And, indeed, my "low D" was generous, given I really don't know enough about the class and what was taught, discussed, etc. I am always hesitant to issue a grade for work produced in another professor's course. Still, an F is no stretch--and indeed, as I wrote my post I ended up heading more in the failure direction.

Bottom line: it isn't a very good response.

For me there's something deeper going on -- not with this particular case, but it represents a trend among conservative students to blame all bad grades on liberal bias.

In fact, what I find is that my conservative students tend to gloss over material that confronts their worldview. Thus when I cover Marx, my conservative students dismiss the material and my lectures, then write poor essays on exams, and then complain of my liberal bias when they receive their grade.

I'm not a political science professor, but I have taught theology as an adjunct in a college setting, and prior to that, was a TA in seminary. In these capacities, I graded the papers of several international students. Generally, students working outside of their mother tongue are given more grace than those for whom English is a first language. This essay shows that he probably barely passed the TOEFL. As one who teaches theology using French (my second language), I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to grammar shortcomings in others. Of course, this doesn't excuse poor content, which is another issue altogether.

In fact, what I find is that my conservative students tend to gloss over material that confronts their worldview. Thus when I cover Marx, my conservative students dismiss the material and my lectures, then write poor essays on exams, and then complain of my liberal bias when they receive their grade

why does this sound familiar, oh yeah, I blog and read blogs, nevermind

The unfortunately-named Professor Woolcock may well be a left wing kook who has a bias against conservative students.

I am a former student of Dr. Woolcock's. He is a self-described Marxist, and he does actively attempt to persuade conservative students. He forbids critisism of Marx during class discussions. However, I have never known him to mark down an essay on ideological grounds provided it answers the question and is well written and supported.

As an aside, I would not describe him as a kook. For all that I disagree with him, he seems to be extremely intelligent and well-informed on political theory (if not on real life).

Zed: I miss your point.

Leopold: I had the same reaction to his comment.

Maniakes,

no offense, but as someone who has read and can appreciate Marx's intellect, I would have to say that one who is "extremely well informed on political theory and real life" would also see where Marx faulted in desperate and unmanagable idealism.

Leopold,

I was just making a smart remark about how there are many bloggers who get mad when the political shape of things distrupt's there world views, but it is unfair to expect everyone to really know what they are talking about and I would even go so far to say that the majority of bloggers stay away from issues in which they are not experts, but all the same, as James puts it, people need to be open to other possibilities before they start screaming bias.

Though, concerning bias at school, I'm really not one to talk, after changing my major 5 times I flat dropped out of college, I really had problems with my instructors, they never fit into my world view, but that is a long story, one with many, well, it's long.

As for all-caps, I think the last sentence of the post deserves that kind of emphasis.

One may challenge the premise of an instructor's question if one is clever.

I won't claim to be clever, but I did get excellent grades from an excellent professor by arguing the contrary of what seemed to be the direction of his assigned topic. In fact, he used my first paper for his political theory class as an example for the other students on how it's done.

That was many, many beers ago...

The grade is not the issue. The issue is teling someone that being pro-American is a mental disorder. He should have recommended an English tutor for his senence structure, not a psychiatrist to "cure" his love of America. I guess we know his priorities lie: indoctrination ahead of education. Unfortunately, this reflects an all-too-common atttude on campuses.

The irony in the teacher's complaining about getting unsympathetic reviews of Marxism is truly remarkable. Communism killed 100 milion people; do you suppose that was in the lesson plan? Or did that fact "challenge her worldview?" It's almost like being miffed at that those Jewish students "gloss over" Mein Kampf.

While I'm sure there are good, objective liberal academics, the fact is they have their Mary Mapes just like journalism does; the liberal echo chambers in both professions lead to groupthink in which radical ideas become mainstreamed and ethics gets thrown out the window. If you're a college student, watch out for those essay questions.

Zed, perhaps I was unclear. I said (or at least meant to say) Professor Woolcock was NOT well informed on real life. One particularly glaring example of this was his claim that Cuba's health care system was superior to the US health care system.

He struck me on brief aquaintance as someone who was extremely intelligent, and compotent in his own relatively narrow area of expertise (political philosophy), but whose understanding of the rest of the world was very limited and distorted to fit his preconceived notions.

