Tell me again why tenure is a good idea…
California professor flunks Kuwaiti’s pro-U.S. essay
A 17-year-old Kuwaiti student whose uncles were kidnapped and tortured by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s invaders more than a decade ago said his California college political science professor failed him for praising the United States in a final-exam essay last month.
Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a foreign student at Foothill College near San Jose, Calif., said he was told by professor Joseph A. Woolcock to get psychological treatment because of the pro-American views expressed in his essay.
“Apparently, if you are an Arab Muslim who loves America, you must be deranged,” said Mr. Al-Qloushi, who feared the failing grade could cost him his student visa.
“I didn’t want to be deported for having written a pro-American essay, so as soon as I left his office, I made an appointment with the school psychologist,” he said.
Mr. Woolcock did not respond to telephone and e-mail inquiries. College officials declined to comment, saying it is a confidential matter because Mr. Al-Qloushi and Mr. Woolcock have filed complaints.
This is microcosm of what, I think, is wrong with academia today. Rather than being a home for free thought and ideas as they routinely espouse, it has become a home of intolerance and group think.
And I can tall you from first hand experience that anyone criticizing this teacher will be attacked for trying to stifle academic freedom. Irony is lost on the dumb.
(Having said the above, the kid could have failed the paper and made the quote up. OR potentially the most likely scenario is that the kid failed the paper because he can’t write AND the Professor is a moonbat. I’d pay 10 bucks to see the paper. Still, if the quote is accurate, the Professor is the one who needs both psychological therapy and a pink slip.)
Update The (as yet unverified) paper can be found here. (I’ve only skim read the first half.)
As many of you know there are a few Poli Sci professor bloggers. I emailed James Joyner and Steven Taylor and asked if they would mind grading one more paper. I’ll (probably) reserve any comment until I read what they say. Still, the nature of the assignment itself appears to lends credence to the fact the professor is a goofball.
BTW- The quality of the paper and the level of goofballedness of the professor do not have to correlate in any way.
Update 2: Poli Sci Professor Steven Taylor has his say. He gives it a “low D.” I agree with 99.99% of what Steven says but I will excerpt the kid in his own defense.
The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed
So the kid did at least stumble into answering the question. (albeit for only a mere sentence fragment)
By and large (as always) the liberals will focus on the fact that a 17 year old Kuwaiti kid has trouble with english as if that is somehow an excuse for the professor telling the kid that if he liked America he needed psychological therapy. Conversely, conservatives will find the offense of the professor far more egregious than a kid failing a paper.
My bottom line is this. If the professor really said it, he should be canned.
Update 3: James Joyner must have been longing for his red pen days.– And his subject line sums the whole thing up.
AND Leopold Stotch, also a blogging Poli Sci professor says, “I doubt I would have given him more than a D” in the comments.
I keep telling people it’s insane we apply COmmunist principles to our most important profession.
Link to the essay, read it for yourself:
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad%27sessay121004.htm
The assignment was to write an essay about this:
“Dye and Zeigler contend that the Constitution of the United States was not ‘ordained and established’ by ‘the people’ as we have so often been led to believe. They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America’s elite interest.”
TallDave, I used to think the same way until I found out about Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. Google those and you’ll see what the deal is.
Oh yeah, Paul, you owe me $10.
Well, technically, one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive.
I head this kid on the radio last week. He came across as intelligent and good-natured.
I had a community college english lit teacher (NOT a professor) that could find an endorsement of communism in the writing of everyone from Shakespeare to Cavemen’s wall paintings. If you disagreed with her interpertation you were assured failure. She informed us of both the first time class met, as a warning so those of us who didn’t agree could drop the course. That was nearly 30 years ago in a small West Texas town. I read in the local paper that she is retiring this summer. Please excuse any grammatical errors in this post, I’m an English lit dropout.
Bullwinkle: Historically, when regimes like the ones your lit. prof. supported come into power, the first thing they do is put people like her against the wall and shoot them. How’s that for irony! 😉
Julie, how do you measure intelligence?
I will get back to you tommorow for an indepth analysis about it, however, it is always useful to support what you are saying with facts, otherwise your statements are just generalizations and sweeping statements, which helps no-one.
Commie troll alert, people. I’ll bet the “in-depth analysis” won’t include Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.
I meant applying Communism to the profession in the sense of giving lifetime employment to teachers, ensuring that there is little or no accountability for results and institutionalized resistance to change.
Julie, you are the reason I hit the delete key 4 times and retyped that line. (gotchya 😉
P
Hint: Notice the verb
julie,
The irony of leftist causes always seems to be totally lost on them. They protested Vietnam on humanitarian grounds; we withdrew and millions were slaughtered and tens of millions enslaved. Jimmy Carter armtwisted the Shah into not repressing revolution in Iran on human rights grounds, and a much worse regime took over (Carter’s Sec’y of State said in 20 years the Ayatollah “would be remembered as a saint.” Good call.). What do they suppose would happen if we did the “humane thing” and withdrew from Iraq tomorrow?
Julie, you are the reason I hit the delete key 4 times and retyped that line. (gotchya 😉
What line?
Hint: Notice the verb
What verb?
ah crud julie
on closer review, the verb is “pay” lemme try it this way….
“I’d pay 10 bucks to see the paper.“
I specifically deleted “to READ the paper” because I knew someone would want 10 bucks. 😉
Get me the original and you get a Hamilton. LOL
P
DUH DUH DUH UDH
Sorry Julie, doing too much at once… that was aimed at Sue.
Sue go back and read how I beat you out of 10 bucks.
Moonbat Academic
There’s a redundancy if I ever saw one. The academics who aren’t moonbats are the exceptions. Except in the blogosphere, of course.
Julie, how do you measure intelligence?
In the same way that one can measure and determine that you are not intelligent, UK.
I will get back to you tommorow for an indepth analysis about it, however, it is always useful to support what you are saying with facts, otherwise your statements are just generalizations and sweeping statements, which helps no-one.
Why would you ever think I am here to help you?
Skimming the paper I think that if I was the professor of his class (note: just a college student here) I don’t think he would have a recieved a very good grade for it; Not because I disagree with anything in it, but because it talks about the aftermath of the Constitution and not its formation, which is what the original question was adressing.
Still, I certainly wouldn’t have told him to get psychological counseling.
I just hope I don’t run into a similar professor that Ahmed got as I go for my Poli Sci degree, I hate dropping classes due to crap like that.
The quality of the paper is not too good people.
Forget about whether you agree with the point of it or not.
The punctuation is horrible, the grammar and structure are equally bad. And, as stated above, it helps to support ones assertions with some facts or at least some references, rather than assertions. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.
The exercise of writing a paper is about cummunicating your ideas properly, using the rules of expression- spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. in a proper way. Not doing so is the first and easiest way to get a bad grade.
The writing level is junior high school level at best. Not college. (If this is the quality level expected to garner a passing grade at university these days, we have larger problems than liberal professors people.)
If I had submitted such a paper in college, it would get an “F”. No question. Hell, if I had submitted this paper in HIGH SCHOOL, it would get an “F”.
It deserved an “F” just for those errors alone.
If this is indeed the actual paper.
For what it’s wotth, I agree that if the teacher said what is reported, he should be fired. Absolutely.
Also though, if this is the level of writing that is allowed at university, even by a 17 year old, then perhaps there are bigger issues at hand. From this sample, the kid is not college material. Junior high level writing is NOT college level. Period. Making excuses for him only compunds the obvious fact that the teacher has real grounds to fail this kids paper based on it’s (lack of) merits, JUST ON GRAMMAR ALONE.
A “low D” would be possible. But, it would be kind, IMO.
If you don’t have at LEAST a basic level of proper grammar skills, how can you expect to pass?
Come on.
The low standards that pass for academia in this country are going to kill us faster than any outside enemy.
The US brain trust is in deep trouble if people expect such bad writing to garner a passing grade based solely on it’s political content.
“But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed and became a greater nation the constitution is now a document held in great esteem by Americans the Founding Fathers of America are greatly enshrined in dollar bills and the American people are proud of their country and history.”
That has to be the longest non-sentence I’ve read in a long time.
Oh, please! You people need to get out more and see real life. He’s not at Harvard. He’s a first semester 17 year old ESL student at a junior college. What were the papers like of the other students in the class? What were their grades? The issue is not whether he is the next [insert name of famous political scientist — oh wait, there are none!] but whether he was treated fairly.
Julie,
I’ve taught at the community college level and have taught a number of ESL students. Further, I have taught literally 100s and 100s of Intro to American Gov students over the past 12 years–I am certain this isn’t a very good response.
Context would sharpen my opinon, but the more I think about it the best-case one could make for the essay is a D- and a very fair case can be made for an “F”.
Stephen is exactly right on this; it’s a legitimate final exam question and the kid went off on a tangent. I probably wouldn’t have failed him, but I doubt I would have given him more than a D.
Steven, a genuine question, I’m not trying to bait you either way…
To what extent would you (personally) hold the grammatical errors against a 17 year old Arab student?
I know your main peeve was that he didn’t answer the question, which is a good point, but I was just wondering if you (or if you thought other professors) would give him a pass on the grammar if his thought process was impressive.
(introducing a third question in this mix)
I don’t know that this is an “A” answer-I am not a college proffessor, but it doesn’t look like an oustanding answer-almost looks like the kind of answers we would give, when we didn’t have a clue what the answer was, but would just start writing to be writing something.
I think if the teacher said, what he is reported to have said, no matter what the quality of the answer, then he was out of line, and should be reprimanded/fired/whatever.
As for education in general-I think overall education in the US no longer relies on critical thinking, but indoctrination of students.
Oh, please! You people need to get out more and see real life.
Julie, it would be interesting to see if you have the ability to conduct a conversation without delving into insults. From what I’ve read so far, you are not. Too bad.
The issue is not whether he is the next [insert name of famous political scientist — oh wait, there are none!] but whether he was treated fairly.
Agreed, and there are two threads on whether he was treated fairly. The first is whether he was treated unfairly by the teacher in regard to being threatened. As I’ve stated, if this is true, the teacher should be summarily sacked. End of that.
The second thread is whether the paper was graded unfairly because of it’s CONTENT THEMATICALLY or was it possible there were other considerations, such as the paper was badly written.
Note the headline of the article which began this meme:
California professor flunks Kuwaiti’s pro-U.S. essay
The conotation of that headline, and the ensuing article and this discussion, is that the student’s paper was given a failing mark based SOLELY upon it’s THEMEATIC CONTENT, (it’s being pro-USA) rather than any other concerns, such as grammar and spelling, which go completely ignored in the article.. which is suspicious at best.
But, spelling and grammar are of import, because they are the OTHER reasons a teacher would have grounds to fail a student’s paper.
Paul astutely focused upon this issue, and proceeded to get the paper graded by an actual professor. A wise step. Becase Paul understands that there is a serious difference between failing a paper for THEME and failing it for bad grammar and spelling. It’s important because it’s always possible the student isn’t being entirely honest. Nor is the teacher.
And, the professor agreed that it was at best a “low D”. That’s an important point in discerning whether the student was treated fairly or not, because the teacher has the right to fail a paper based upon NON-THEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS. Such as spelling and grammar.
So, the intial thrust of the headline above is not entirely true, and doesn’t consider the other possiblities.
Further, it matters not if the student is only 17 in a junior college. The work on the paper is STILL subpar, even for a Junior college. As I said, it’s junior high level writing, at best. It is a teachers responsiblity to keep the standards level and expect a certain level of work. This topic isn’t touched upon at ALL in the article or in this discussion. And, it’s important.
As you say Julie, it is ultimately a matter of whether the student was treated fairly, and this includes the teachers overall evaluation of the paper as well as the teachers verbal exchange with the student over the paper.
The thing is, we don’t know what happened. We only know one side of the story so far. The students side. Dismissing the teachers side of the issue just because he is a “liberal” is about as un-American as one can get.
If that is your only point, then you can have it, and I’ll exit the circle jerk.
I know your main peeve was that he didn’t answer the question, which is a good point,
I believe I made that point in my first post, Paul.
Steven:
Without context, I don’t see how you can render a relevant opinion. The issue is not what grade you would have given, but what grade the professor should have given.
Julie, it would be interesting to see if you have the ability to conduct a conversation without delving into insults.
Since, you are trying to insult me, no, I can’t.
. . .there are two threads on whether he was treated fairly.
A comment is not a thread. -10 pts.
The first is whether he was treated unfairly by the teacher in regard to being threatened.
You are referring to your second comment. – 5 pts. There is nothing in Paul’s article re: threats. – 10 pts.
Grammatical error. – 5 pts.
The second thread is whether the paper was graded unfairly because of it’s CONTENT THEMATICALLY or was it possible there were other considerations, such as the paper was badly written.
Mis-use of word thread. -5 pts.
Punctuation errors. – 10 pts.
Note the headline of the article which began this meme: California professor flunks Kuwaiti’s pro-U.S. essay. [snip]
You don’t know how his paper compared to the papers of the rest of the class. Nor, do you know the instructor’s methods of grading. Therefore, you can not say that the grade was based partly, if not entirely, on other factors, such as the student’s political views. -10 pts.
Punctuation and spelling errors in snipped portion. -10 pts.
But, spelling and grammar are of import, because they are the OTHER reasons a teacher would have grounds to fail a student’s paper.
Punctuation error and failure to heed own advice. – 10 pts.
Paul astutely . . . .
Unnecessary sucking up. -15 pts.
A wise step. Becase Paul understands . . . .
More sucking up. -15 pts.
And, the professor agreed that it was at best a “low D”. That’s an important point in discerning whether the student was treated fairly or not, because the teacher has the right to fail a paper based upon NON-THEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS. Such as spelling and grammar.
The more impt. point is whether the student was treated differently from the other students in the class. -10 pts.
Punctuation error. -5 pts.
So, the intial thrust of the headline above is not entirely true, and doesn’t consider the other possiblities.
Thrust? – 5 pts.
Further, it matters not if the student is only 17 in a junior college. The work on the paper is STILL subpar, even for a Junior college.
As if you are in any position to judge. -10 pts.
Punctuation error. – 5 pts.
The thing is, we don’t know what happened. We only know one side of the story so far. The students side.
You don’t know all of the student’s side and you are assuming the instructor’s side. – 10 pts.
Dismissing the teachers side of the issue just because he is a “liberal” is about as un-American as one can get.
What? – 10 pts.
If that is your only point, then you can have it, and I’ll exit the circle jerk.
I won’t stop you. + 10 pts.
Grade: – 150 points or F minus, minus, minus, …..
Wow. You don’t need anyone to insult you.
You do a fine job making an ass of yourself.
James Joyner:
Update (2011): My co-blogger, “Leopold Stotch,” notes in the comments below:
“For me there’s something deeper going on—not with this particular case, but it represents a trend among conservative students to blame all bad grades on liberal bias. In fact, what I find is that my conservative students tend to gloss over material that confronts their worldview. Thus when I cover Marx, my conservative students dismiss the material and my lectures, then write poor essays on exams, and then complain of my liberal bias when they receive their grade.”
A good point. Folks on both sides of the aisle need to do a better job of investigating other possibilities before automatically shouting “Bias.”
Pretty much what I was saying as well, (not so directly) for those who are interested in dialogue and not simply stroking their egos.
What gets me about this isn’t the grade on the paper, it sounds like you could justify a low grade on it based on a variety of merits. What gets me is the suggestion that someone see a shrink based on a political philosophy. Unless there is something more about this than we know, something the student actually did or said to really warrent therepy, that is totally uncalled for. At that point, the grade the student gets is instantly calld into question.
For that matter, I’d call the professors sanity into question. To make a suggestion like that to a student without even the consideration of what it might look like if it hit the media is insane.
Guys, keep in mind this is Foothill College, a 2-year institution. Not exactly Harvard material. I’ll bet the professor gave better grades to worse essays.
Wow. You don’t need anyone to insult you.
You do a fine job making an ass of yourself.
No, you were the ass for going on and on how badly the kid wrote when your own writing leaves much to be desired. Remember, glass houses and all that.
“Folks on both sides of the aisle need to do a better job of investigating other possibilities before automatically shouting “Bias.””
Pretty much what I was saying as well, (not so directly) for those who are interested in dialogue and not simply stroking their egos.
But, you are also shouting bias. Apply your little gem of wisdom to yourself for a change. And as to stroking egos, that is exactly what you were doing going on and on about the kid’s writing.
It just seems a bit odd that a professor would say a student needed to seek psych help for views such as those in the paper. It’s pretty unbelievable as presented. There is likely another reason. Something occurred at that meeting. The student obviously felt threatened by the assertion that he seek help. It is entirely possible that the student has shown other signs of needing help, and the teacher gave the paper a bad grade simply for it being a poor paper, and when they confronted each other, issues became mixed up. It happens. It’s also possible the teacher is nuts. Or sick. It just seems to transend right or left.
And, again, even if it is a 2 year college, the paper is still poor for a 2 year. I’ve read better papers by 12 year olds. Really.
No, you were the ass for going on and on how badly the kid wrote when your own writing leaves much to be desired. Remember, glass houses and all that.
Ah. I see. So, it’s about me now? How nice of you. YOU drew first blood my dear. Remember this little gem?
You people need to get out more and see real life.
Apply your “glass houses” barometer to your own lack of grace and good manners.
What it comes down to is… When you say something like that, you are engaging in diversion, a thinly veiled attempt to change the subject, attack the messenger, thus taint the message.
You are unable or unwilling to engage what I’m saying, so you simply attack me. It’s the rhetorical weapon of choice for those who don’t have an argument or don’t wish to engage it. So, why are you here? To stroke your ego? Read your own words on the page?
The subject in this comment area isn’t, nor should it be, me. Tthe subject is the student and his paper. But, your focusing upon me means you don’t have to engage what I’ve said, nor the points I’ve raised. How open minded of you.
And, how about the Julie Greatest Hits:
“Julie, it would be interesting to see if you have the ability to conduct a conversation without delving into insults.
Since, you are trying to insult me, no, I can’t.”
I see. So, pointing out that you are being insulting to others is insulting you? Okay… And, I wasn’t insulting you at all, Julie. That’s pretty amazing actually! I was simply pointing out that your language was insulting of others in the comments. And, it was insulting. And, pointing that out is insulting you? That’s rich. It would be really funny if it wasn’t so damn sad.
Your “grading” reply was silly. Truly. You put so effort into insulting me further. Ouch. I’m hurt. Really. I. Am. So. Very. Hurt.
Not.
Your replies are cranial-rectal inversion shorthand for “I’m not going to debate you, I’m just going to call you names and throw stones and misdirect and you’ll concentrate on that…”
And, for the record, your opinion of my writing has about as much credibility as your manners and your analytical abilities. That is to say…zero. Nada. Zilch.
Comment writing is simple writing. It’s not composed. Comparing it to a paper, which is suppossed to be edited and vetted properly is simply not apropos. But, that doesn’t serve your greater purpose of bashing me does it? Oh well.
But, you are also shouting bias. Apply your little gem of wisdom to yourself for a change.
No. I wasn’t shouting bias, I was stating that there are always two sides to a story. A point which pretty much everyone, except you, seems to agree with.
I was also making the point that the writing in the paper sucks. A point which pretty much everyone agrees with, everyone except you, Julie.
And, as for stroking egos, that is exactly what you were doing going on and on about the kid’s writing.
What the hell are you talking about? I don’t know the kid, don’t want to know the kid, so I’m not stroking his ego. I don’t know Paul, so, I could care less what he thinks of me, (No offense, I’m sure the feeling is mutual at this point.) and I’m certainly not stroking my own ego by wallowing in this nonsense pit with you. Please.
Whatever egos you are talking about, it’s a mystery to me. Why? Because you are simply…. wrong.
Why do you insist upon turning this discussion into one about me? Answer: Because it means not talking about the subject at hand.
There was a discussion going on. Is that how you work Julie? Is everything a confrontation and a threat? Do you attack perfect strangers in blog comments to make yourself feel good? Do you attack people to not have to discuss the issues?
Because there was a nice discussion going on, and you found it neccessary to draw first blood.
For which you get nothing but disdain from me.
Addressing something a few comments up the thread, I took an upper division poli sci course as an undergrad, at a state university that touted its poli sci program rather highly; the only non-U.S.-born student in the class was from Great Britain.
The first student papers read in the class were very frustrating to the professor. They were unresponsive, poorly constructed, built on assumptions rather than reading and thought, and prone to misusing essential terms.
The professor, who became my favorite, spent several weeks trying to straighten out these basic errors before he could really start to teach the material. But he recognized right away the challenges he had with the students in that class, and worked from the start on making sure the quality of every student’s work was going to improve.
Nor would it have occurred to him to send a student to a shrink because of his political views. He was a liberal who had serious qualms about the speech codes that were already appearing in those days, and I, already a conservative, became one of his favored students and got the best grade in that class.
Oh, please! You people need to get out more and see real life. He’s not at Harvard. He’s a first semester 17 year old ESL student at a junior college. What were the papers like of the other students in the class? What were their grades? The issue is not whether he is the next [insert name of famous political scientist — oh wait, there are none!] but whether he was treated fairly.
You considered this an insult and an attack? Oh, brother! What’s next? You’re not going to start crying on me, are you? There, there, get it all out. Go ahead. Post another 10,000 words. You’ll feel better if you do. No one else will, of course, but I’m sure you will.
julie wrote this:
Well, technically, one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive.
Professors often fail students when they don’t follow instructions. That’s usually a good way to grade a paper, based on the guidelines.
I find it interesting that you are so offended by the essay question Julie. The constitution wasn’t written by a bunch of farmers by any means, it was written by a highly educated, influential, powerful group of men. It was written by an elite group of men. Big deal. Did the US constitution exclude a majority of the people living in America at the time? Well, there sure was a large number of people excluded, as native Americans and African Americans certainly were not included. There were many of both in America at the time.
Were a majority of the people living in America excluded? Honestly I dont know that answer, and would have to research the question more fully myself. It may indeed be a bad question if the “majority” was not excluded, but the basic question has some validity. Alot of people were left out.
So the kid’s paper was fairly terrible. Whether he is or is not “pro-American” is beside the point. He didnt write a good paper. It might be interesting to see how the rest of the class did, but the main topic here is this one kid’s paper.
If the teacher did tell the kid to seek “psychological treament because of the pro-American views expressed in his essay” then I agree with previous posters that he should be fired.
Somehow I have a hard time believing that the teacher would suggest treatment for pro-American views, however. That seems unlikely, but I suppose it could have really happened, and in that case he should lose his job.
You considered this an insult and an attack? Oh, brother! What’s next? You’re not going to start crying on me, are you?
You really are pathetic. It was not so much what was said, but the fact that you used a (lame) insult to denigrate others. It’s a trashy and lazy way of getting out of an argument.
And, I never said I personally took it as an attack. I simply said that I felt you were attacking others in order to not have to discuss the topic at hand. Get it?
No. I don’t suppose you will.
Crying was the farthest thing from my mind. Disdainful laughter, loud laughter, was the actual case.
You think too highly of yourself Julie.
Don’t flatter yourself. Really. Don’t.
Professors often fail students when they don’t follow instructions.
Gee, think that is why I mentioned it in my original post? And when a student does not follow instructions when writing an exam essay, how does this instructor ususally handle it? Did he handle it the way he usually does or did he handle it differently, and if so, why.
I find it interesting that you are so offended by the essay question Julie.
Liar.
[snip snip snip]
Look my little chomskybot, you and all the professor Woolcocks of the world can try to be as dismissive of our constitution as much as you want, but no one is buying it.
And did I tell you how utterly offensive I find your use of a chomsky quote in your sig line to be? I notice you don’t use it here. Why is that?
So the kid’s paper was fairly terrible. Whether he is or is not “pro-American” is beside the point.
No, it is exactly the point. The allegations are that he received a lower grade due to his political beliefs.
He didnt write a good paper.
Then he should be treated like other students who may also have not written a good paper.
