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.