.”
According to the statement, Drexel “takes all matters of this nature seriously and investigates them in accordance with our standard policies and procedures.”
Oh, good. I’m glad Drexel takes all matters of accidental porn-oversharing seriously. I’d hate to think anybody found any levity whatsoever in this clearly, deeply, unarguably tragic mishap.
For instance, were anyone to suggest McElroy sent the video as a means of telling her students exactly where (and how) to file their briefs, such a person would be totally out of line.
Likewise, it would be downright insensitive to theorize McElroy was indicating anything about the quality of the “moot court” briefs written by her students to date, perhaps intimating she felt those briefs had been pulled from her students’ rectal regions, as it were.
Most ridiculous of all, of course, would be to suggest the incident was the result of some kind of “hacking” or other nefarious exploit. I mean, realistically, in this post-Carlos-Danger world, who would insult our intelligence in such a way?
“She might have gotten hacked by a pornography company,” David Lat of AboveTheLaw.com suggested. “Porn purveyors will resort to all sorts of shenanigans to promote their products.”
MindBorg, or GeekPud, or HiveFlog, or whatever they are called these days, needs to promote their network, which receives literally tens of millions of unique visitors per day, by hacking TWEN?
Perhaps they’re hoping to shore up their appeal among the cherished “heavily-indebted law student” demographic. As Ben Franklin once said, possibly while sipping laudanum between “blading” piles of high-grade hashish: “Gimme a fucking break, dude. Seriously.”
Is it really so inconceivable a female law professor was watching anal porn in her free time, carelessly copied the wrong link onto her clipboard and didn’t notice until it was too late? Are we so certain, without even knowing her, McElroy isn’t an avid surfer of online porn?
Even if this isn’t the case, I also have it on good authority there are several perfectly legitimate professional reasons why any number of lawyers and/or legal academics might spend time browsing adult tube sites. For example, maybe McElroy was just brushing up on alternatives to litigation as a form of conflict resolution. After all, any time there’s a successful outcome to binding arbitration, chances are someone has taken it up the ass in the bargain.
At any rate, I’m sure Drexel’s investigation of the incident will be exhaustive and thorough, especially the part that requires a small team of investigators spending hour after hour perusing a tube site, trying to retrace McElroy’s cyber-steps.
Whether it is undertaken by Drexel administrators who suddenly display an urgent need to do all their work with the office doors closed, or more informal sleuthing led by a legion of eager male volunteers, I’m sure they will get to the (bead-stuffed) bottom of it all.
Until then, all we can do is hope McElroy’s students are a little more hardened and worldly than the average law student. It would be one thing if this deplorable scenario had played out in a hotbed of cynicism and thick academic skins, like the art department, but everybody knows lawyers are delicate as hothouse flowers.
In fact, I think I know what this situation calls — no, begs — for: a new charitable fund all its own. We could call it “Porn-Wounded Warriors” perhaps, or maybe “Save the (Law School) Children.”
I can already hear the pathos-heavy pitch: “Won’t you give your gift of just $19.99 a month to make sure innocent law students never again suffer the soul-crushing indignity of involuntary, momentary exposure to porn? Donate today and we’ll send you this adorable blanket!”