Let me play Devil's Advocate and say that I do not think the essay too bad. Consider:

1) It's been written by someone who hardly speaks the language. The grammar should therefore be excused. How would you do if you'd have to write an essay in Arabic on Kuwait's history after having studied the language for 5 months?
2) We're talking about a kid of 17. He's not a senior in College or a graduate student.
3) He has a decent argument. If the Founders were truly elitists who did not act in the interest of the people, then the subsequent benefits to the people of the United States as governed by that Constitution would not have occurred. Since they have occurred, the Founders were not elitists who oppressed the people. In that respect they also deserve the epithet 'heroes' that our young author assigns to them.

Grade: B-

"Unfortunately-named Professor Woolcock"?

What is this, the playground?

Professionalism indeed.

Conservative TA-

I still don't see how you can be that generous with a grade. He never directly addresses the question, and I think you're being generous with your insight into his response.
His age also has nothing to do with it. If he's in college, he should be expected to write like a college student. Just a thought.

P.S. - It couldn't help his cause that he refered to FDR as "Frederick."

I don't even get why conservative TA feels that "America conquered other nations so the Constitution is great" argument works. I dunno if winning WWII was due to our democratic process.
The essay is filled with patriotic chest-thumping and reminds me of the empty space-filling junk I would have written as an undergrad if I had nothing relevant to respond to the question with.

["...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."]

The paper neither answers the question or argues against the premise effectively. A "D" would be generous.

The focuss of the question is formulation, exclusion,and elitism, thus the premise of the question as written could be correct. There were no women, blacks, or native Americans "formally" involved in the formulation. Those groups would be a certain majority of the people.

On the other hand, you can argue that the founders were husbands, fathers, and slave owners. Therefore the interests of women and slaves were represented albeit not necessarily to those groups liking. The Federalist Papers document thoughts considered in formulation and add more to inclusion. As for elitism, that one is easy. The point is irrelevant because the counter result does not exist in history to my limited knowlege.

Name a country or government that was not founded or formulated almost exclusively by the elites of that country or resulting government?

I think that the student tried but failed to argue, perhaps due to lingual limitations, that the Declaration of Independence is an all inclusive "mission statement" of the United States.

You can't separate the Declaration from the Constitution. The Constitution is merely the first draft "procedure" for acheiving the mission. It is not possible to achieve full inclusion in the context of the era or the problem at hand. It's a work in progress and it always will be.

"The issue is teling someone that being pro-American is a mental disorder"

We have only the student's word for it that this is actually what happened.

I'm a professor. I'd have failed that essay for not responding to the question -- I might have given him a break for grammar, since he's a non-native speaker, but failing to respond to the question in my classes is always an automatic F.

Then who knows what happened in the conference? The student claims he was referred to therapy because he's pro-American. I can imagine other ways that sentence got said -- the student protesting the grade, insisting that he received the grade because the professor is anti-American, because the professor is a leftist, so forth, the student getting more and more furious, and the professor saying, finally, "You know what, we need to end this now. And I think maybe you should seek some counseling."

Then the student decides that what the professor meant was that the student needed counseling for being pro-American.

Just my POV. From the other side of the desk.

If the Founders were truly elitists who did not act in the interest of the people, then the subsequent benefits to the people of the United States as governed by that Constitution would not have occurred. Since they have occurred, the Founders were not elitists who oppressed the people. In that respect they also deserve the epithet ‘heroes’ that our young author assigns to them.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

It took at least 150 years for the document in question to approach its current form, had to be modified multiple times to correct for instances where the rights of certain governed individuals were not recognized, and the entire system could have swerved into the tank and collapsed multiple times, but for the individual actions of a few. This does not exclude the possibility that the Founders were elitists; many were well-off landowners with slaves, none of them recognized the basic humanity of Africans and American indigenous, and at least a few maintained a low opinion of the working classes.

I'd expect more of a TA. You're fired.

Wearing my med school professor's hat, I would have flunked the guy. For me, a fundamental issue in grading a student is did he answer the question on the exam. I would have discounted his incomplete command of the English language, as it's not an English class. His political views are irrevelant to the grade, despite the provocative nature of the question. But I can't ignore the fact that he could not or would not answer the question at hand.

