(Saturday morning afterthoughts appended below.)
I really wanted to move on from this whole David Horowitz/Students for Academic Freedom thing (which, I realize, I have occasionally mistakenly referred to as "Students for Academic Fairness", an understandable error since both descriptions are equally bullshit), but a recent perusal of the SAF's web site has just pushed me over the edge. These people are either mind-numbingly dishonest or just jaw-droppingly stupid. Possibly both. Who knows? But ... onward.
As a quick recap, it all starts back here, in September of 2004, when Horowitz wrote about the now infamous case of the University of Northern Colorado student who was asked to explain why George Bush was a war criminal. Now, let's ignore everything else about this case, and concentrate on that exam question, shall we? There's no arguing that, in the beginning, Dave was presenting the question as having been phrased in this precise, exact, word-for-word way:
Among the evidence presented at this December hearing was testimony from a student at the University of Northern Colorado who told legislators that a required essay topic on her criminology mid-term exam was: “Explain why George Bush is a war criminal.”
Note well that Dave is not claiming that this was the flavour of the question, or that this was his interpretation of the question -- he is clearly (as you can see because of his surrounding quotes) presenting this as the actual verbatim wording of the question. And, no, I'm not interested in your alternative view on the subject, OK? I can easily provide another dozen examples where Dave makes the same claim so this issue is not open for debate.
Fast forward to March of 2005, to shortly after the shitstorm had started when Inside Higher Ed's Scott Jaschik weighed in with some embarrassing revelations, among them:
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?
Hmmmm ... yes, yes, I believe I can see the subtle distinction here. Not hard to understand how someone could confuse those two questions -- if they've had their brain replaced by a cauliflower. Now on the defensive, Horowitz did what any honest, ethical public figure would do -- he tried to bullshit his way out of it:
... What follows is the actual text of the exam question (which was not supplied to us or the student) as reported by the university official. While reading it, 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:
Note how Horowitz is suddenly shifting his attack, now arguing whether or not the question was appropriate for the course. But that's not the issue, is it, Dave? The issue is whether or not you lied about the precise wording of the question itself, so let's not get distracted by Dave waving bright, shiny things around, let's stay focused, as we read the wording of the question as Dave reproduces it in his own article:
“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.”
at which point, Dave continues:
The way I parse this is, the Bush administration lied about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and manipulated the public into a state of panic in order to attack Iraq unjustifiably. Explain why the U.S. (and obviously its President) is guilty of criminal behavior.
In other words, the exam question is pretty much how the student remembered it without the text in front of her, and how we reported it. It doesn’t matter to me whether this professor is a Republican or a vegetarian. 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.
But, Dave, sweetie, nobody gives a shit about how you want to "parse" that question, what you think it might mean or whether it might be "loaded". All that matters is that it doesn't even vaguely resemble the 8-word version you'd been parading around for months and claiming was the exact text. And, I'm sorry, "the exam question is pretty much how the student remembered it without the text in front of her, and how we reported it"? What, this student is so unspeakably stupid that she somehow misremembers a lengthy and highly-nuanced essay question as "Explain why George Bush is a war criminal"? Yeah, that can happen. If you're a moron.
And how do we complete the cycle and bring the wingnuts at the SAF into it? Simple. In a March 21 article by National Campus Director Sara Dogan (not directly linkable on their web site due to their brain-damaged page design, but scroll down, it's entitled "More Academic Freedom Victories and Another Case of Media Misrepresentation"), Dogan writes fairly early:
... Meanwhile the media have launched yet another unjustified attack on our organization, claiming that we falsified the story of a University of Northern Colorado Student who failed her criminology exam after she refused to explain why George Bush is a war criminal.
Now, there's persistence, and then there's just being an asshole as Dogan is being by repeating a myth that has now been thoroughly discredited. But it gets better as, near the end of the article, Dogan actually addresses the controversy of the question text in the same sleazy manner as Horowitz did, beginning with:
UNC President Kay Norton has now released to the media the question which she claims was on the student’s exam. It is unclear how she was able to obtain this document, given that the professor had previously stated that all exam papers had been destroyed. Furthermore, though the text of the question differs from the version the student recalls, the intent is the same. It forces students to take a pre-determined stand on a highly controversial issue. This is indoctrination, not education, and confirms the student’s story rather than discredits it.
