Friday
January 9, 2009
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
March 15, 2005
Tattered Poster Child
Her name is still secret, but University of Northern Colorado officials agree that a student there filed a complaint two years ago complaining of political bias by a criminal justice professor.
Related stories
- David Horowitz Does the MLA, Dec. 30
- MLA’s Middle East Moves, Dec. 30
- Defining Adjunct Rights, Dec. 9
- Key Win for Scholar Kept Out of U.S., Dec. 9
- Tenure on the Chopping Block, Dec. 3
The complaint is the basis for many speeches by David Horowitz in his campaign against what he calls political bias in college classrooms. As Horowitz has told the story many times, the student was asked on a test to “explain why George Bush is a war criminal,” and when she submitted an essay on why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, she received an F.
Over the last week, a number of bloggers have questioned whether the student really exists. But just because that question has now been answered in the affirmative does not mean the controversy is going to fade.
Because while a Northern Colorado spokeswoman acknowledged Monday that a complaint had been filed, she also said that the test question was not the one described by Horowitz, the grade was not an F, and therewere clearly non-political reasons for whatever grade was given. And the professor who has been held up as an example of out-of-control liberal academics? In an interview last night, he said that he’s a registered Republican.
In addition, the university was able to directly refute other statements made by Horowitz supporters. For instance, Students for Academic Freedom, a group that backs Horowitz, on Monday posted an articleon its Web site (which was then widely posted by conservatives on other Web sites) with the headline “University of Northern Colorado Story Confirmed.” The article, among other things, said that the professor in the course had been unable to produce any copies of the test questions. But the university has had the test the entire time — and the question isn’t the way it has been described by Horowitz.
Here is the question, as provided by Gloria Reynolds, a university spokeswoman:
The American government campaign to attack Iraq was in part based on the assumptions that the Iraqi government has “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” This was never proven prior to the U.S. police action/war and even President Bush, after the capture of Baghdad, stated, “we may never find such weapons.” Cohen’s research on deviance discussed this process of how the media and various moral entrepreneurs and government enforcers can conspire to create a panic. How does Cohen define this process? Explain it in-depth. Where does the social meaning of deviance come from? Argue that the attack on Iraq was deviance based on negotiable statuses. Make the argument that the military action of the U.S. attacking Iraq was criminal?
Reynolds added that the student did not receive an F, and that although the instructions on the test said that answers were supposed to be at least three pages long, the student submitted only two pages on this question. In addition, Reynolds said that the student never had to answer this question. The test, she said, had four questions: two required questions and two others (including the disputed one) from which a student needed to select one.
Federal privacy laws barred Reynolds from releasing more information, she said. But she said that the information she did provide came from a file compiled by university officials after the student complained. And Reynolds said that everything in the file was inconsistent with the story Horowitz has told about this incident.
“The claim that Horowitz makes is incorrect,” she said. “That didn’t happen.”
Additional context comes from Robert Dunkley, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Northern Colorado who was identified by Horowitz as the professor involved. In an interview, Dunkley said that politics had nothing to do with the student’s grade, and that the context of his course has been distorted.
For instance, Dunkley said that the course focused on the relationship between deviance and being classified as a criminal. “We talked in class about how George Washington was considered a war criminal to the British,” he said. “We were going into the idea that different people define criminal behavior differently.”
And in case there’s any confusion, Dunkley wants it known that he does not think the father of our country was a war criminal. “I’m an American citizen and I thank God for George Washington. Without George, we wouldn’t be here.”
Dunkley said that he’s angry about the way Horowitz and his supporters have made him an example of alleged liberal bias in academe. Dunkley said that he comes from a Republican family, is a registered Republican and considers himself politically independent, taking pride in never having voted a straight party ticket.
He said that he would have explained himself or his course to Horowitz or his backers, but was never asked. “He’s cooked this whole thing up,” Dunkley said.
Horowitz provided Dunkley’s name to Inside Higher Ed Monday, based on a request that he provide more information about the Northern Colorado incident. At the same time, Horowitz offered up two supporters of his efforts in Colorado as people who could verify the complaining student’s story.
Erin Bergstrom, one of the volunteers, was the person with Students for Academic Freedom who first interviewed the Northern Colorado student. Bergstrom said Monday that the student needed to remain anonymous because “she’s been very intimidated by the whole process.”
Bergstrom said that she believed that the student had copies of letters from university officials that backed her claims, but Bergstrom acknowledged that she had never seen the test that set off the complaint or other key documents. She said that because students “don’t walk into a classroom expecting problems,” they can’t be expected to have proof when things go wrong.
“They don’t tape every course. They don’t keep every paper,” Bergstrom said.
Ryan Call, regional coordinator in Colorado for Students for Academic Freedom, said he had spoken with the Northern Colorado student as recently as Monday, and that she stood by her story, on which he said she has been consistent ever since reporting her concerns to his group.