I would have been happy had he written an answer that directly challenged the premise of the question. A well reasoned, but contrary, argument could have gotten an A and I am always on the lookout for students who are engaged enough to challenge what is being taught. But he ignored the question and tried to fill the space with non-caloric, tangential filler, the way students without a clue write exams, irregardless of their politcal beliefs.

["none of them recognized the basic humanity of Africans and American indigenous, and at least a few maintained a low opinion of the working classes."]

Alexander Hamilton, was a bastard child from the West Indies, perhaps of slave blood, and could be considered working class origin. Hamilton was an abolitionist and founded the abolitionist society of New York. Your statement is substatially false.

I think it's reasonable to say that the native Americans of the era, had no desire to be included or governed. The point is irrelevant.

You're fired...

I think you've all been punked by the wingnuts again...

I mean "studentsforacademicfreedom.org"?

The horrors our students must go through to get an education in our nation! It's a sweatshop!

And rush/drudge/wash times picking it up?

I suppose it will make it to hannity tonight as well...

geez guys!

The grade is not the issue. The issue is teling someone that being pro-American is a mental disorder. He should have recommended an English tutor for his senence structure, not a psychiatrist to “cure” his love of America. I guess we know his priorities lie: indoctrination ahead of education. Unfortunately, this reflects an all-too-common atttude on campuses.

But that part of this "story" is heresay, is it not? Even if the professor said this to the student behind closed doors, what do we know of the conversation/argument that lead up to him making that statement? At age 17, I can image the filter the kid runs a conversation through when recounting it to somebody else. They could have spoken for 20 minutes about anything and everything and have had it boil down to "he said I should see a shrink" afterwards. That's more than I get out of my daughter for an entire day of school!

I noticed all the grammatical errors also, but he is a 17-year-old foreign student.

Cut the kid a break.

BUT, his essay sucked and did not address the essay question.

delagar,
The professor apparently does not dispute that point.

Bob Roberts,
It's a little silly to complain that while creating one of the most democratic, egalitarian, balanced, and libertine republics in the history of the world, the Founders did not also free the slaves and give women the right to vote. I give you an F for historical perspective.

Leopold Stotch,
Did you in fact mention the 100 million or so killed under Communism, and how that reflects on Marx? It baffles me how leftists can legitimately scoff at creationism but enthusiastically teach and endorse Communism.

To be clear, creationism should be scoffed at. My point is that communism is equally discredited.

Liberal Avenger,

As I noted before, the professor has apparently not disputed the point. Now that the issue has been aired publicly, if he had a more legitimate reason for demanding the student seek pyschological help, the burden is on the Professor to either supply that reason or deny that he ordered the student to seek such help.

Given the reality of grade inflation, I'd say this paper deserves a C at the worst. And that would be at an elite private university/college.

But before criticizing the grading, it would be quite helpful to know the conditions under which the exam was written. If time was sharply constrained (i.e other questions, only 20 minutes to write etc...) then those of you focusing on grammer, composition, etc... are full of it or doing your students a real disservice. If time is unconstrained (i.e. take home exam, two hours for this question) then you have a point.

What is really wrong with this essay is that it is essentially non-responsive. But we would need to know what the student was taught and/or expected to know. What was on the syllabus?

As for the Professor, I'd give him an F. The exam question presumes an answer that concurs with Dye and Zeigler's point of view. It leaves no room for a measured disset, or at least makes the presentation of a critical viewpoint very risky for the student. Surely there were different view points presented in the classroom or assigned reading?

The aggrieved student is a bad writer - period. His argument is poorly constructed and poorly supported.

I dare say a conscientious conservative professor would have eviscerated the student's essay in the same manner.

"I would even go so far to say that the majority of bloggers stay away from issues in which they are not experts"

Posted by: Zed at January 16, 2005 21:27 Permalink

That might be the funniest thing I've ever read in a blog comment...

It's interesting to see conservatives (who presumably back the President's desire to see more 'strict constructionists" in the judiciary) arguing for the progressive, changing nature of the Constitution. Do I see a self-contradiction raising its head?

