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’m not going to address all your gibberish, snafu (boy that name fits you) because I have neither the time or interest. Nor do I want to be responsible for you sharing another one of your long tedious posts with us.
In the same way that one can measure and determine that you are not intelligent, UK. Those are your words Julie. And, uncalled for.
Cute editing, but let’s examine the begining of the exchange. I stated: I heard this kid on the radio last week. He came across as intelligent and good-natured. For that controversial statement, I was personally attacked by your doppelganger, UK. Or, are you and UK one and the same? Nevertheless, if you (and/or UK) can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Don’t attack people and cry foul when you get it right back at you. Hypocrite.
Meaning, last paragraph I wrote, if you’ve got a class or a group of students with already established limited capacity, or other deficiences whatever they may be as compared to others academically, perceptually, emotionally, then you have a respective responsibility to instruct within those characteristics.
I guess in this particular case the reality upon which any fair evalution could be made remains hidden: what are the ‘averages’ within the peer group, what were the students instructed to accomplish based upon what instruction, how were they admitted into what courses (standards exist for any institution, or can be expected to exist, at least)…so, unless the very specific characteristics of the institution, the class itself and prerequisites and all are available to examine, everything else is speculation.
I do think, overview here, that the instructor lost the ball. And there’s room to consider here whether or not he ever had it.
The work is marginal, at best, yes, by that student, but we just don’t know as yet what the standards and performances within those standards were by peers in that academic environment. Perhaps the school admitted someone not capable of performing as per institutional requirements, perhaps the instructor, but, unless those standards are known, the whole discussion about this is one of those “apply your fears here” line of speculative pieces by all the rest of us.
Everyone has experienced just what a trial it is communicate within a class, even greater institution, when there are a few others who don’t accelerate in awareness over time. School isn’t about who is nice and who isn’t, who is “good natured” and who isn’t, it’s about doing the work. And measurements of who does what in response to what.
Faculty who fail to communicate their expectations and then fail students who bypass or fail to meet those expectations bear a responsibility in the process, as do institutions who foster enrollment from among those who don’t pose the capacity to complete the work, however presented.
Academics is communication. If you’re determined to avoid learning the language of an instructor, or, if an instructor is determined to perform in a language he/she’s aware that students don’t comprehend, or cannot comprehend even if willing, then there’s a problem.
This one student’s situation, however, appears to be now a cause of convenience for many and it’s not even possible to analyze with any specificity what actually took place, without knowing the person’s capacity, the faculty member’s capacity and the institution’s capacity.
I attended a Big Ten school. For an entire semester of Pol Sci 101, all we heard was that communism was a better political system and that Africa was a better place to live. And you couldn’t argue with the guy. I really didn’t care. I was bored to tears and just wanted to finish the class and never take another poly sci course again.
School isn’t about . . . , who is “good natured” and who isn’t,
I said he “came across as good natured” on the radio because he “came across as good natured” on the radio. It was a good interview, Medved kept him on for a second segment.
I take issue with the question as well.
The question assumes that the position of the two guys (can’t remember their names, and I am not scrolling back up to figure it out) is correct, and asks for examples to support their position.
In a class that would include critical thinking skills, instead the question should have asked for examples the did or did not support their position.
Or the question should have been-List and explain the various support for their position.
But the question seems to assume that their position is correct and the only correct one. Which takes me back to the US turning schools into places of indoctrination rather than teaching them to think critically.
I really don’t care if the student passed or not based on the quality of his writing…I am aghast by the question, and the fact that there was no room for disagreement with the premise. It is still an example of doctrinaire teaching, even if the student’s essay was that badly written, and telling him to get mental help was not appropriate.
The saddest thing on this discussion thread is the mindset revealed by Julie’s comment:
“one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive.”
This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of academic inquiry. It isn’t like studying the Koran in a madrassa, or the Bible at Bob Jones. The purpose of study isn’t to learn the holy words of holy texts. The idea is to read and learn what others are doing, in order to better formulate and defend your own opinions.
In this case, the instructions called for the student to demonstrate that they understand the arguments made by two writers, Dye and Zeigler. Those arguments are widely accepted (Constitution was not “populist”) but certainly subject to debate. In order to debate them, however, a student must understand them first.
The student’s essay fails because it fails to show that he understands what Dye and Zeigler were arguing.
Julie’s comments suggest that the student failed because he failed to agree that D&Z were right (as a Bob Jones or madrassa student would be failed for challenging a holy text). Her suspicion appears to be that academia is a kind of religion, and that the student was punished for struggling against its mind control.
But the student just failed to answer the question, and in so doing, failed to position himself to take a legitimate stab at debunking D&Z’s theory.
Instead, he just spazzes out with a lot of emotional rhetoric (rather blog-like, actually)that fails to grapple with D&Z’s arguments.
Julie may find critical Constitutional theories like D&Z’s “offensive”, but it’s another matter to find offensive a professor’s request that students familiarize themselves with such theories, given their prevalence. Once students do that, they can support or attack it from an informed, not ignorant, position.
Which brings us back to the misunderstanding: the professor isn’t like your pastor. Just because he or she requires you read and understand something doesn’t mean you’re required to believe it. You’re only required to understand it.
First off, S, your arguments are windy and lead to a “poor me” conclusion. Thank you for not debating the point at hand.
Second, The “question” in question is being relayed second hand, by the student. As well, the entire context of the “test” has not been discussed, but, theoretically, this could have been two-sided. Question 3, as stated above, is the true question, and theoretically Question 4 is the exact opposite of question 3.
The basic point about this whole exercise is that there is absolutely no way to understand the entire context of the situation, there is no second side to the “conversation” about the grade and the alleged recommendation to therapy.
Also, I find the assumption that all of acedamia is inherently liberally biased to be indicative of the eventual conclusions most of you have come up with. As with all of real life, there are mixes of conservatives and liberals in everything. For all of acadamia to be “liberal” when the basic population runs 30% liberal, 30% conservative and 40% centrist just disagrees with statistical theory.
The only intelligent conclusion is that defense of the teacher is logical, given that the whole story isn’t known. Once the other side is known, feel free to debate the whole thing, but stop stringing him up by his pointards long before the facts are on the table, it only proves your own bias.
Julie wrote:
For an entire semester of Pol Sci 101, all we heard was that communism was a better political system and that Africa was a better place to live. And you couldn’t argue with the guy. I really didn’t care. I was bored to tears and just wanted to finish the class and never take another poly sci course again.
I’ve had courses like that, where it was clear what “side” the professor was on. Sometimes it’s really a pain in the ass, and sometimes in such classes I really learned why I disagreed. Other times I had my views changed a little. Sometimes I got really pissed off and worked harder to get a good grade and sneak my points into papers.
So did you keep taking poli sci classes? Hopefully you did, especially if you really disagreed with what the prof was saying. Learn it well, then refute it with strong evidence.
I’m sure there are lots of students who take what their profs say as the end all truth, and thats sad. To be honest, lots of people in and out of school do the very same thing and follow the ideas of their leaders. It happens in many circles, as lots of people dont critically challenge what is put forth. Not good. But there are lots of people who DO look into things more…
Liberal profs: I hear alot of criticism about a liberal bias in universities. And, to be sure there are lots of liberals who teach. Big deal. If you disagree with them, then learn it better, and challenge what you feel is bullshit. That’s what it’s all about. Some profs drive me crazy with their views and theoretical leanings.
-r.a. the chomskybot stereotypical liberal
beetroot go back and read the question-second post down.
The question didn’t ask for the student to explain D&Z’s argument, but to analyze the constitution, and explain how it was elitist. The question seems to assume the position is correct.
The question should have been a “explain what D&Z’s position” or it should have been a “analyze the constitution and explain how it supports or does not support D&Z’s position.”
I do think the context of the rest of the text/assignment is probably important here, but as far as I can see, the question does appear to have a built in bias.
As for academia being liberal-seems I remember some studies on this being done, and it is in fact overwelmingly liberal-I don’t recall the exact percentages, I don’t think it is quite as bad as the media, but it is still pretty bad.
I for one can say that the majority of proffessors I had in college and grad school were liberals-some weren’t so adamant in passing on their bias, but they were liberal.
As for pastors etc. My husband attended seminary-a very conservative one, and they were always told to take a position and defend it, not “hey this guys position is it, read the bible and tell us how he is right.”
Will conservatives EVER stop whining?
You think you guys would be happy with controlling every branch of the government. But no — some kid somewhere rights a shitty essay, flunks it, and you find evidence of some grand conspiracy to silence your viewpoint.
What’s that? The issue isn’t the grade, but the professor telling him to seek psychological help?
Why are you just taking the word of this obvious dumbass kid? He SAYS the professor made the remark, so it must be true? Did it ever occur to you that this kid doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about? If you read the essay, you’ll note that this is not exactly the shiniest egg in the carton. Is it possible he could be mistaken?
Maybe the suggestion about seeking professional help was in response to his wingnut whining about liberal bias just because he couldn’t write an essay that even remotely addressed the question or made an argument.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/8841
The posting linked above pretty much says it all. The Washington Times, true to Moonie form, didn’t bother to check the essay itself or check the facts on the professor’s behavior. Neither did you.
I don’t see anything wrong with the exam question. The premise is widely accepted and easily provable. My very conservative high school history teacher said as much as has every history teacher I had in college. The US was founded by the monied elites. Their major complaint was – famously – taxation without representation. When has it been any different? A fact can’t be biased.
It seems perfectly reasonable to give the student and F and send him for counseling if he thinks he’s the victim of liberal bias. Clearly, he’s deluded about being a victim. Counseling might help him.
“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.”
Just Me wrote:
The question didn’t ask for the student to explain D&Z’s argument, but to analyze the constitution, and explain how it was elitist. The question seems to assume the position is correct.
It’s a research question, designed to make people think about history. Some professor’s class isn’t supposed to be the end all truth, it’s supposed to make people think and come up with their own conclusions. One of the best ways of strengthening your own argument is by understanding the opposing view thoroughly. That’s critical thinking; being able to examine both sides and come to a conclusion.
Do students have to agree with the views of their teachers? No. Do they have to learn skills, sometimes strategic skills, in order to pass a class? Yes. I certainly dont agree with all the essay questions that are thrown at me. Sometimes I severely disagree, but if the question asks for an argument from a certain point of view, then that is my job. It doesnt mean that I will be brainwashed into believing everything that is put in front of me. Often, the exact opposite happens. It’s an assignment, not LAW.
The question should have been a “explain what D&Z’s position” or it should have been a “analyze the constitution and explain how it supports or does not support D&Z’s position.”
Thats a different question. The proposed question asked specifically for support of D&Z’s contention. I understand that you dont like the question, and I’m not saying that it’s my favorite either. It definitely doesnt leave alot of room. But that is the question. And just because some kid writes about that doesnt mean he has to change his/her entire belief system.
If the kid really disagrees then he should hit the books and learn to write a strong counter argument.
The saddest thing on this discussion thread is the mindset revealed by Julie’s comment: “one could argue that he did not follow the instructions, except for the fact that the instructions were so damn offensive.” This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of academic inquiry.
No, it suggests I have the ability to identify and argue both sides of an issue. How sad you don’t have the same ability!
The idea is to read and learn what others are doing, in order to better formulate and defend your own opinions.
The kid did formulate his own opinion. How sad you are unable to recognize it!
In this case, the instructions called for the student to demonstrate that they understand the arguments made by two writers, Dye and Zeigler.
And that is why my initial comment was that he did not follow instructions. How sad, that your memory is so short!
Those arguments are widely accepted (Constitution was not “populist”) but certainly subject to debate. In order to debate them, however, a student must understand them first.
Oh, you mean this country was founded by old rich white men, therefore we suck argument? How sad you find such an argument profound!
The student’s essay fails because it fails to show that he understands what Dye and Zeigler were arguing.
He understood it and he rejected it. How sad that you don’t understand what he was arguing!
Julie’s comments suggest that the student failed because he failed to agree that D&Z were right (as a Bob Jones or madrassa student would be failed for challenging a holy text). Her suspicion appears to be that academia is a kind of religion, and that the student was punished for struggling against its mind control.
No, I state that the issue was whether he was treated fairly, i.e., like other students in the class. He has certain rights under the college’s rules and regulations. It is being investigated. But because you disagree with the student’s politics, you would deny him his rights. How sad it is that you believe only liberal students have rights!
But the student just failed to answer the question, and in so doing, failed to position himself to take a legitimate stab at debunking D&Z’s theory.
How many other student’s, if any, failed to address the question? How sad that you would judge with out having all the facts!
Instead, he just spazzes out with a lot of emotional rhetoric (rather blog-like, actually)that fails to grapple with D&Z’s arguments.
How sad that you fail to recognize yourself in this last sentence!
I love the constitution. I love this country. I’m none too fond of liberals. But why hasn’t anyone pointed out the originally drafted constitution gave voting rights only to land owners, and that african-americans were defined as 3/5 of a human? The question by the prof., who may or may not be a liberal dingbat, is perfectly inoffensive. America is great because we corrected these errors in the original document.
Please notice how Julie simply turns the argument from being about the kids paper and that topic, to an attack on whomever disagrees with her. Her last post is genuinely obsessive in that regard.
That is all.
For that controversial statement, I was personally attacked by your doppelganger, UK. Or, are you and UK one and the same? Nevertheless, if you (and/or UK) can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Don’t attack people and cry foul when you get it right back at you. Hypocrite.
No, UK and I are not the same person, nor do I even know UK.