“She seems very credible. She’s not a loon,” Call said, adding that the student told him “that she loves the university” and made her situation known “out of a sincere desire to help future students not have to go through what she went through.”
When told about what Northern Colorado officials had said about the test and the student, Call said it was “a little bit troubling.”
“We can’t independently verify everything that every student brings to us,” he said. “We know that there are some students out there who might use a bit of hyperbole about their claims.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Why should David Horowitz verify a claim before he begins using it to sabotage institutions? In fact, he should just throw a professor in the river, and if she floats, well, then, she must be a witch.
Rick Perlstein, at 8:12 am EST on March 15, 2005
OK, so it’s a ‘he-said-she-said’ situation. This is resolvable.
PersonFromPorlock, at 8:47 am EST on March 15, 2005
Okay. So he is wrong this time.
Horowitz gets 49 incidents right and one wrong. On the 49, silence or denial. On the one, great hurrah. His best move, apologize and move on with the other 49. Like Dan Rather should have done but did not do.
The exception seems to prove the rule.
Chris Williams, at 9:17 am EST on March 15, 2005
Horowitz
I am an admirer of David Horowitz. This looks bad only if Horowitz doesn’t clear thiings up and admit he’s wrong. Or he could effectively rebut this report. Either way, how he responds will be evidence of the measure of his intellectual honesty.
Horowitz fans should be cautious of this man if he does not clear things up. As a previous commenter noted, if he’s wrong 1 out of 50 times, his over-all case doesn’t fall apart; but if he’s wrong and won’t come clean when called on it, then he’s fundamentally dishonest and he puts his mission ahead of the truth.
We shall see.
todd, at 9:47 am EST on March 15, 2005
This case reflects a fundamental problem with the way Students for Academic Freedom proceeds. If all parties are telling the truth, a student made an unverified claim to SAF about the content of an exam she took. The university has verifiable, conflicting information, yet neither SAF nor David Horowitz himself made the effort to seek verification. If this is their modus operandi, it calls into question not just this single case, but the reported facts of the other cases they describe as well. Student complaints about course content should never be taken at face value without some attempt at independent verification.
Eric, at 10:59 am EST on March 15, 2005
Colordao
mental note...never send my kids to a college in this state. It seems they will be raped by football players or indoctrinated by anti-American garbage.
G Money, at 10:59 am EST on March 15, 2005
It looks as if you are relying on the accused professor and institution for all of your information. That is a bit one-sided. Please get your act together and complete the information before you put the cart before the horse. I cannot tell you how many times I see partisans do exactly what you are doing, portraying only one side of an issue. This is why so many people simply disregard things that you and Horowitz say. You never complete the picture.
Bunsen, at 11:30 am EST on March 15, 2005
Sorry, David Horowitz is CORRECT.
His claim, as stated above is this: “. . .As Horowitz has told the story many times, the student was asked on a test to “explain why George Bush is a war criminal,” and when she submitted an essay on why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, she received an F.”
ALL OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE STILL TRUE. They have not been refuted. The professor’s party registration—which of course no one has checked—is a red herring. The length of the student’s paper is a another red herring—the length of the paper wasn’t an issue until Horowitz began to be smeared.
Once again: Horowitz’ three allegations (above) have not been disproven, and his critics aren’t even close to doing so.
San Antonio Slim, at 11:30 am EST on March 15, 2005
Oops, here is the response
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17370
Dave, at 11:31 am EST on March 15, 2005
Horowitz’s intellectual dishonesty
robert, at 12:23 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Horowitz has responded, now what. Horowitz is right, she was given a loaded question that had nothing to do with the subject matter of the class description. Is it to much to ask the professors at our Universities to leave out of the course curriculum their personal beliefs, prejudices and political demagoguery. There is no place for their type of political indoctrination and grade extortion.
Ron Norman, at 12:22 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Horowitz
I still think there is more to this story than our poor widdie Republican Professor is letting on. Reread the way he phrased the question and the voice of so many of my “Ward Chruchill” type professors is right there. (I attended the University of Houston and was turned into a Republican by this type of harangue.) Horowitz has a long history of documenting his claims and being proven right in the end. I especially can’t believe he would miss the fact that this was an optional or extra-credit question if that were in fact the case.
topcat, at 12:22 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Loaded question
Robert, at 12:50 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Robert’s Screed
Why is it that ideologues favoring the status quo in higher education insist on tarring their opponents as shrill, ignorant bigots; but always in a self-righteous, preachy tone, learned from years of overexposure to critical theory and insufficient coverage of philosophy and logic?
You’re a pedant, Robert.
Gumbi Dammit, at 12:50 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Robert, I think you should read the question again. It doesn’t ask to explain why Bush is a war criminal. It asks if, within the guidelines quoted in the question, Bush was guilty of criminal action.
The student could have answered no, and provided her reasoning. Instead she ignored the question and answered a totally unrelated one.