TallDave: The fact that the professor has not disputed the point does not mean that the professor concedes the point.

You are apparently not familiar with how grade appeals work. You are apparently not familiar with the Buckley amendment either.

The professor cannot say a single word about anything to anyone about this. It would be unprofessional for him to do so.

That's why neither he nor his administration are talking. They can't.

You should look into the legal and ethical situation on campuses these days.

I'm with Conservative TA. I'd flunk the question:

"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."

That's an 'in your face' statement, and the kid gave it right back to him. Since we have someone here who essentially confirms the student's opinion of the professor (i.e. he's a Marxist ideologue), I'm giving the student the benefit of the doubt.

" They contend instead that it was written by a small educated and wealthy elite in America who representative of powerful economic and political interests."

More propaganda. Also ungrammatical. As someone else commented, all constitutions are products of 'elites' almost by definition. The student's answer seems to intuitively grasp that.

"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."

Why not ask; "Did the Constitution represent the interests of the majority of the people, or only the interests of a wealthy, privileged elite?"?

I think the kid read accurately between the lines, and did address the issue. He gave a grown-up's answer; the perfect is the enemy of the good. It looks like the prof is the one who isn't facing the issue.

And, I'm not sure what standards there are for grammar and syntax these days, but the guy who wrote that question isn't in a position to criticize anyone else.

The problem with the essay (in the portions iincluded here, and aside from the grammatical errors) is that it is a polemic, not an analysis of Dye and Zeigler's thesis.

Dye and Zeigler's book, The Irony of Democracy, is a standard introductory textbook for political science classes. From the beginning of the book the authors note they are looking at elite theory vs. the idea of pluralism.( Elites include both liberal and conservative elites in this analysis, btw.)

They demonstrate ways in which the elite have been more supportive of democracy than the masses, as well.

The question the student was supposed to address, again from the introductory paragraph, was historical and limited to the time in which the framer's lived and worked. The student should have addressed the clauses in the Constitution about taxes, commerce, protection of property, the slavery compromise, the representation compromise, the background of the founders...not recent electoral politics.

I don't know if the student addressed the above mentioned issues in the rest of the essay, but if not, then the student failed to answer the question.

I can also see a situation like that described above, with a student/prof interaction about the grade leading to a "see a counselor" moment.

But I don't know the student or the prof, and can only speculate about the moment in question.

"1) It’s been written by someone who hardly speaks the language. The grammar should therefore be excused. How would you do if you’d have to write an essay in Arabic on Kuwait’s history after having studied the language for 5 months?"

This is an excellent point not excusing the paper. Here is a real world example.

I once took an industry safety certification test with a group of peers in Russian at the ministry of oil and gas. We had a group of about six people and one or two professional translators. The administrators spoke little if any English. One of our group spoke native Spanish, fluent English, and had been fluent in Russian performing his work without a translator for some time. Of the group only this one person elected to complete the test without a translator. He was the only person who failed the test. They allowed him to immediately take it again with a translator. He passed easily.

OK the problem I have is with the question itself. I don't know what exactly the class was concerned with - is it a general PoliSci class or upper-level, concerned (at least in part) with studying political theories - but the question posed by the professor is loaded.

Wouldn't a more 'honest' question have been to ask students to write an essay either refuting or supporting the Dye-Ziegler thesis, providing supporting or refuting arguments from the text of the Constitution?

I agree that the student did not answer the question, and for that reason deserves to be marked down. But look at the question:

"...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."

All Professor Woolcock had to do was insert the phrase may support the view that the document between "formulation" and "excluded" and all would be well. But in not saying so, he makes clear that he supports the Dye/Zeigler thesis, and unquestionably applies an implied pressure upon the student to not just support the thesis, but to agree with it as well. I find this unacceptable. Since I don't know the professor, I won't generalize from this question that he is a poor professor. Even if he is, I won't engage in the conservative hobbyhorsing that he is "emblematic" of the "endemic liberal bias" that "dominates academia". Crappy question, though.

For me there’s something deeper going on—not with this particular case, but it represents a trend among conservative students to blame all bad grades on liberal bias.

