A professor forwarding an email they received from a student into a public or semi-public forum, especially with negative intent, isn't even legal in many countries. The rules aren't quite as strict as attorney-client privilege, but there are still restrictions on disclosing information about student performance that you receive in the course of your duties (with "performance" generally including behavioral issues). In the U.S., it's arguably a FERPA violation to do so. Whether X'ing the name out is sufficient to avoid the issue, I don't know. I wouldn't risk it myself.
If something comes up in class, on the other hand, it's generally okay to address it in class, since it was already raised in that venue; you can scold a student who creates a disruption in class. But forwarding an email that was sent specifically to you (not to a class listserv) to the entire class is a bit different.
> In the U.S., it's arguably a FERPA violation to do so.
Not if, as in this case, the student's identity is concealed. In such a case, it becomes as valid an instructional element as a psychological case history (where the subject's identity is always concealed).
It's true that psychological case histories are published, but much more carefully. You need to make a formal proposal to an independent review board, which will assess your proposed anonymization protocol and the circumstances of data collection and disclosure. The bar is particularly high if you're asking to release a case study where you don't have documentation of the subject's consent (even for anonymized case studies).
> It's true that psychological case histories are published, but much more carefully.
Yes, that's increasingly true as time passes. Freud's case histories were marked with the subject's real initials, and this practice continued up to the 1950s. I'm not excusing, just explaining.
Even in modern times, very detailed case histories are published as long as there's no credible risk of associating the study with a particular individual, or consent is obtained from someone able to give informed consent.
While I agree with the subject of the response, I disagree with your interpretation of FERPA. Any student who was in that class would have a clear, unambiguous knowledge of the student's identity, and mere 'xxx'ing of the name is a cursory, even illusory attempt at maintaining privacy.
Yes, true but from the standpoint of the public, the professor's action was well-advised. A claim of libel would require that the student's identity become public knowledge, something the obfuscation prevented.
I'm speaking about the general issue of a potential libel action and invasion of privacy, not specifically about FERPA.
If something comes up in class, on the other hand, it's generally okay to address it in class, since it was already raised in that venue; you can scold a student who creates a disruption in class. But forwarding an email that was sent specifically to you (not to a class listserv) to the entire class is a bit different.