I suppose you could parse that question down to “Explain why Bush is a War Criminal” but it would be no more logical or relevent than parsing the question to ask “Why is Iraq in the Middle East".
David, at 2:25 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Horowitz Response
I’ve now read Horowitz’s response and I find it adequate, but also lacking.
Horowitz effectively points out the anti-Horowitz bias in Jaschik’s piece, showing some of his characterizations are false. Jaschik is trying to discredit SAF’s cause by knocking the bottom out of the student’s claims and then making them central to their case. Talk about intellectual dishonesty...
As for the question, when I read it, I didn’t get the sense that the answer was a right/wrong answer. It set up a premise and asked the student to ‘make the argument’ accordingly. The professor explained the context to Jaschik — it was centered over the difference between deviant and criminal behavior and the sliding scale of what constitutes such.
This is where Horowitz’s close is lame. I submit that perhaps this young woman jumped to a wrong conclusion and then chose to make a capital case when she received a poor mark for *failing* to ‘make the argument’. The question was NEVER ‘make the argument’ Hussein was a criminal, it was meant to determine if the student understood the notion of differing views of what makes one a deviant or a criminal. It would seem the student didn’t understand what she was taught in class and therefore missed the intent of the question.
Horowitz seems to miss this point, too, arguing that the question was ‘loaded’ and that the student may not have gotten an ‘F’ but she may have ‘felt’ it was like an ‘F’! What kind of weak rubbish is that? That she was ‘confused’ about which questions were optional seems plausible, considering her mother of all confusion over the intent of the question.
This is just a bad example for Horowitz to use and should be a lesson in gathering and promoting valid examples of partisan indoctrination. His own biases got in the way on this one and perhaps allowed for some uncritical interpretation of this exam question.
Todd, at 3:18 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Robert, you are clearly not trying to be unbiased here. First of all, this wasn’t a debate course and there is no evidence that there were any other debate-course-type questions on the test. Second, you have ignored the accusation that the question was not appropriate for the subject matter. You are simply reaching for any defense you can think of without evidence. Sort of like you are accusing Horowitz of.
As to Horowitz, if he had used this case as anything except one throw-away example out of hundreds in his case files, your complaints of research sloppiness would have some merit. If the information he needed had been readily available then your complaints would have some merit. But you are demanding a standard that no one holds to.
I can provide a half-dozen examples off the top of my head of leftist partisans promoting speculative theories on similar evidence.
Sometimes you have to take the word of one person because you just can’t get any more information. That’s what happened in this case. The University refused to provide Horowitz any information, so he took the student’s word. What is the alternative? That when any institution is accused of some misbehavior, they can prevent anyone from talking about it just by covering up all the evidence?
That would be silly. Broadcasting the accusation is how you get the institution to come clean. It worked in this case, didn’t it?
Horowitz’s defense of his behavior strikes me as conclusive, baring any new revelations. None of the accusations against him seem to have any merit.
Doc Rampage, Robert’s Intellectual Dishonesty, at 3:18 pm EST on March 15, 2005
David:
You’re analogy impaired.
Robert:
You’ve nailed it.
Horowitz:
Your explanation makes more sense than your critics. Horowitz 1 Critics 0.
TomCom
TomCom, at 3:03 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Factual information...
Greetings, I’ve read both Horowitz’s “rebuttal” and this article and I don’t have enough information to say whether Horowitz was right or wrong... But I can say that he is guilty of Ad Hominem attacks (As are a lot of the people responding to this) rather than addressing what few facts we have. We don’t know what grade the student received (but they were obviously unhappy with it). We do know the question that was asked, and some of the other circumstances. Someone else stated that “no other essay questions were asked.” Were they in the exam in question? I suspect not. The University spokesperson states that the “instructions on the test required three page answers.” This would imply that all four questions were essay type questions as you can’t answer mutliple choice type questions in three pages. If I asked for a three page answer and received a two page answer I would deduct marks for that reason. A lot of time seems to be being wasted on claiming that the question parses out to “Bush is a War Criminal” which is not my reading of the full question at all. My reading is that there are multiple questions that need to be answered as part of your essay. These questions can be split out and dealt with separately. “How does Cohen define the process by which various parties can cause a panic?” — Note that there is nothing there about War Crimes. “Where does the social meaning of deviance come from?” Again nothing about War Crimes. “Show how attacking Iraq would fit in with these definitions?” — This is a fair question. Given a theory, and some facts show how that theory would apply to those facts. It should be possible to argue within the context of this question that the theory does not fit the facts, or that the theory doesn’t apply. If that happened then the Professor should grade on the argument presented. “Make the argument that the US attacking Iraq was Criminal” Again, a fair question in my opinion. The professor is asking the student to show a valid argument that given a theory and some facts that the facts lead to a certain conclusion. This is no different than asking a Physics student to reason that a person shoved off the top of a building will hit the ground at a certain speed. The student would be expected to make assumptions, produce an answer and be able to defend the answer.
Given that the course included discussing whether a criminal act from one persons point of view was criminal from all points of view these seem perfectly reasonable questions to ask.
I see no mention there of the President, or the Flag. Much as I hate to say this, the President is not the Country. The Flag is not the Country. If the word America was replaced with “Jack” and “Iraq” was replaced with “Mickey” you have an almost identical question that nobody would object to. As far as I can tell the worst thing that the Professor has done is to try and use a relevant example as a basis of a question.
Horowitz at one point claims that Jaschik did not inform him of the University’s counter claims. Yet the article includes this comment “When told about what Northern Colorado officials had said about the test and the student, Call said it was “a little bit troubling."”
I would have thought that Jaschik talking to a representative of his organisation would have counted as informing him. But then what do I know. I’m going to be condemned as a liberal pawn rather than having my comments answered in a reasonable manner.
Z.
p.s. I hate Ad Hominem attacks which is why there are none here.
Zwack, Mutant Internet, at 4:58 pm EST on March 15, 2005
I find this sentence in the second paragraph of Horowitz’ response compelling:
“Until now the university has denied us all information about the incident, which is why we relied on the student herself.”
If I’m reading this situation correctly, the university did not explain its position to Horowitz, but subsequently provided critical information to others, who used it to attack Horowitz’ position.
He has responded, and we await a response and verification from the university...
robert the elder, at 4:57 pm EST on March 15, 2005
poster child’s test question
“moral entrepreneurs and government enforcers".... “negotiable statuses"..... Smells like left-wing academic BS. For extra credit: Can anyone explain what these concepts mean, and how they fit into a criminology course?
Will Pickering, “negotiable statuses"?, at 5:45 pm EST on March 15, 2005
The question only mentions Bush once, and only to provide context. It is an absolute misreading to say that the questions ask students to explain why (or that) Bush is a war criminal. That the student apparently conflated ‘the United States’ with ‘Bush’ is much more problematic to me than that the professor asked this question.
Betsy, at 5:45 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Please read carefully
Actually, Betsy, those were two seperate questions. You made the connection yourself. Sometimes people assume things in tests and you know what happens when we assume, don’t you? In case you don’t know the answers, they are likely (kept brief):
1. The United States could be seen as “deviant” in that the majority of sovereign states of the world were not also attacking Iraq.
2. George Bush may have been categorized as a “war criminal” by Saddam Hussein’s regime and may still be assigned that definition by other governments. For you “logic” people out there: *For people that think “all war is criminal,” *George Bush declared a war, *hence, George Bush is a “war criminal” in the minds of people that think “all war is criminal.” Various other rationales may be assigned, but hopefully you get the idea. It’s a matter of perspective — one I would HOPE for my own opinion on the matter that would be more difficult to explain logically for those that share that view. Naturally, there will be people, some of them even from France (I happen to know her), that also do not agree with the view that Bush is autmatically a war criminal for declaring war on Iraq.
Part one is a question of statistics. Part two is a question of perspective. Effective criminologists (or students that paid attention in a criminology class) understand these concepts and can apply them without emotional baggage. Sorting out emotional baggage from scientific activity is important in the field of criminology, which, as I understand, sometimes studies criminals “in the field.” Can you imagine a criminologist studying crack dealers suddenly having a temper tantrum on a drug lord and saying, “you are so bad! I’m going to tell on you!” What do you think would happen to that criminologist?
For this reason and many others, criminologists need to learn how to sort out their emotional resposnses from logic. They need to be able to sort out other perspectives than their own (How would drug lords view my emotional response to their behavior? Would they kill me or empathize with me? Would they worry about my self-esteem or would they gut me?). Perhaps the instructor failed to express this effectively or perhaps the student in question skipped that day of class. These details weren’t stated so far as I can tell.
Provided this information (can we safely assume that students are expected to attend and pay attention in class?), even if one could make a connection between the two statements, it would be in the spirit of effective discipline to present this question. If my own child had been sent to Iraq and killed serving his country, I would still see this as a reasonable and fair question. I would still need to sort out my emotional response to answer the questions correctly.
For those of you that STILL don’t get it:
Paraphrasing Sun Tzu (author of a textbook still used at West Point Military Academy), to win, “know your enemy as you know yourself.”
In the worst possible light, Horowitz would have us (us being the United States of America) avoid knowledge of our enemies and their perspective in favor of being comfortably ignorant and vulnerable.
When I think of all the tax dollars that could be used in defense of our contry instead of this lawsuit, I get angry. I hope that anger isn’t impacting my ability to reason effectively. Please call me on it if it happens.
ibby, at 7:54 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Apologies
My immediate apologies to Betsy. I reread your comment and apparently you DID get the questions. Too bad others didn’t.
ibby, at 9:56 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Horowitz’s Error(s) Were Harmless
Rick, at 9:57 pm EST on March 15, 2005
Horowitz’s response is pretty damning — to himself. It is apparent, from his own account, that his organization didn’t do the minimum due diligence to corraborate the student’s story.