Horowitz and his merry conservative inquisitors have opened a Pandora's box with that one. In recent months it has become increasingly common to accuse professors of "liberal bias" when some dumbass student gets a bad grade. Horowitz is making it very easy to bad students to build these frivolous cases out of thin air as long as the professor can be accused of "liberal bias.

I will remain skeptical (for now) about anything the student "said." Let me remind you this comes from an article in The Washington Times, and we know well how low their journalistic "standards" can be. Until someone interviews the teacher, I will not give credence to the alleged words of the disgruntled student or the scandal-mongering article by the Moonie Times. It seems to me like the article is written for wingnut consumption. Just like the "war against Christmas." Bet anything this week O'Reilly will be very outraged about this case, and will cite this Moonie Times' concoction.

It would be helpful for those who are discussing this issue if they were familiar with the text in question.

It would also be helpful if those who are discussing the question were familiar with theories that explain governance.

As Dye and Zeigler note: "Critics of this elitist theory of democracy claim that it is 'conservative,' that it legitimizes elite rule...But elite theory neither endorses nor condemns elite governance, but rather seeks to expose and analyze the way in which elites function in a democracy."

Apparently so many Americans have been innoculated by polemics of both the right and left that they cannot approach an idea without finding a bias against their pov. In this case, and in this time, it seems to be the right that seems to cry victim whenever they are asked to analyze an issue unemotionally.

Re: TallDave

"The professor apparently does not dispute that point."

Is this your way of saying that you don't know whether the professor disputes the point or not? Just how is it "apparent" that he concedes the point? Or is it simply that you are unaware of his addressing the point one way or another? If so, this is not evidence but ignorance.

"It’s a little silly to complain that while creating one of the most democratic, egalitarian, balanced, and libertine republics in the history of the world, the Founders did not also free the slaves and give women the right to vote."

Exactly why is this "silly"? Because you say so? Since when is it "silly" to measure rhetoric against actions? Somehow I doubt that you would excuse the hypocrisies of the Soviet regime just because the Russian revolution overthrew Tsarism.

"Did you in fact mention the 100 million or so killed under Communism, and how that reflects on Marx? It baffles me how leftists can legitimately scoff at creationism but enthusiastically teach and endorse Communism."

If you can't make the distinction between Marx as a socio-political theorist and the actions of a related political movement which occured long after his death, I can't see that you have standing to criticize those who would trace every malfeasance of US history back to the founders.

The people that want to fail the question miss the point of asking the question. This professor asked the students to demonstrate understanding of an argument. He was not, at that point, asking for agreement, disagreement or any version of higher order thinking. That's an acceptable, although not optimal, use of an essay. I might ask for a description of the theory, places in the Constitution that confirm the theory and finally the students' take on the theory but I don't think it is a terrible question as formulated.

This is not a controversial idea, I teach it in my high school courses. It was an inadequate answer. I would have given it a D at best in my junior/senior Politics and Law class.

Renato- Dye and Ziegler's book is an introductory, 100 level political science text that is used in conjunction with other texts and readings.

"Elite" is not a negative word in the context of the book. It is a descriptive term based upon levels of education and income and access to sources of power.

Do conservatives now want to deny there is an elite in this country? That obolishes the complaints against Hollyweird then, I suppose. Or an intelligensia. Or are conservatives only offended when elite is applied to those with money and power who sit in government?

Do conservatives, therefore, support direct democracy rather than representative govt? No electoral college? No think tanks, etc. funded by conservatives that give money to political campaigns for candidates that support their goals?

Just wondering.

Not a prof, it's fine to have a biased point of view. Bias is an unavoidable outgrowth of having an opinion. What is unacceptable in the formulation of the question is that it implies that the professor's bias must be reflected back upon him in order for the answer to be correct. It may be merely a matter of poor phrasing, but Woolcock should have a little more discipline than what the question displays. I don't need any additional knowledge of Dye and Ziegler to know that.

It is a crappy question. This is a political Science class. I have no education in this area but any notion of politics or results thereof must first be addressed in the context of competing interest and self interest. These are and remain the most important factors in our contitutional government. The document itself is just a nuts and bolts "how to". I think the premise of the question is beyond reasonable expectation of the time or the task. Does anyone believe that you could simply declare slavery unconstitutional. It didn't work 100 years later, what fool thinks it would have worked in 1789?