And, once again, Ms. Dogan, nobody out here gives a rat's ass what you think of the question or how you interpret its "intent" -- it's the wording that's the issue and nothing else. At which point, Dogan lapses into sheer lunacy:
The exam question released by UNC President Kay Norton reads:
“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.”
The student has not once altered her story since it first came to our attention in the Fall of 2003. She maintains that the original exam question was phrased differently than the one now provided by the University and suspects that the question given to the media was a reconstruction of the original.
And since the student maintains that she is still incapable of telling us what the original question was, well, I guess we're all just screwed, aren't we? No way to resolve this, I guess. No possible way to figure out who's telling the truth, not even by ... oh, asking someone else who took the class perhaps, a strategy that seems to be utterly beyond the capabilities of the collective brainpower of the SAF. Instead, we get drivel like, "She maintains that the original exam question was phrased differently than the one now provided by the University ..."
Really, at this point, is there anything the SAF might say that would be worth listening to? And, God help us all, these people are college students. How is that even possible?
AFTERTHOUGHTS: I was a bit tired when I finished the above, and I don't think I hammered home that final point the way I wanted, so let me just add a touch-up to make sure everyone appreciates the insipid idiocy and dishonesty of the SAF's Sara Dogan above when, of the controversy over the wording of the question, she writes:
The student has not once altered her story since it first came to our attention in the Fall of 2003. She maintains that the original exam question was phrased differently than the one now provided by the University and suspects that the question given to the media was a reconstruction of the original.
So the student "has not altered her story", and yet the student admits she is incapable of verifying that the question was the way she originally reported it, and not the version as reported by the university. How exactly is that possible? It's not as if one is asking the student to recall any subtle or nuanced distinctions, is it? How unreasonable is it to expect the student to be able to choose between the short, punchy eight-word version that she (allegedly) initially provided, and the (by my count) 119-word version supplied by the university. Is the student so dense that she can't tell the difference? Is she confused by their breathtaking similarity? I can just imagine:
COP: All right, ma'am, we'd like to see if you can pick your assailant out of this lineup of two people. Was it the 7'2", 300-pound black basketball player on the left, or annoying little person Tattoo of Fantasy Island on the right? Take your time, now, be reeeeeeal sure about this ..."
Note how Dogan tried to confuse the issue by writing:
[The student] maintains that the original exam question was phrased differently than the one now provided by the University and suspects that the question given to the media was a reconstruction of the original.
But, once again, no one is asking the student to distinguish between two devilishly-similar wordings, or to say whether the longer version of the question is precisely the one that was on the exam. The question to the student is far simpler: Is this the question you remember answering? Yes or no? How difficult can this be? Well, for Dogan and the SAF, apparently, it's a real intellectual challenge and they are clearly not up to the task.
But, in the end, the final blame has to be dumped all over Horowitz for even letting this nag out of the starting gate. When he first chatted with the student and heard her story, the first words out of his mouth should have been, "Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure that that's the way the question was worded? "Explain why George Bush is a war criminal"? Not your interpretation of it, or your parsing of it, or what you think it meant. You're saying that that's the way it was presented verbatim? Is that what you're saying?"
And wouldn't that have saved all of us piles of time? Instead, we're treated to the spectacle of Dave and the Davettes, having been exposed for the liars they are and now backpedaling furiously while trying not to admit that they're backpedaling furiously. And, at this point, while it's not always nice to paint with a wide brush, I don't think it's unreasonable to now simply assume that anything new that comes out of the SAF is bullshit unless there's good reason to suspect otherwise.
Maybe, instead of inventing bogus persecution stories, those ambitious kiddies at the SAF can spend their time taking an extra course or two. Logic? Journalism? Perhaps even ethics and (God forbid) accountability? It couldn't hurt, could it?
No comments:
Post a Comment