The student’s account by itself should have raised suspicians. Almost all professors return tests and test questions. Even if she did not have hers, it would have been easy enough to obtain a copy of the test questions from a fellow student.
More damning is Horowitz’s admission that he did not know the name of the professor involved. Did the student forget the professor’s name when she filed her complaint? Obviously, the SAF investigators made no attempt to check the student’s story against an alternative point of view.As for the student’s lie about the grade she recieved, Horowitz can only throw out a peculiar, relativistic argument that does little to hide the shortcomings of his investigations.
In addition to the above, the structure of Horowitz’s defensive essay undermines his arguments. Although it was written specifically in response to the Jaschik article, the first two-thirds is meandering, accusatory and generally irrelevant (Lawrence Summers?).
His claims (I hesitate to label them arguments since they have no logical structure) that Professor Dunkley’s question is more suitable to a class in International Studies, does more to highlight Horowitz’s ignorance of the Criminology field than damn the question. He then parses the question in a decidedly questionable manner. By the end, his thinking is so muddled that he equates two different meanings of “required” in order to excuse the student’s recollections.
What is particularly disturbing is that Professor Dunkley’s question is undoubtedly one that “present[s] students with the opposing views that define a controversy, show[s] them how to marshal evidence for one view or the other and teach[s] them how to construct a case in behalf of their own viewpoint.” Which is, of course, Horowitz’s own words on what kind of academic debate is acceptable.
McDruid, at 4:34 am EST on March 16, 2005
US action by Bush in Iraq was military, not criminal. Kerry considered it criminal but America rejected him and the idea we need call 911 to handle 9/ll type attacks. The whole premise of the test question was false. Since water can rise no higher than its source, his forced conclusion was false. Bush received authority from the Congress for regime change in Iraq and his actions were as commander-in-chief. There’s nothing criminal about any of that. So why did the good professor insert such a question in a criminology class whose objectives were discribed in the catelog. To argue he acted crimially suggests some law was broken. What law? The UN Charter allows for self-defense and Britain’s legal authority concluded their action was legal as well.
Robert Burnett, at 4:34 am EST on March 16, 2005
Exegesis
The supporters of Horowitz in this thread commit errors that are well-known since the days of the ancients, most of which are characterized by careless exegesis exacerbated by an indifference to the details. Subtlety and nuance does not seem to be your strength. And intimidating your opponents is no substitute for good scholarship. Whether you like it or not, there are times when you ought to be no more than a student; your energies would be better spent in study. After spending ten years of intensive study in one topic, believe me, you will be miles away from what you imagine to be the case now. You should not speculate so much on the road that you never traveled down. One senses that you are comforting yourselves that the road you never took wasn’t worth going down anyway. Take the trip, and then you can persuade us of your views, whatever they might be — now that’s real power.
QPhilo, at 10:57 am EST on March 16, 2005
He’s wrong but he’s right?
I don’t understand Horowitz’s supporters here.
He got the question wrong. It was more complex and mentioned that America’s action was criminal, not that President Bush is a ‘War Criminal".
He got the test wrong. There were four questions for the student to choose from (answer one), not four questions to be answered. If they didn’t like the question, they could have answered another one.
He got the grade wrong. The Student did not get an “F” (Though they obviously didn’t like the grade they got).
Jim, at 10:58 am EST on March 16, 2005
I know this is a debate about Mr Horowitz, to which I have little to add, as it seems slightly inane (the question in question wasn’t asked, the question in question was optional, the failed student didn’t fail). However I would be hard pressed to let Robert Burnett’s slightly skewed view of reality go unnoticed.
Plain facts: *What John Kerry thought in the privacy of his own mind would be hard for anybody to know, however he certainly never stated that he considered the war to be criminal — the strongest words he had for it was “catastrophic mistake". Which 1518 dead US soldiers, their families and tens of thousands of dead innnocent Iraqi civilians may or may not agree with.
*The legality of the war has not in any way shape or form been proven in respect to the UN charter — and few would be foolish enough to argue it on the basis of self defence.
*Congress never voted for authorizing “regime change", but rather on Oct 11 2002 voted to let the US enforce UN resolutions.
*And as far as “Britain’s legal authority concluded their action was legal as well” — well Mr Burnett is either lying or incredibly misguided. In fact, the last official legal opinion was drawn up by Lord Goldsmith — Britain’s attorney general, for those not in the loop as far as “Britan’s legal authority” — in a 13-page document on March 7 2003. This warned that British participation in the invasion could be ruled illegal in an international court. No further opinons on this issue was ever presented to the British government, parliament or the British people after this date.
Finally, tying this back to the Horowiz debate, and to the question that actually WAS asked (and frighteningly enough some people even seem to find that too much to stomach), I would certainly claim that if the attorney general of Great Britain found room for argument as to whether the war was illegal, why on earth shouldn’t this be discussed in higher places of learning in the USA?
BillyBilo, at 10:58 am EST on March 16, 2005
This is just another case of right-wingers using their general “thesis” of liberal bias as being the overriding factor over proof or facts. They focus on a set outcome and then search for anything that backs it up, while ignoring anything that disputes it. They believe things because they want to believe them. And it doesn’t occur to them that the process should work in reverse: getting the facts first and then arriving at the thesis based upon those facts. And any additional facts should be included into the thesis, rather than ignored.
But for them, any evidence to the contrary is considered to be just a fluke or in dispute or biased. If something confirms their beliefs, they immediately jump on it as proof of their thesis, and will shout to the high heavens that it proves their thesis. But they instantly become the champions of “let’s wait for ALL the facts” when those facts go against them...and then promptly forget about the story in search of more facts which back up their arguments.
As for my opinion on Professor bias, it’s all crap. The point of education is not to receive a confirmation of your point of view. The point is to learn different points of view. And if you don’t know the material well enough to answer a professor’s question the way that they want to hear the answer, then you’re a schmuck who deserves the grade you receive. I’ve had many teachers who pushed points of view that I disagreed with, but I was able to get A’s (I graduated Summa cum Laude).
I firmly believe that if you can’t explain someone else’s point of view in a way that they agree with, then you are unable to disagree with them because you don’t even know what they think. You can’t honestly disagree with what you don’t understand. And if you disagree with a professor, you can explain why you disagree...but only AFTER you’ve successfully explained their point of view and what it is that you’re disagreeing with. Anything else is intellecutal dishonesty.
I should add that any intelligent person should be able to explain a point of view without needing to subscribe to it. I can fully explain supply-side economics, yet I think it’s a fairly useless theory these days. And, yes, my supply-side-biased Republican economics teacher gave me an A, even though I completely disagreed with what he taught. Again, college is not about confirming your POV; it’s about understanding other POV’s. And if you believe that too many professors are pimping different POV’s from your own, then you’re just getting a better college experience than everyone else. But that doesn’t give you an excuse to hide within your own POV and expect the professor to respect it.
Doctor Biobrain, at 2:03 pm EST on March 16, 2005
There were four questions for the student to choose from (answer one), not four questions to be answered. If they didn’t like the question, they could have answered another one.
Actually, there were 4 questions asked and the student only had to answer 3. Two of the questions were mandatory, 2 were optional. The question that has everyone up in arms was one of the optional ones.
The student could’ve chosen to answer the other optional question. However, though she obviously didn’t understand the question, she chose to answer it inadequately, she didn’t provide enough of a response (2 pages instead of 3), then she got upset because she didn’t get a good grade. She then misrepresented the facts of the situation to Mr. Horowitz who subsequently chose not to verify them for himself (which he could’ve had his secretary do by contacting the school and/or the professor) and proceeded to create a storm of controversy. He then had to backtrack and apologize (inadequately some might say) when another source finally did his fact-checking for him.
So, children, what have we learned today?
Nikki, at 2:15 pm EST on March 16, 2005
Hmm, looks like the professor was asking the students to apply concepts commonly used in the academic study of criminal justice to a widely discussed issue in the news, so the students could demonstrate that they had done the reading, mastered the concepts, and were able to deploy them in discussing the case presented. They didn’t even have to answer that question, but could have chosen another. Seems pretty reasonable to me. In a philosophy class, an exam question might ask the student to use Kantian concepts and arguments to defend the proposition that animals should never be killed for food. The point of the question would be to test the student’s mastery of Kant’s ideas, and her ingenuity in deploying them to discuss an issue that Kant himself never considered. Would it be OK for students to whine, hey, no fair! I don’t believe in animal rights! Ridiculous. As is Horowitz.
jbc, at 7:45 pm EST on March 16, 2005
Being in the education system myself, I have to say I completely agree with the comment robert did at 12:23 pm on March 15, 2005
How could you possibly base a judgement of a professor’s political bias on ONE EXAM QUESTION? What about the rest of the class?
Heck, what about the rest of the test?Did the alleged ‘F’ constitute the student’s refusal to answer the extra question, or did the student screw up the rest of the test?
And honestly, if you’re studying at a university you really, *really* should have developed enough personality and be mature enough not to suddenly turn into a leftwing liberal drone just because you have to actually consider the idea that a government who attacks a country on false pretense might have been judged criminal if circumstances had been different.
The entire case seems based on nothing but an anonymous, timid student’s claims. If this is the way mr. Horowitz conducts scientific research, I have serious doubts about the rest of his case.