It might be interesting to see how the rest of the class did, but the main topic here is this one kid’s paper.
Well, it’s more than “interesting” since who ever reviews the grievance will be looking at that very issue at the hearing. And the topic was whether this student received a harsher grade or treated differently than other students based on politics.
Lame insult to denigrate others? You mean: You people need to get out more and see real life. LOL. That you find that pathetic and denigrating is pathetic. And do you think pointing out that different schools have different standards, or that he was a freshman and a foreign student, or that the true issue was whether he was treated differently than other students, were not legitimate points to be made, but instead, as you put it, “trashy and lazy way of getting out of an argument?” Then you are really nuts.
And, I never said I personally took it as an attack.
Then why are you so overly emotional?
I simply said that I felt you were attacking others in order to not have to discuss the topic at hand. Get it?
No. See first answer. Get it?
No. I don’t suppose you will.
Well, you sure didn’t “get it.”
You think too highly of yourself Julie.
It’s not so much I have a high opinion of myself, it’s about me having a justifiably low opinion of you — which you worked hard to earn.
So, what’s next? I get subjected to another thousand words of gibberish?
Julie:
No, I actually do find it interesting that you are offended by the essay question. It’s not the greatest question of all time, true, but there are some points worth considering. I have no reason to lie about that.
Look my little chomskybot, you and all the professor Woolcocks of the world can try to be as dismissive of our constitution as much as you want, but no one is buying it.
Hmmm…critically analyzing the context surrounding formulation of the Constitution is a bad thing?
And did I tell you how utterly offensive I find your use of a chomsky quote in your sig line to be? I notice you don’t use it here. Why is that?
No, but you just did. I like that quote actually. I don’t see anything offensive about it, but I assume that you are a Chomsky hater, which is your right. Hell, I read the guy, and find some of his analysis to be intelligent and useful, certainly not all of it, as you imply.
Should I use it here? Would that make it easier for you to fling personal attacks my way? Actually, I enjoy this site because there are some good viewpoints…well reasoned, etc. It’s good to take it all in, for me at least.
You’re right, I’m one of those goddamned liberals, or at least you would more than likely call me that. Want to hate me? Ok, you can. Hmmm…I personally dont give a damn whether people call themselves conservatives, liberals, whatever. I think it’s mostly bullshit, and I dont really have a problem with differing viewpoints, in fact I’m all for it. It’s all opinion, viewpoint. There’s room for us all here, IMO.
No, it is exactly the point. The allegations are that he received a lower grade due to his political beliefs.
I think it’s pretty clear that the grade was deserved. The paper was way off point. The real issue is whether the professor stepped way out of line by making that remark. If so, fire the guy. Clearly though, the paper deserved a failing grade.
I would want to see both sides, know more about the conversation before making a judgment about the teacher. It’s hard to tell with just one side. If the prof really did say the alleged statement he was really far out of line.
Notice that I havent made any personal attacks, Julie. Civil debate is nice.
A few points to consider in this debacle:
1) student wrote poor paper and got poor grade
student then went to teacher to complain
2) student claims prof told him to get psych help
3) student is Kuwatii, obviously not totally fluent in English, and I would infer that student is equally a fish out of water culturally.
4) it would seem most likely that the culture clash between student and teacher led the teacher to believe that the student might benefit from psychological counselling
5) my own experience with Kuwatii intelligencia suggests this scenario is quite likely.
Wow, I got through that without making one derogatory comment about spoiled Kuwatii teenagers. [they’re just trying to emulate their American friends] Ooops.
Yes, the country and its people experienced horrible things. But the money and attitude culturally there still can easily lead to misunderstandings with Westerners. As opposed to dealing with some French folks who are just downright arrogant hemmorhoids.
That you find that pathetic and denigrating is pathetic.
Ah yes, the old “I know I am but what are you?” defense.
And do you think pointing out that different schools have different standards, or that he was a freshman and a foreign student, or that the true issue was whether he was treated differently than other students, were not legitimate points to be made, but instead, as you put it, “trashy and lazy way of getting out of an argument?”