Personally Attacked? Hmmm. Really? Where? Let’s see, here’s the entire exchange between you and UK up to the point of your insult:
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.
Posted by: julie at January 16, 2005 03:38 PM
[…]
Julie, how do you measure intelligence?
Posted by: UK at January 16, 2005 04:14 PM
UK also stated:
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.
Posted by: UK at January 16, 2005 04:21 PM
And, your very next reply to UK was:
“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?
Posted by: julie at January 16, 2005 05:37 PM
(Huh. Not only do you insult UK without provocation, but you’re an ass as well.)
So, I’m at a loss as to where the actual insult to you would be Julie. Please, enlighten me. It appears to me that you simply insulted UK’s intellgience as a matter of denigrating his argument.
It appears that way, because that is exactly what you did, Julie.
From what the evidence above shows, you are a liar Julie.
Huh. Imagine that.
Your next move will be to simply denigrate me some more, since the actual facts don’t support your lies.
Your comments about my nickname really hurt. Boo hoo.
It’s satire. You know what that is? No. I don’t suppose you do know what it is….
“The existence of liberalism as a discussion topic constitutes, in many ways, an unacceptable bias towards liberalism in the eyes of the far right (and barrier between the far and not-so-far right is creeping ever leftward). Daily, we see complaints about the liberal bias of, well, everything, to the point where, as Bill Kristol put it, the rationale for all conservative failures is bias towards liberalism.
It’s a weakness, and it’s probably going to be the downfall of movement conservatism. Eventually, liberalism can’t be blamed anymore. When you fail out of school because you tried to get a Poli Sci degree by writing “liberals are destroying America” for 20 papers a year, you failed because you did a bad job.
Remember personal responsibility?”
Please notice how Julie simply turns the argument from being about the kids paper and that topic, to an attack on whomever disagrees with her. Her last post is genuinely obsessive in that
regard.
Please notice how snafu, avoids, as usual, the fact, that the poster attacked first.
Please notice how snafu, avoids, as usual, the fact, that the poster attacked first.
Where please? Prove it, because it’s not in the comments above now is it?
Okay, after reading some commentary by the various Pol Sci proffessors at their blogs, I don’t think the question wasn’t legitimate, I still think the question, if that was the way it was asked, wasn’t very well constructed.
Also, I do think it would be interesting to see how the rest of the class answered the question, and to know what the rest of the class was like.
No, UK and I are not the same person, nor do I even know UK.
All you moonbats sound alike.
So, I’m at a loss as to where the actual insult to you would be Julie. Please, enlighten me.
I already did, but you are too biased to acknowledge it. Obviously, some people will never attain enlightment.
It appears to me that you simply insulted UK’s intellgience as a matter of denigrating his argument.
What argument? That the student did not come across as intelligent and good natured on the radio? Living in UK, I sincerely doubt UK heard the same program, and he/she gave no indication they did. So, without hearing the student speak, how could UK argue whether the student did or did not come across intelligent on the radio program? I doubt you have the intelligence to understand this, but try. And, yes, I just denigrated both you and your argument because you continue to act the fool and your argument is stupid.
From what the evidence above shows, you are a liar Julie. Huh. Imagine that.
Well, one would have to imagine it, since, there is no evidence.
Your next move will be to simply denigrate me some more, since the actual facts don’t support your lies.
Right, I didn’t lie, therefore, there are no facts to support that I did. Therefore, once again, you deserve to be denigrated. UK attacked me without provocation and with no intelligent point to make and poof, was gone.
Your comments about my nickname really hurt. Boo hoo.
I wasn’t trying to hurt you, I was complimenting you for picking a moniker that is self-descriptive.
It’s satire. You know what that is? No. I don’t suppose you do know what it is….
Irony. You know what that is? No. I don’t suppose you do. Now, take Woodcock’s advice: Seek help!
Where please? Prove it, because it’s not in the comments above now is it?
Yes, it is. I can’t make the blind (you) see.
Ronin: Allow me to offer you some advice:
If comments, any comments — mine, anyone’s — are offensive to you for any reason, please don’t negatively impact your perceptions by further exposure.
I have no idea where and how your “poor me” thing can be applied to or about anything I wrote, but I get the impression that it doesn’t matter, since it’s not based in reality, nor approaching the planet Neptune, in constructive sense to or about anything. Here or anywhere.
So, was that all?
julie:
I realize what you “said” earlier. I wrote something else, made an entirely other statement that had nothing to do with or about you.
The only sparse relationship in what I posited after writing that “school isn’t about who is good natured and who isn’t” (close enough) was that the popularity and congeniality factor only goes so far in terms of academic performance. My thoughts about that matter. Not yours.