TG, at 7:46 pm EST on March 16, 2005
Tattered
BillyBilo
Robert Burnett said:
“To argue he [Bush] acted crimially [sic] suggests some law was broken. What law? The UN Charter allows for self-defense and Britain’s legal authority concluded their action was legal as well."You reply:
“Lord Goldsmith — Britain’s attorney general, for those not in the loop as far as ‘Britan’s [sic] legal authority’ — in a 13-page document on March 7 2003. This warned that British participation in the invasion could be ruled illegal in an international court.” (Emp. supplied)The careless reader might think that you have refuted Bob. I, on the other hand wonder if your precise wording is simply evasive since you argue another point (internationalists might think the invasion illegal) rather than refuting what Robert said (Britain’s “legal authority... concluded” the war “was legal".)
TomCom
TomCom, at 9:12 pm EST on March 16, 2005
Tattered Poster Child
Jim, Qphilo, Bibliobib, TG, JBC, Nikki, DocBiobrain:
In your collective zeal to defend a prof against the VRWC (is hysteria catching?) you all, conveniently, chose to ignore the main point raised by Mr. H. in his explanation:
“While reading it [the exam Q, finally released by the U.], bear in mind that this was not a final exam question in an International Studies course. It was an exam question in a Criminology course. The description of this course in the university catalogue is as follows: ‘Survey criminal behavior generally, including theories of causation, types of crime, extent of crime, law enforcement, criminal justice, punishment and treatment.’
“Now read the exam question and see 1) whether it belongs on the final exam of a course of this description, and 2) whether it requires students to argue that the United States and its commander-in-chief are guilty of criminal behavior....”
TomCom
TomCom, at 11:06 am EST on March 17, 2005
Here is Horowitz’s characterization of the exam question:
“This is a loaded question that seeks to enforce a student conclusion about an extremely controversial issue, which by the way is pretty remote from the subject matter that one would expect in a criminology course.”
I always thought higher education was supposed to impart, in addition to facts and information, the skills and methods of rational argumentation. An exam question that begins “Make the argument that X...” does not require that I believe or conclude X; it simply requires that I have enough underlying knowledge of the subject area and adequate skills in ratiocination to make the logical argument. (If I disagree with the conclusion, and if I have enough time, I might try to score extra credit by refuting my own argument.)
As for whether the exam question’s subject matter was appropriate in a criminology class... well, I suspect that neither Horowitz nor I have the criminology background to make that determination, but even without the background, I read the question as asking about a particular way of defining what is and is not criminal, in the context of Cohen’s research. It appears the use of the Iraq War as the subject matter got Horowitz’s knee jerking a bit, eh?
DJS, at 11:40 am EST on March 17, 2005
An interesting comparison
The invaluable blogger Billmon reminds of some Scenes From the Cultural Revolution.
Horowitz may no longer call himself a “leftist", but he hasn’t forgotten his Stalinist/Maoist tactics...
A Hermit, amateur philosopher and part time prophet of doom, at 12:19 pm EST on March 17, 2005
“Now read the exam question and see 1) whether it belongs on the final exam of a course of this description, and 2) whether it requires students to argue that the United States and its commander-in-chief are guilty of criminal behavior....”
TomCom,
As someone posted previously, it is not necessary for the student to agree with the position he/she is asked to argue. If you have ever attended an institute of higher learning, you should remember that its purpose is to elevate the student’s critical thinking skills, including the ability to examine and understand both sides of an issue. Not only does this tend to make one a bit more tolerant of others’ opinions, but it also enables one to anticipate another’s argument and provide a more effective counter-argument. This is what businessmen, lawyers and politicians do almost every day. It is a skill that has almost nothing to do with one’s patriotism. One would hope that 18-22 year olds (and elders, Mr. Horowitz!) would have the maturity to realize this.
As for the quip about hysteria and the VRWC, seems to me you’re the only one who feels the need to respond to just about every post denouncing your “hero.”
Nikki, at 3:22 pm EST on March 17, 2005
Reviewing over the article, associated materials, and previous postings, I can honestly say that I believe that the professor in this case can credibly pursue damages for libel.
Jeff, what a load of ..., at 5:07 pm EST on March 17, 2005
The curse of ideology
Horowitz sees everything thru the lens of ideology. He was a Communist, in America, in the 70’s, what a hoot. Now he has a new ideology. His switching of ideology reveals not the superiority of of his new ideology, ‘conservatism’, but rather the structure, or should I say habit, of Horawitz’s mind.
Ideology is a straighjacket on the mind, the enemy of wisdom and a destroyer of the spirit.
