My concern is not with changing the date, it is the methods used to ensure compliance with that date and the so-called "hard deadline" (which I imagine contrasts with the current system in which Eben - and possibly others - continue to fight about what is reasonable throughout summer and potentially flout that July 25 deadline when they deem it appropriate). The new policy is not designed to shame professors that DGAF, it's designed to shame professors that don't fit with the administration's desire to construct an assessment schedule around the sole consideration of corporate law recruiting. Why not have an option where 2L/1L elective professors not wishing to comply with this deadline can do so provided they say so upfront in an evaluation policy? Dean Schizer's framing of the problem as one of pure teacher laziness, and his assumption that the best solution to the problem is criminalesque fines and public shaming is indicative of a model that punishes underlings and assigns responsibility for systemic failure to the worker rather than those responsible for managing the system itself.

I worked at a school prior to coming here, and observed similar tactics being used to ensure teachers met homework grading and lesson planning requirements. It was part of a broader arsenal of policies that together functioned to dissolve any responsibility on the leaders of the school for the teacher's high level of stress and overwork, as well as frame every educational problem to the school community as one of poor individual teachers rather than broader systemic structure. Of course, being a "reformist" charter school, there was no such thing as tenure so the final stick (to complement the carrot of bonuses for higher test scores) was simply to fire teachers late on a Friday afternoon, and whitewash their existence from the school by Monday.