I’m sure you were making some other point, however.
Julie’s “explanation” of how UK attacked her:Cute editing, but let’s examine the begining of the exchange. I stated: I heard this kid on the radio last week. He came across as intelligent and good-natured. For that controversial statement, I was personally attacked by your doppelganger, UK.
Again. WHERE is the personal attack from UK? What were the words? Please cut and paste them.
You CAN NOT. Thus, because you are a liar, all you can do is reply with:I already did, but you are too biased to acknowledge it. Obviously, some people will never attain enlightment.
Turn the blame on me.Claim bias! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
How pathetic. You have absolutely NO PROOF that UK attacked you perosnally. NONE.
Prove it. Enlighten me. Please.
You are a LIAR, Julie.
And, everyone here can see that you are full of shit.
Queen Julie. Caught in a lie.
Imagine that.
All you have to do is cut and paste the personal attack that UK launched on you.
That’s all. Simple.
But, you can’t. Because it doesn’t exsist!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You are a clown.
blogesta makes a point that I agree with, also, and tried earlier to make and thought I had, and, that is that the student displays a problem of the perceptual kind. The faculty may have made an accurate generalized observation about that but was entirely unacceptable in making that observation public, TO ANY DEGREE, either at the point of difference or afterward.
I still tend to think that the instructor isn’t qualified to be teaching, particularly and especially teaching people with certain restrictions in capabilities (that’s obviously the case in this situation), based upon a clearly and awfully failed interaction with this student (probably others, I am considering), but that, also, a greater societal harping about ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’ is entirely out of proportion to the situation.
Because, again as I wrote earlier and again here, it is impossible and purely speculative to attempt to make this into some greater political complaint without furhter information being considered as to the facility’s standards, the class requirements, the instructor’s methods and course materials and insight into the student, specifically. Otherwise, again, it is all speculative, another instance of “pin the label on the monkey” issue to fuel all and any and no one at all.
Where please? Prove it, because it’s not in the comments above now is it?
Yes, it is. I can’t make the blind (you) see.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a lame cop out! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You are a piece of work Julie. Truly.
I’d feel sorry for you. But, that means I’d have to actually think about you. And, that is a pretty scary thing to consider.
Julie claims she CAN’T cut and paste UK’s “personal attack” because I’m too blind to see it!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
That’s because no one can SEE WHAT ISN’T THERE YOU FUCKING TWIT.
And, julie, I share your experience with that instructor you described (yours was a Political Science person). Oh, the stories I could tell, but won’t.
Don’t want to upset Ronin. But, the smarter students I knew and still know at least know when they’re faced with no recourse and an objectionable instructor and can get throught the class with a good to great grade anyway. You have to just do the work sometimes even when it’s offensive and then forget about it afterward but savor your grade otherwise. If that’s a “poor me” attitude, then excuse me, I avoided the kids smoking in the hallways and I don’t have piercings and tattoos and I even paid for the “ordeal(s)” myself…all eight years of it.
There are many nutty people in education and among faculty but you just as there are in other areas of life, you have to learn inorder to succeed in an educational experience or experiences how to just get through some of it, even when it’s offensive. Just get it done, get through, get out and THEN make your various media rounds and political pleas. If I remember correctly (that’s a rhetorical statement), Abby Hoffman and those similar didn’t end up too well. Same works to the other extreme.
Oh, I forgot: oh, poor me, to satiate Ronin’s fine tuned knitting needle.
Ronin: *I* have not been engaging in “argument(s).” I’ve been opining here. I asssumed that was evident, as are the similar behaviors of others. I guess you missed that.
Just Me wrote:
Okay, after reading some commentary by the various Pol Sci proffessors at their blogs, I don’t think the question wasn’t legitimate, I still think the question, if that was the way it was asked, wasn’t very well constructed.
I agree with you about the basic construction of the question: not very good.
Also, I do think it would be interesting to see how the rest of the class answered the question, and to know what the rest of the class was like.
Agreed. I do wonder how the rest of the class performed, and what the overall class was like. It would be interesting to hear from other students as well. I wonder if the whole class had issues with the prof, of if this is an isolated case…
Paul:
But why hasn’t anyone pointed out the originally drafted constitution gave voting rights only to land owners, and that african-americans were defined as 3/5 of a human? The question by the prof., who may or may not be a liberal dingbat, is perfectly inoffensive.
Yes. Good point Paul. It was a legit question, and the kid wrote a shitty essay that didnt address the question.
The issue with what the professor may or may not have said is another matter altogether. I wonder when we get to find out more about what really went down.
I’m none too fond of liberals.