Vanyogan,

Err, slavery was abolished by Constitutional amendment prior to 1889.

Hmmm ... this seem to suggest that his FrontPage Mag article was written by someone else, no?

Patrick R. Sullivan wrote:

And, I’m not sure what standards there are for grammar and syntax these days . . .

That's for goddamn sure.

W.B., my mistake. I was really referring to that slight barrier to success, the Civil War.

I agree that a low grade is appropriate. Should a student be excused from writing correctly in college? He's just a foreigner, so we'll patronize him and give him a 'pity A.' That'll give him a complete education!

Remember the purpose of college is for students to learn. If grammar doesn't reflect in the grade on a written assignment, it doesn't seem like there's a point in teaching it, or any way to reward those who learn how to do it. Sending him out the door with a sheepskin just for showing up shortchanges him and devalues everybody's diploma.

The assignment was specific. It doesn't matter if he flew around the room healing the halt and lame if he didn't address the question. Let him contradict the thesis, if that's what he can support. Let him show how they failed to do thus-and-such, but don't let him wave the flag and expect an A for it, and go bleating that his own failure indicts evil liberals in academia, unless all he's looking for is brownie points from the right wing.

The paper was a failure. the question was weak. However, the real problem with the nature of this assignment and the nature of higher education altogether is the reliance on letter/number grades. My alma mater solved these problems instantaneously, eliminating grades and replacing them with a studetn's self-evaluation of his/her work and the professors evaluation of the work performed in the class. My transcript looks like the phone book of a small town, but I never got into a dispute about wantign to be on the A side of an A/B, or needing 5 bonus points to boost my GPA. People who go to college to get grades, not an education, are probably the majority of students today. And the resulting problems - grade inflation, hysteria about bias, constant rejustification of assessment schemes ("well, foreign students should get a pass on the letter grade segment dealing with grammar") and constant preening and comparison between classmates (How many more studetns ask "well, what'd you get?" rather than "What'd you write about?").

The paper was a failure, and the professor should have supported that it was a failure with a detailed, two-paragraph evaluation. A-F is a lousy system, contrary to the goals of education. gradeless schools like mine are less popular today, but far more powerful. All the professors on this board should strongly consider abandoning grades as an assessment tool.

sansho1- the question is part of the student's essay and reflects the position stated by the textbook authors, as the student notes by attributing the authors.

The wording is the student's, not the professor's, and so any complaints about that issue are offbase because they reflect the student's use of language.

It is not a crappy question because, again, the question asks the student to understand the arguments put forth by the textbook that look at demographics and historical context.

It does not ask the student to agree with the argument, but it does ask the student to understand the argument. If you want to refute an argument, you need to understand it first, unless you simply want to shout the other side down...and that's not what education is supposed to be about.

A libertine republic would be fascinating. I didn't know it was accepted among the conservatives that we have one.

lib·er·tine
n.

1. One who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person.
2. One who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker.

Did anyone else catch another obvious issue here?

Beyond the "liberal bias" crap, and the Marxist question crap--

This student didn't read the text! That's why he didn't/couldn't address the question.

I've seen so many essays like this in 15 years of teaching English. Students pick up a few random, disconnected ideas from class discussions, then jump to a few conclusions and paste together a string of cliches and other ready-made phrases and call it a paper.

It is a crappy question. This is a political Science class. I have no education in this area but any notion of politics or results thereof must first be addressed in the context of competing interest and self interest. These are and remain the most important factors in our contitutional government.

This is exactly WHAT the text addresses, and what the question, as formulated by the student's introductory paragraph, is designed to address.

However, the body of the paper does not address the issue. Again, the text supplied the student with the points of argument with which the student could choose to agree or disagree...based upon an understanding of the clauses of the Constitution.

The student, however, failed to acknowledge that he had read the text or understood the argument or knew the clauses of the Constitution and instead wrote a polemic that had nothing to do with an argument based upon elite theory.

This fight was discussed by Jesus's General and his loyal army of strictly heterosexual commentators on 12/27/2004 and also 12/28/2004 (after a certain monkey pointed out that the essay was online.)

