Participation vs. Disruptiveness

From the headline, I assumed this article was about some immature student complaining about not getting what they were "entitled," but the two sides of the argument are pretty compelling.

In this case, a student received a low grade because the professor gave the otherwise "A" student 0 points for class participation. The professor says it was because the student was unprofessional and disruptive. The student says it was because she disagreed with the professor.

Now, two things prevent me from caring about the outcome -- the fact this took place in 2009 and that the student is only suing because she graduated and didn't get the job she wanted (she had to switch majors) -- but the implications interest me a lot.

For the professor's side, I can understand wanting to maintain order in the classroom -- depending on exactly *how bad* the student's conduct was, I can see giving a low score. If that impacts a student's life negatively, too bad -- they're protecting their profession.

On the other hand, students who are *required* to participate should be able to do so freely. Did the professor give the low score capriciously? And what's the problem with a student voicing their own opinions if the professor does the same?  Aren't universities about freely exchanging ideas?

I've been on the receiving end of poor participation scores before, and their subjectivity always makes me nervous. Yet I can also understand why professors use them -- you can always find one person who's happy to participate, but the goal is to get a broad contribution from the class.

And I'd hate to sued four years after the fact for more than a million dollars in wages that someone never earned.