The Power of Professors in Introductory Level Courses

I am currently taking Intro to Legal Studies because I have a passion for the study of law. Therefore, unlike many of my peers who take this class because it is required, I have a reasonably solid foundation in this realm. Moreover, because I am a libertarian, I am also well-acquainted with the issues and controversies that surround the ever-changing interpretations of the Bill of Rights. But in an introductory level classroom I am the exception not the rule, and it is unfortunate how professors of these courses occasionally abuse their positions of intellectual authority to cast their own convictions as fact.
This is not to say that professors should be expected to withhold their own analyses of the subjects which they teach. After all, they, like the authors they assign us to read, are experts in their field. However, their opinions, like the opinions of these authors, should be presented and treated us such.
I realized the importance of the distinction between presenting something as one idea of many (a crucial concept in many definitions of jurisprudence) and presenting it as widely-accepted fact in an introductory level classroom while attending a lecture on the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
Just days after returning from the Students for Liberty Conference where I had the opportunity to attend an inspiring lecture and speak to Scott Bullock, one of the lead attorneys defending Kelo in the now infamous Kelo v City of New London case, about rights protection in the courts, I was forced to sit through an interpretation of the Takings Clause back in the real world (read: antithetical to libertarian ideals) that left the majority of the class thinking that it was an undisputed fact that the government has the right to take your property for any reason, public or private, that it chooses. Of course several students were shocked by this fact at first and proceded to question my professor, but by the end of the Q&A even those students were pacified by the argument that our system, which atleast offers "just compensation", is far superior to feudal England where the king owned all of the land.
Was the controversy surrounding the Kelo decision mentioned? Of course not. Was the aftermath of the decision in which the legislatures of many states, appalled at the wording of the court's decision, narrowed the definition of eminent domain on their own accord considered once? Absolutely not. Or atleast not before I had overcome my shock for long enough to mention them myself. But there is not always someone in a classroom that has the approppriate knowledge to question a professor, and in those classrooms we educate lawyers to believe that individual rights can and should be justly narrowed as courts see fit and society "changes." I overheard a Penn Law admissions officer speaking to a colleague about the fact that only 1-2% of first year law students have any more than a topical knowledge of legal issues. I wonder how many sides of a story these clean slates are presented. Unfortunately, I think the answer to that question may be in the opinion of the Kelo decision itself.