Oh no! lol
-r.a. the stereotypical liberal chomskybot professor woolcock type (according to julie)
Oh, boy! snafu is really losing it now! I’m bored arguing with a fool, snafu. You are getting a royal ass-kicking all over the blogosphere, today. Ouch, that’s got to hurt! It’s nice to see I’m not the only one who finds you, well, a twit. You’re like that old Kids In The Hall skit where the guy keeps getting his ass kicked over and over again and doesn’t have the good sense to stay down. lol!
Huh. Good retort. “Royal ass=kicking?”
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You still didn’t answer the question Julie.
No. You. Did. Not.
I wonder why?
Cause you are a liar.
Simple that.
r.a. the stereotypical liberal chomskybot professor woolcock type (according to julie)
Identifying with a man who for years lied about the Khmer Rouge and aligns himself with holocaust deniers is not something to brag about, r.a.
Because I can’t keep talking to a brick wall that talks back, snaffy. And, yeah, you are getting your ass kicked big time. Guess, I’m not the only one who thinks you’re an out of control idiot. Not really a surprise, though.
julie wrote:
Identifying with a man who for years lied about the Khmer Rouge and aligns himself with holocaust deniers is not something to brag about, r.a.
look, you were the one who pinned the chomskybot label on me, and i was being sarcastic about the stereotype. you were the one who took the opportunity to try to attack me with your “damning” evidence that i have read chomsky’s work. next you will realize that i have read charles darwins work, and will accuse me of being a racist, regardless of how i interpret what he wrote. damn, i have even read thomas jefferson, the slave owning, contradictory, albeit genius, former american president. damn, i may have even quoted him. now what will you say?
my point is this: dont assume that you know what i think, or how i interpret what i read. by calling me a “chomskybot” you have attempted to reduce me to a stupid stereotype, which i find to detract from any constructive dialogue. notice that i dont fling stereotypes at you.
if you were wondering what i think about the chomsky issues that you brought up, you could have asked in a civil manner…something like “hey r.a., i see that you are a chomsky reader, what is your opinion about his involvement in 1979 with a holocaust denier, because i severely disagree with what he writes, and has done” or something like that.
it’s true, i have a chomsky quote as a tag line, and i like the quote, which is about questioning what you’re being told.
i have read chomsky, not a ton but a good amount, and i have found some of his analysis to be insightful and interesting. but then i also read many other people as well. i dont worship chomsky (or anyone), i read his viewpoint and consider it against and with other viewpoints. all part of the process.
i have been reading more about his past, here and there of late. in fact you brought up the issue with cambodia, and i went to the library and checked out some books from varying sides. they’re right here actually (overdue i think). school has started and i get into them when i can, not as much as i wish i could. so far, chomsky has been accused of really hammering on the US about East Timor, while playing down what the Khmer Rouge did relatively. Some arguments say that Chomsky was adamant about the fact that the US was “worse” in some sense. I havent read enough as of yet, but I am working on it. More later.
holocaust: NC maintains that he was all about free speech, etc. his accusors state that he was sympathetic to the ideology of that french anti-semite holocaust denier. i have read a few long articles against chomsky so far. i havent figured it out yet, and am still looking into that as well. there’s alot to read.
i suppose that you have already learned all that there is to know, and i am glad to have conversed with such an enlightened individual. when do your lecture tours start?
-r.a. the misinformed stereotype who doesnt think for himself and reads chomsky
I didn’t read all the comments because most of them seemed to b ad hominem nonsense. Anyhow, as a college student and occasional grader of other students’ papers (though not poli sci), I think my opinion has at least some weight.
Anyhow, here it is. I don’t see how this guy has any excuse. He had one of two options: write from the prompt or write whatever he wanted. If he did the latter (and I have done it) he should not be upset when he received a poor grade. His grade reflects how well he argued whatever he argued, and, as everyone here as seen, his paper was atrocious. It might ahve been defensible if he cited evidence to the contrary, but even then, he is *ignoring* the prompt.
Students do not have to agree with a prompt to write about it or to research a particular position. I spent many year in debate arguing positions in which I didn’t believe personally, or even positions that I found abhorrent. In my spare time I can write papers about whatever I choose. For class, I write papers about whatever the professor chooses. If the professor chooses crappy topics then I suck it up and write about it, defy him and possibly get a bad grade (though, a thouroughly researched and cogent response in the negative, as I said, is much harder to dismiss), or drop the class.
Really, this kid had no excuse.
It would seem some people are simply too dumb to admit they are wrong, caught in a lie.
