I think he’s a good professor who’d like his students to think. He is, however, guilty of (1) underestimating the technology used by his students, and (2) overestimating his students’ ability to sort out facts.
I think what the prof did was a truly meaningful and clever way to demonstrate an important point. However, I think his choice of subject matter was reckless. He should have chosen a topic relevant only at the Georgetown level, not the national level.