The essay was so damning that I figured nobody serious would persue this story. But I guess there is always room for willful ignorance.

Bob Roberts accuses me of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" reasoning. He is wrong.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc goes like this. 1) I throw a banana on the streets (the constitution). 2) Elephants walk by in the next hour (the people are well-off). 3) Throwing bananas on the streets causes elephants to walk by (the constitution has made the people well-off).

But I said nothing of the sort. My example went like this. 1) Hypothesis: throwing a banana on the streets (the constitution) prevents elephants from walking by (prevents well-being of the people). 2) Observation: elephants walk by (the people are well-off) despite the banana on the streets (the constitution). 3) Conclusion: throwing a banana on the streets (the constitution) does not prevent elephants walking by (the people are well-off).

In short, I did not say that the Constitution *caused* the well-being of the people. I said that the Constitution had not prevented the well-being of the people. How oppressive can such a Constitution be?

Bob Roberts also writes:

"It took at least 150 years for the document in question to approach its current form, had to be modified multiple times to correct for instances where the rights of certain governed individuals were not recognized, and the entire system could have swerved into the tank and collapsed multiple times, but for the individual actions of a few."

Fine. But what document are we talking about? The very same Constitution created by the Founders! The entire process you describe was made possible, shaped by and within the parameters of this Constitution. Think of it like your DNA: you are Bob Roberts as much now as when you were 4 years old. Hopefully since then some changes have taken place though... :-)

In reponse to some other comments that the question was itself biased: I agree. Where I teach, however, this is something students are allowed to notice and discuss. Nobody would be as silly as to tell a smart student who does so that (s)he has not answered the question.

Not that it helps answer this question any, but I was a student of Professor Dye's. As has been stated here already, the concept of "elites" were never narrowly defined either as conservative or liberal. As for the question itself, Professor Dye used a similar question in the course he taught using his own book. Basically, he was looking for either a legitimate refutation of the question or legitimate agreement. But he was not looking for a polemic which did not answer the question either way.

I have to side with the Prof on this one. The student didn't answer the question - grammar mistakes or no. He should have failed.

Just because the professor's question was not stated neutrally doesn't mean it was a bad one. I've been around the college block enough to recognize a question screaming for refutation when I see one. Take a chance, show off a bit, and blow your prof's mind. I'd give a 17-year-old (presumably) freshman a pass on not having the werewithal to recognize that.

BUT if you're going to do so, you still absolutely must follow the instructions in the question: "analyze the...original document" it said. Where did that happen? He goes on about disagreeing with Dye and Ziegler, yet nowhere does he offer any true substantiation, just vagaries. Even if this was done in a timed setting, merely rattling off various presidents from Washington and Lincoln to Reagan and Bush I/II is not analysis of the document. This is *not* a college-level response. This wouldn't have even flown in my high school AP-level courses, I imagine.

As an aside, I too had an incident where a prof, I felt, graded me rather capriciously, even downgrading me on a class presentation where, because of *his* lousy time management of the lecture, I had to attempt to present 45 minutes of material in 20. When I approached him to point this out, and petition for some sort of make-right opportunity, he refused. When I -- with good cause, I believed -- became upset (I had put a lot of work into the class: the presentation wasn't even a requirement, I took it on voluntarily), he suggested that I had personal problems outside of the class, and that my grievances weren't really with him. But this was 10 years ago, and since I am fairly liberal -- and I would guess he was pretty well, too -- what bias could *I* go cry about, and to whom? Oh yeah...

["The people that want to fail the question miss the point of asking the question. This professor asked the students to demonstrate understanding of an argument. He was not, at that point, asking for agreement, disagreement or any version of higher order thinking. That’s an acceptable, although not optimal, use of an essay. I might ask for a description of the theory, places in the Constitution that confirm the theory and finally the students’ take on the theory but I don’t think it is a terrible question as formulated."]

The question fails because it refers to a document that has very little to do with representation and exclusion of individuals nor does it document the formulation. The Constitution is at best tertiary to addressing the premises of the theory in question.

The individual representation questions were at least initially left to state legislatures. The accuracy of "we the people", and "do ordain" are dependent fully on the process in which the document was adopted. The constitution itself does not preclude any individual from representation nor does it preclude the theorists from amending the text more to their liking.