And, some are too dumb to realize when they are being played.
look, you were the one who pinned the chomskybot label on me,
Yeah, well it fits, since you quote him in your sig line everywhere but here.
and i was being sarcastic about the stereotype. you were the one who took the opportunity to try to attack me with your “damning” evidence that i have read chomsky’s work.
No, I was attacking you for quoting the idiot in your sig line.
i have even read thomas jefferson, the slave owning, contradictory, albeit genius, former american president. damn, i may have even quoted him. now what will you say?
You love to quote hypocrites.
my point is this: dont assume that you know what i think, or how i interpret what i read. by calling me a “chomskybot” you have attempted to reduce me to a stupid stereotype, which i find to detract from any constructive dialogue. notice that i dont fling stereotypes at you.
If you are going to go around quoting chomski, you are a stupid stereotype.
if you were wondering what i think about the chomsky issues that you brought up, you could have asked in a civil manner…something like “hey r.a., i see that you are a chomsky reader, what is your opinion about his involvement in 1979 with a holocaust denier, because i severely disagree with what he writes, and has done” or something like that.
What on earth for? Why would I need your opinion? If you severely disagreed with him, you wouldn’t be quoting him. If you agree with him, you are as dispicable as he is.
it’s true, i have a chomsky quote as a tag line, and i like the quote, which is about questioning what you’re being told.
Oh, the irony! Chomski never questioned what the stalinists, the maoist, nor the khmer rouge told him. He just acted as their P.R. man. And, obviously, you haven’t questioned chomski.
i have read chomsky, not a ton but a good amount, and i have found some of his analysis to be insightful and interesting. but then i also read many other people as well. i dont worship chomsky (or anyone), i read his viewpoint and consider it against and with other viewpoints. all part of the process.
I bet you love the part where he says the reports of the atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were lies. Can’t get more inciteful than that!
c ive
i have been reading more about his past, here and there of late. in fact you brought up the issue with cambodia, and i went to the library and checked out some books from varying sides. they’re right here actually (overdue i think). school has started and i get into them when i can, not as much as i wish i could.
Yeah, not everyone finds the preventable murder of millions in our lifetime interesting.
so far, chomsky has been accused of really hammering on the US about East Timor, while playing down what the Khmer Rouge did relatively. Some arguments say that Chomsky was adamant about the fact that the US was “worse” in some sense. I havent read enough as of yet, but I am working on it. More later.
It’s not “arguments” it’s all documented. He did not “play down.” Chomski LIED! What the Khmer Rouge did relatively? THEY BRUTALLY MURDERED MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE! But, hey, don’t knock yourself out. Why should you care?
holocaust: NC maintains that he was all about free speech, etc. his accusors state that he was sympathetic to the ideology of that french anti-semite holocaust denier. i have read a few long articles against chomsky so far. i havent figured it out yet, and am still looking into that as well. there’s alot to read.
What a bunch of crap. He wrote the preface to a book where the guy says the holocaust was a lie. It has nothing to do with free speech. I believe in free speech but I’m not going to write a preface to fucking Mein Kampf! And what do chomski and the holocaust denier have in common? They both side with the murderers. Disgusting.
i suppose that you have already learned all that there is to know, and i am glad to have conversed with such an enlightened individual. when do your lecture tours start?
Do you always revel in your own ignorance?
-r.a. the misinformed stereotype who doesnt think for himself and reads chomsky
Nor, cares about the deaths of millions of S.E. Asians because if r.a. did she would have to choose a new sig line. Oh, dear!
I am SO sick to death of academic types telling us how to think. They should keep out of politics and TEACH. What makes them think they know any better than the rest of us??
Well Julie, through your posts, I would consider you are are a right-brainer.
Logical thinking involves two problem-solving styles which individually reflect the way the brain’s adjacent hemispheres work: the left side concerntrates on detail and analysis, the right side specializes in lateral and creative thinking. Both hemispheres are linked, but one side usually dominates an individual’s way of thinking at any given time.
So therefore because I consider you to be right-brained (by your posts), and the right hemisphere is associated with spatial construction, non-verbal creativity, and visual processing, but has no specialist regions.
If you were to be a left-brainer, however, then this hemisphere is associated with linguistic function, speech production, the ability to write and understand written words, and plays a crucial role in mathematical calculation and logical deduction. I do have boosting tips to help you develop the left side of your brain if you like.
Er, Rob, I can only speak of myself of course, but the answer to your question from my view, would be a PhD in Psychology.
Julie, you could also of course have centered-brain activity, with both sides working in equilibrium. This mental elasticity enables you to comfortably apply either an analytical or a creative approach. You may, however, not be either systematic or imaginative enough, which could indermine your depth of understanding or limit your ability to switch between left-and right-brain decisions.
No thanks, UK. I have no interest in your psychobabble/pseudoscience. Say what you want, but I make quite a good salary writing in a field that requires detailed analysis. Maybe, you should consider changing your major? Tarot card reading? It certainly would give you greater insight than what you are studying now.
Ah yes, Julie, you would consider yourself left-brained? If you do have a tendency toward left-brained activity, you would solve problems by relying on information and facts before reaching a decision. Your major drawbacks are a resistance to new ideas and the potential suppression of creativity by evaluating ideas before they are fully formed. This tells me a lot. If you are left-brained, put together a “mood book.” Collect different pictures and objects that appeal to you: a feather, a leaf, a magazine cutout. Paste them into your scrapbook and review your collection. How does it make you feel? Making an emotional – not a logical – connection between objects helps develop right-brain thinking, and help you to become an all-rounder, where your intelligence is concerned.
Hmmm, unsolicited psych advice to someone you don’t know because they disagree with your poltical beliefs, . . . Woolcock, is that you?
Julie, I’m just trying to help you boost your intelligence, which in my view, needs boosting, anyone just has to read your posts to see that. In its purist sense, intelligence is understood to be the cognitive ability to understand events or information, then process this information rationally in order to respond appropriately to what is happening around us. I’m not charging you, or anything. It’s free.
Sorry, Woolcock, I give no weight to the views of a self-proclaimed psychobabbler. And frankly, why would I seek or follow the advice of someone less intelligent than me? And of course it’s free, who would ever pay for your nonsense?
Julie:
You can be severely caustic. Goddamn. Are you here to actually engage in debate, or just to insult people?
Oh, the irony! Chomski never questioned what the stalinists, the maoist, nor the khmer rouge told him. He just acted as their P.R. man. And, obviously, you haven’t questioned chomski.
Right. Obviously I havent questioned Chomsky. Thats whay I have been reading arguments against his work. Thats what I was telling you in the whole post, I went to library, got books, so I could look into both sides. It’s called research. I dont form opinions in five minutes, I try to read as much as I can about it.
I bet you love the part where he says the reports of the atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were lies. Can’t get more inciteful than that!
Actually I honestly havent read much by him at all about that subject. I went to the library and checked out some books on Cambodia first. Then I have to find Chomsky’s stuff on that subject and see what he said comparatively. And then I will make my decision.
Ok. So by your logic, if I agree with ANYTHING that Chomsky writes, I am guilty, by association, for EVERYTHING he has ever done? Is that how it works for you?
I havent ever said that I agree with what he wrote about the Khmer rouge, I said I was looking into it more so I could get a better understanding before commenting. Anything wrong with that?
[I was talking about getting books to research more fully what happened]Yeah, not everyone finds the preventable murder of millions in our lifetime interesting.
Fuck. It’s called research. You lit into me a few weeks back about Cambodia, and unfortunately I havent read much about what happened, by anyone. So I went and checked out material to read and learn. And you accuse me of being sympathetic to what happened? That was really out of line. I’m doing what should be done by looking into it all, reading multiple sides, and coming to a conclusion about the matter. Are you against that?
So according to you CHOMSKY LIED about the Khmer Rouge. Got it. As I said I’m looking into it, reading different sides. Any recommendations for really damning evidence? I’ll read it. I do know what the Khmer Rouge did, but not in great detail. I know they committed atrocious acts, and killed millions. I dont know what the fuck Chomsky has said about any of that, so I have to look and see.
Holocaust: Chomsky avoids the issue creatively in some interviews, and denies involvement with the guy in some articles. Werner Cohn seems to be the most aggressive anti-Chomsky that I have found, and I have a couple of long articles by him where he is making a case for collaberation. So I’m in the middle of reading that as well.
Actually, I was going to ask someone here for the major reasons why they hate Chomsky, but I think you may have done that for me. That way, I can get another take, look into it, and go from there. Thanks for that.
Do you always revel in your own ignorance?
If you mean do I accept the fact that I dont know everything, that there is always more to learn, and that informed opinions take time to develop…then yes. I even accept the fact that I might learn something from someone like you.
Read this: I am always open to differing or contrasting viewpoints, and if I find that I have been wrong about something I have no problem admitting that. I may indeed find shit about Chomsky that I dont like, or strongly disagree with.
Speaking of being wrong, I used to have this insane idea that if I was civil in debate that others would be as well. You are providing strong evidence to the contrary.
Julie. I can tell you’re intelligent, and that you have intense opinions about politics and history. Thats why I reply to you. If you cut the personal attacks and broad assumptions about me we might be able to learn from one another. Imagine that.
-r.a.