Pointing out what we all already knew? How intelligent of you. Good work! Take a bow. Nice way to move the goalposts Julie. But, I didn’t say that your limited debating and pointing out already understood facts of the case was trashy and lazy, I said that your over eagerness to resort to insults was trashy and lazy and a diversion.
I stand by that statement.
And, you must think there is some truth to my statement, or why would you feel the need to point out your “contributions” to the discussion?
Oh dear. Is that a corner you’ve painted yourself into? How terrible for you.
Then why are you so overly emotional?
If you are referring to my rancorous laughter as “emotional”, then you are right.
Do you always project upon people this way? It’s quite boring and predictable.
As I stated, the onus for launching into ad hominem lies entirely upon your shoulders.
I simply asked if you could be decent. (Based upon your confrontational language and denigrating tone.) Comments such as this are simply arrogant: In the same way that one can measure and determine that you are not intelligent, UK. Those are your words Julie. And, uncalled for.
So, when called on it, you have the gall to deny it and attempt to paint me as to blame? AHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I was simply calling for some decency from you. That’s all. And, you don’t have the integrity to simply stand up for your mistake and your indecency. Why am I not surprised?
So, what’s next? I get subjected to another thousand words of gibberish?
Not that it would do any good. That much is clear.
Attack the messenger. How open-minded of you.
And, do you have any idea how much 1000 words actually is? Oh. Wait. I know the answer.
No.
I read about this “academic” awfulness a while ago elsewhere, but, haven’t yet read the comments here, Wizbang, beyond the first three, four or so, wanted to add one thing only and that is:
as to any of us who grew up after the 60’s and who received an American college education, it now appears, retrospectively, to have been impossible to avoid the influences (perhaps, requirements) of Marxist induction, given that the Frankfurt School (earlier reference, this thread, about which I direct people to this if they’re interested) –> http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:jGvmpeOlAAQJ:www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html+frankfurt+school+%22antonio+gramsci%22&hl=en
And, most of those became ‘academics’ and fostered others, a self replicating process, and today we have “the American left” and many in our media who persist in the cultural insistence that American media is what it is (and otherwise quite Marxist influenced and source to many of the rest of us).
Academically, I have several experiences, also, from particularly the University of California, whereby the academic culture there fosters Marxism and penalizes other ideologies, by subtlety or by direct academic penalty (a few particular instructors come to mind here as does the administrative structure of the place itself).
I had no idea in retrospect that many of my earlier academic experiences were quite so heavily influenced by such offensives, but I do now.
As to academics as process, however, I do know that for most who complete course requirements, you reach a point where you just do what is required of you even when it’s vile intellectually and even culturally to just get through and get out.
Then you can write all you want about what you experienced from the safe resting spot of being no longer vulnerable to destructive faculty and/or careless administrators. You just do the work, eventually, and get through it. Doesn’t make it right, acceptable even, just that as a student, I do know that once you start asking questions, posing issues, you get a heavier load and often stumbling blocks in your academic progress that wouldn’t otherwise be there.
I don’t know what the answer is other than to just get through and make corrections afterward from a better position.
But, about the student’s work, it’s very poor. I don’t know to what degree any political affiliations are affecting either student or instructor, but they’ve both failed at communicating both requirements and evaluation process.
The student continued to migrate into nonsense, perhaps, by associating certain political motives to an instructor’s presentations and requirements — I’m not sure that that’s even the issue here but it became affiliated after this testing process by both student and instructor so there appears at least a suggestion that there’s a motivating factor of a political sort, is my point — and the instructor’s retorts are utterly and completely unacceptable.
EVEN IF a student demonstrates perceptual problems, requires medical care, it’s irresponsible for any faculty to make that a public issue as has taken place here, and including those comments about that in an academic testing process accomplishes that (and, it indicates an instructor’s abuse of his position with access to a student).
The academic work, however, I agree with what I later read here written by “julie” and that is that it’s a situation of whether or not the student was treated fairly, or not.
But, from what I read from the instructor about this, he’s indicating deficiency in his practice, something that exceeds a moderate deficiency, approacing instead an indication of him as irresponsible, particularly with, for Heaven’s sake here, a marginal student at best.