Blogdex 8 January 2005 - ripples in ponds
Blogdex # 60 =Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a young Kuwaiti college student (freshman) enrolled recently at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, California, registered for “Introduction to American Government and Politics" unit. He has caused some controversy by using the web - and thus the media who picked up the story - to pursue his grievance against his professor who suggested a set essay he had presented could not be graded, however he might like to see a psychotherapist.
Ahmed explains:
Professor Woolcock assigned us a take home final exam. The final exam consisted solely of one required essay: “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.
What exactly was Professor Woolcock
Joseph A.Woolcock has been teaching Political Science at Foothill College since 1987. He received his undergraduate education in Sociology and Psychology from Boston College, did postgraduate work in educational administration and management at the University of the West Indies and masters and doctoral degrees in international development at Stanford University. Dr. Woolcock has taught at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in higher education and has several years’ senior level experience as an international consultant.
teaching in this course to get our young idealistic friend so heated? Was he acting as Devil's Advocate? Was he building Straw Men to check if they were awake? Was he using the question as provokation and a test of his students' integrity?
(2) Under what educational regime did Ahmed acquire the notion his effort(surprisingly short) could in any way be classified as an essay, in the traditional "on the one hand; on the other" that even the better High School "A" Level students in the UK would make a sophisticated stab at (allbeit muchly cut and paste)? Why didn't he write an essay which said:"I can find nothing in the Constitution which shows what is asserted in the question but...."
(3) Why didn't the Herr Professor obviate the difficulties he is now in, courtesy of "the power of the web/log", by suggesting the essay was sub-standard and ought to be re-done rather than use what can only be thought of as some sort of quasi-Marxist critique that we might have read about in the 70s in great works such "Cancer Ward" or "Darkness at Noon" ?
(4) Are we here dealing with the problems of African-American history?
I wasn't a history or political science teacher, but can tell Ahmed, for free, this in no way answer the question. The first thing he could do [apart from trying another College] - he can, of course, set up a weblog to re-write his perfect essay - is to quote something which backs up his assertions from the Constitution. This will be something which he can then discuss. He could then go on to fill in some of the intellectual background to the times. The French Revolution for example. How did England operate without a written constitution? Counterpoise the US and French Constitutions. Quick run through Enlightenment values: quote a few of the great European thinkers of the time.
Lets all have ago! A worthy and valuable exercise for even the high fliers of the intellectual weblogging firmament.
Ahmed has mistaken the task set with writing a political speech, which can be and often are completely idea and value free, because it just makes assertions. It is a political speech. A politican might say these words. It is even the sort of thing frequently read on political weblogs. But it is in no way a critique of what is a very interesting and important question.
The bigger questions, though, are not about Ahmed who will no doubt learn to write good essays, but the attitude of the professor to this work. Why didn't the Prof. lay out a suggested way of tackling the subject, rather than hinting that Republican Party activism was forbidden? I do not know how publicly funded Colleges operate in the US, but we have heard a lot about Prof.'s Problems of late with those of Prof. Juan Cole and the arguments that are going on about Middle East Studies Departments, aired through such sites as DanielePipes.org
“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.”
I have already written publicly elsewhere that I thought America was set up in the main to serve the interests of those capable of benefiting from such freedoms: the elite. So I am obviously in the opposite camp to Ahmed, politically. Perhaps I had better get reading the Constitution right through! I wonder if Ahmed read it and if therefore he might have been muddling it up with The Declaration of Independence? How many High School students think the two are the same? Hands up? Certainly this is worthy of discussion all by itself: