CDIH

Full Version: Young Kuwaiti college student FIGHTS THE POWER! - or something...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
This shit reminds me of that bullshit story about the Declaration of Independence being banned in California...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050115-115940-9997r.htm">http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 ... -9997r.htm</a><!-- m -->

Quote:California professor flunks Kuwaiti's pro-U.S. essay


By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


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.

For their final exam, Mr. Woolcock had students write an essay on one of several topics that he circulated.

The topic chosen by Mr. Al-Qloushi stated that some scholars "contend that the Constitution of the United States was not 'ordained and established' by 'the people' as we have 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 U.S. Constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded the majority of people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interests."

In his essay, Mr. Al-Qloushi said, "I completely disagree. ... The American Constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard-of in the rest of the world. ... 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 ...

"Because of America, the world is free. ... America freed Kuwait and is now currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25 million residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein."

Mr. Al-Qloushi said Mr. Woolcock "told me to come to his office the next morning." In the meeting, "he verbally attacked me and my essay."

"He told me, 'Your views are irrational. He called me naive for believing in the greatness of this country and told me, 'America is not God's gift to the world. ... You need regular psychotherapy.' "

Keith Pratt, an English professor at the school, said he was "pretty appalled" when Mr. Al-Qloushi told him about the incident. "I told him, 'You should talk to the dean and go through channels,' " he said.

"This is a very sincere action on his part," the professor said. "There was never one hint that he had any axe to grind. I know this guy and I have had many conversations with him about the atmosphere in the classroom, but he never engaged in any character assassination."

The essay in question:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive....004.htm">http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.o ... ...004.htm</a><!-- m -->

Quote:Topic:
3. 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 representative of powerful economic and political interests. Analyze the US constitution (original document), and show how its formulation excluded majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America’s elite interest.

Ahmad Al-Qloushi
Poli 01.02
Fall Quarter ‘04
Prof. Woolcock
T.A Travis Boetcher
Meghna


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 small educated and wealthy elite in America who were representative of powerful economic and political interests. This paper will CRITICALLY analyze the US constitution and how it was a progressive document FOR ITS TIME. And how it symbolizes and embodies what America is today a just and democratic society where all men and women are created equal and that men and women are free to pursue their own happiness and fulfillment.

I completely disagree with Dye and Zeigler’s contention that the founding father had ONLY their best interests at heart and that that the constitution of the United States was a progressive document for its time compared to the aristocratic monarchies of Western Europe (excluding Britain). The American constitution worried monarchs in Europe. The right for men to choose their own representatives was unheard of in the rest of the world. Yet in a young country which freed itself from the shackles of the greatest empire of the time. The founding fathers were stalwart heroes who led the brave young men of this great land and in order to establish a democracy maybe not a direct or perfect democracy but one that guarantees the freedom of its citizens. It is ludicrous to assume that a direct democracy can succeed in the United States. Yet in the last ballots of November 2nd 2004 the people of the United States DID get a chance of influencing their political decisions in their country and that is thanks to the US constitution established by the great men of America like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

These men paved the way for what America is today the country of opportunity and freedom. These men were men of nationalism and men who took great pride in formulating what is today the greatest country in the world and thank god that it is so. Because of America the world is free. America vanquished Nazi Germany. America helped establish the great nation of Israel a democratic society in a troubled region. America freed Japan and South Korea. America freed Kuwait and now is currently in a fight to free Iraq and its 25,000,000 residents and vanquish the tyranny and monstrosity of Saddam Hussein. The US constitution and the Founding Fathers helped build the foundation to which all this was established.


It is through the efforts of America’s great leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Delano Roosevelt, John F.
Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, current President Bush and most importantly the American troops who risked their lives for the freedom of America and the freedom of others that this country is so great and prosperous.

The US constitution might have required many amendments for its to catch up with modern times but no nation had a constitution which challenged the US in terms of equality and freedom at that particular time which made the document a very sophisticated one for its time a document which was feared by monarchs as being “too progressive”. It’s because of the American constitution and the American “elites” that Dye and Zeigler could critique this constitution and Americas Founding Fathers. It is because of America’s constitution that thousands of people wish to live there and walk amongst the free. “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.”
President Thomas Jefferson.

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 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.

It is the American constitution that helps the American government to solve its problems in legal ways and in ways that will bring true American justice and resolve. The American foundation was built by the American constitution and the Founding Fathers and nothing can destroy these foundations.

“Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President George W Bush.

America is a nation which has survived problems and many attacks on its soil yet the American will did not hesitate. America stood its ground and the Founding Fathers are the ones who built the Foundation that this ground were built upon. It is wonderful to have the freedom to argue Dye and Zeigler contentions and that is also due to the US constitution.

If the constitution was so negative then how did the United States the most powerful nation in the world today. If it was so negative how did the Soviet Union collapse in the Cold War? The United States constitution is a great document which for its time was extremely progressive and the evidence to the that is the United States’ accomplishments to date.

Quotes By
Thomas Jefferson
George W Bush

What educator worth a damn wouldn't give a failing grade to that shit? "Frederick Delano Roosevelt???"

A conservative poly-sci professor explains why it sucks.

But I'm sure Sean Hannity is outraged...
he didn't follow the assignment, or even properly attack the assignment. I tend to overlook poor grammar when it's someone's second language.

Certainly not an F, but not a good paper.

More importantly, what kind of fucking loaded question is that for an essay? Shouldn't essay questions for assignments not tell you what your results should be? Shouldn't they be: Person X has a thesis. Argue the pro or con of that thesis?
Quote:More importantly, what kind of fucking loaded question is that for an essay? Shouldn't essay questions for assignments not tell you what your results should be? Shouldn't they be: Person X has a thesis. Argue the pro or con of that thesis?

I thought the same thing too, but then I remembered my time on my HS debate team, and how I often had to argue for positions I didn't agree with.

I figure the kid could have argued against Dye and Zeigler's thesis rationally and still get a passing grade, but he instead rambles on about unrelated topics and blames his evil librul professor for his failure.

Loaded questions are loaded for a reason. The purpose of education is to make people think, not regurgitate facts.
i bet he got that grade because he smelled bad.
That's one thing. But when a question is posed like that, the only result is someone does exactly what they say you shouldn't: regurgitate facts. The kid is just going to read whatever Dye and Ziegler say and spit it back. There was nothing about, counterarguments or support.

Though, I've never heard of the school, so it might just be a 13th grade type of college for idiots who just want a degree. And what is a 17 year old doing in college anyway?

It was definitely a poor paper. He just rambled the whole paper, basically handing in an essay, when it appears that they guy wanted a research paper. I still think the prof is a douche for offering that type of wording on an assignment. But I don't have context to the class or other questions that were offered.

And this kid probably wasn't a Dean's List type of student since he can't communicate.
and he probably smelled also....
Quote:That's one thing. But when a question is posed like that, the only result is someone does exactly what they say you shouldn't: regurgitate facts. The kid is just going to read whatever Dye and Ziegler say and spit it back. There was nothing about, counterarguments or support.

See that, I don't know. I suppose I'm speaking from my own self-imposed bubble, but such a question SHOULD bring into play one's personal philosophy. Defend it if you do, try to defend it if you don't. Arguing for the other side helps you see your own side more clearly - it really is true.

So what harm is there in encouraging students to do so?
the issue wasnt the strength of his essay, but the side he chose to take. the professor and the student are both at fault. the professor for expecting only one answer and the student for writing such a weak paper.