Jorma, at 8:03 pm EST on March 17, 2005
Billmon
I was both amused and disquieted by Billmon’s comparison of the far right’s rhetoric to “liberate” academia from liberals to statements form China’s GP Cultural Revolution. Frankly I like Horowitz much better when he fought for justice, world peace and eliminating hunger back in the 1960’s. Here is the link to Billmon’s Whiskey Bar:
http://billmon.org/archives/001752.html
For the record, I joined the Republican Party in 1973 and I continued in the Republican Party as a nontraditional student through my undergraduate and graduate education. I left 3 years three post doc without ever being hassled by a professor for my conservative or Christian views in four different universities as a student and visiting professor. I was intellectually challenged to think and periodically had to justify my position on issue, but never stigmatized. My decision to leave the GOP? George W. Bush’s visit to our campus in 2000 when invited by our department to have open discussions with our students. Students brought signs with questions on them to the large outdoor meeting. Two students had a sign that read “Mr. Bush: What is your position on the environment?” They were two students in my World History class. Two goons with sun glasses ripped the signs out of their hands, ripped them up, and ejected them from the meeting. That was the day I became a Democrat. For all of Horowitz’s fact gathering, it seems he left that incident out. It occurred at the College of Charleston, SC.
diogenes, at 7:47 am EST on March 18, 2005
smells like stupidity
“moral entrepreneurs and government enforcers"...."negotiable statuses".....Smells like left-wing academic BS. For extra credit: Can anyone explain what these concepts mean, and how they fit into a criminology course? -
to say that the concept of moral entrepreneurs smells like liberal BS as you so eloquently put it completely disregards the idea that academia requires the use of concepts and ideas to deduce or examine an issue. a moral entrepreneur is someone who uses a unifying idea/event (such as 9/11) to advance a particular agenda which is implicitly or explicitly related to the original event. Republicans, Democrats, everyone does it; many theorists see American politics as crisis oriented, which is predicated on the presence of moral entrpreneurs. This is not liberal BS, it is a sociological/political construct through which we can analyze and understand the world.
tim, get the facts, at 9:23 am EST on March 18, 2005
immoral entrepreneurs
Well, gosh. And here I thought “moral entrepreneurs” were corporate presidents that ensured that employees were paid a fair wage while still giving the consumers a fair price.
Speaking of entrepreneurs, here’s a business plan:
Create a campaign to demolish the reputations of colleges and universities by saying they are impinging on the right of free speech of students. Said campaign would cost both students and universities a great deal in court costs. Cost to prosecuting lawyers? They get paid.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this whole ordeal is a massive scam.
ibby, at 6:41 pm EDT on April 4, 2005
Horowitz
Explain to me why I should be up in arms about a student who responded to a question with the wrong answer? The professor was clearly testing student ability to apply a doctrine to a specific set of facts. The name of the “war criminal” was immaterial, however the facts attached to George Bush are not interchangeable with those attached to Saddam. If she objected to calling Bush a war criminal, she could have begun her essay with “For purposes of this analysis, George W Bush will be refered to as Saddam (or Bob or W or whatever) from this point forward” and simply applied the doctrine to W’s facts. If this was unacceptable to the professor, she might have an argument. Please think critically and stop grasping for issues.
Janet Tashner, at 12:06 pm EDT on April 20, 2005
I wonder who is wrong and a war criminal
‘We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction’Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002.
‘He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.’Sandy Berger, Feb, 18, 1998.
‘We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.’Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
‘Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.’Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999
‘Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.’Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
I don’t know if a country (America) where the people are so ignorant of reality and of history, if you can call that a free world.Jane Fonda
‘Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.’Tom Daschle
‘I believe (Rumsfeld) thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore. We can’t beat anyone anymore.’George Clooney
‘If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.’John Kerry
‘Let’s get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!’Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders
‘The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.’Bill Clinton
RUSS, at 7:41 pm EDT on April 21, 2005
Reply From David Horowitz
David Horowitz asked that readers be informed that he has published an article with his views on this case at:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17621
Scott Jaschik, Editor at Inside Higher Ed, at 8:38 am EDT on April 22, 2005
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Tattered Poster Child
or search for jobs directly.
Computer User Services Specialist I
University of Texas, Brownsville
Position Number: FY 09-66 Reports to: Assistant Director for Distance Education and Instructional Technologies Scope: The ... see job
NC Live Promotions and Outreach Librarian
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Associate Professor or Professor of German
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Cyber Tutor Coordinator
Community College of Baltimore County
Job Responsibilities: Provides oversight of the college-wide Cyber (online) Tutoring program. Responsible ... see job
Assistant or Associate Professor, Rheumatology
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Spanish Lecturer
James Madison University
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Executive Director
ABET, Inc.
ABET, a recognized world leader for assuring quality and stimulating innovation in postsecondary applied science, computing, ... see job
Economics Instructor
South Texas College
South Texas College Job Announcement # 2010 – 3023 Position pending Board Approval of FY10 Budget Please note that only ... see job
Regular Faculty Tenure-Track Series
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Programmer I (Application Programmer Associate) (Req. #0601166)
Georgia Southern University
Information Technology Services. Develop, test, and support software applications. Minimum Requirements: Bachelor’s Degree ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed
Cut and Paste
In college we are severly repremended/ thrown out of school for cut and paste. How is it that Horowitz can write about someone whom he has never met nor every attended a class. Just boggles my mind; he needs to get the facts strait before he just cuts and pastes things to dishonor great instructors. And horowitz knows what i’m talking about.
Tom Cooper, Ohio State University at Marion, at 9:11 pm EDT on May 12, 2005