The question asks to document apples with orange peelings.

It's a crappy question...

The kid is the president of the school's College Republican club. Funny how no one ever mentions that.

Conservative TA: To conclude that the founders weren't elitists from the premise that the Constitution has not prevented people from being well-off is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot seriously argue that elitism is a sufficient condition to ensure the impossibility of progress. You deserve a severe grade in elementary logic.

Interesting post, to say the least.
I recall a while back that a blogger put up their final thesis on their site for all to see.....it was largely written in the first person (violating rule number one) and pretty much cemented the notion that the college degree was worth as much as a used square of tissue.

"This is exactly WHAT the text addresses, and what the question, as formulated by the student’s introductory paragraph, is designed to address.

However, the body of the paper does not address the issue. Again, the text supplied the student with the points of argument with which the student could choose to agree or disagree…based upon an understanding of the clauses of the Constitution."

not a prof,

I can't dispute your point. The question is poorly worded in my view and even I have a better understanding than the student could have. The bias may be the references to "We the people" and "do ordain". Why would you ask only to support this point of the question with the constitution? The question seems to focus on the founders, the formulation of the constitution, and elite theory(presumably the text). I don't think the Constitution is best evidence to support the theory.

You have to address the founders as individuals and the references available to formulation. The Constitution as originally presented excluded nobody from representation and was fully amendable. The 3/4 rule is not intended to short change slaves. Quite the opposite, it is intended to limit slave owner and slave state influence in Congress and the Electoral College. So even that clause is counter productive to supporting the question.

Maybe the intention of the question is substantial but from the student's point reference, in a different language, it's troublesome.

To those objecting to the professor's question:

Isn't that a good way to get an 'A' on a paper? If the student had an opposing view to the professor and/or the authors of the assigned reading and expressed that viewpoint in the paper--backing up said viewpoint with research, examples, etc.--then that's a helluva paper, no?

This might prompt some of Mr. Al-Qloushi's defenders to say that going in the opposite direction of a professor is a good way to flunk a class. Whether professors truly hate conservative opinions (as so many conservatives seem to believe), and grade papers accordingly, is an open argument waiting for some concrete examples. But that's not what happened here. Al-Qloushi failed not because he's an Arab-American who loves America but because he wrote a lousy paper.

I agree that this paper deserved an F. Some leeway is deserved for the grammer, but the grammer is poor even by loose standards. But the bigger issue was in not answering the question.

Some people here seem to have a problem with the professor's question, but they shouldn't. It wasn't a morally based question, i.e., it wasn't suggesting that you agree or disagree with the authors' views. It was simply to uncover whether you understood and could explain what those views are. Before you can possibly agree or disagree with someone's opinion, you must understand what that opinion is. And this poor student's problem was that he already disagreed with the author's opinions, which inhibited his ability to understand them (assuming that he had even read the text).

So his problem wasn't whether he agreed or disagreed with the text, it was that he didn't demonstrate an understanding of the text. Had the student written a similar essay which agreed with the text without providing constitutional evidence and without explaining the author's opinion, he would also deserve an F. One of the tenets of a real education is the ability to set aside preconceived notions in order to allow yourself to understand all points of view. Again, you need to understand an opinion before you can agree or disagree with it. Had he first established his understanding of the author's opinions, he could then have written why the author's were wrong. And that is exactly what the professor was asking for in the question: not agreement, but understanding.

I should add that, his answer wasn't even a good disagreement with the text. I've never read the text in question, but the student's statements referring to the good things about America does not refute whether or not the constitution was written by and for elitists. Many people had a good life in Nazi Germany, but that in no way condones the Nazi horrors. Similarly, one could easily argue that our founding fathers were elitists AND that America is a great country. Hell, that's my point of view! Life is not black and white, and good things can have bad attributes and vice versa.

There, what grade do I get for this?
(with the understanding that I'm an unliterate CPA and not a poli-sci professor)

I must credit the College Republicans at Johns Hopkins for making me the Democrat I am today.

I joined the CR's during freshman orientation; I quit going to events when I overheard one of the officers make a snide remark about those of us on financial aid... and plenty of heads