No wonder this kid failed. Jeeze

[ComerPerro]

So, I was watching Faux News yesterday, checking out the show "Dayside" (repulsive, right wing version of the former CNN show Talkback Live). For those of you who haven't seen this, you might want to check it out if you have the stomach for it. Linda Vester doesn't even try to hide her right wing tendencies, and the audience members all have that smug, freeper look of self-satisfaction in their eyes.

Anyhow, they were talking about this muslim student in California who "was failed because he wrote a pro-American essay".

Fortunately, Faux put up the exam question and the student's essay.

The question: Question No. 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.

Ok, I do have to admit that I would object to this question. I do not agree with the apparent thesis of this text (which I have not read), and I do not appreciate beeing steered toward a particular opinion. I am sure that the student may have felt the same way.

However, there are two issues here. One, this was apparently an essay test where students were given at least three topics to write about. What were the other questions? Maybe one questione asked students to refute the arguments of Dye and Zeigler. We don't know, because we don't have all the information here.

Second, if I was going to answer this question by disputing the assertions of Dye and Ziegler, logic would dictate that I analyze the constitiution and the work of Dye and Ziegler. That way, I could refute their points while demonstrating familiarity with the subject matter.

The student, however, did not do this. Here is what he wrote:

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.


The most interesting thing I notice as I re-read this is that the student failed to meet any of the criteria laid out in his opening paragraph. His essay is poorly written, crudely constructed, and never once specifically cites either the Constitution or Dye and Ziegler.

I did not take this class, I have not read their text, but given a copy of the book and 75 minutes I am confident that I could write a better, more relevant essay. It seems that all this person did was spew out a bunch of half-assed, nationalistic drivel. He only addressed the question once, saying "I disagree". But he never backs up anything he says.

Besides, how do we know this student wasn't failing when he went into the final?


EDIT for Faux News link to story and essay: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86177,00.html

[rqstnnlitnmnt]

1. LMAO what a shitty essay

no wonder he failed.

this is a perfect example of RWers getting their panties in a ruffle over A) something they've never read/heard about; B) something they do not understand; C) something that is so utterly disconnected from their cause that the pure idiocy and emotion of their argument forms the base of it (see election 2004.)

how juvenile can they get?

[ComerPerro]

4. And what was the deal with that Bush quote?

There was no reason for it to be there, and it makes no sense in any context. Its just sitting there in the middle of the essay.

[aden_nak]

2. In addition to not answering the question, the essay itself sucks.

I'd have failed that kid in half a minute.

Wait, holy crap, that is a COLLEGE PAPER? I honestly thought this was high school work, at best. Not only would I have failed that kid, I'd recommend that he take a remedial course on how to write a college essay. The use of rhetorical questions alone is justification enough (fine for a rant or a personal essay, but not for a formal essay).

This paper was clearly and obviously written the night before (or else during an exam with no source material available), having never read the course material. I'd know, I did that a few times myself (heh). But at least I did a halfway decent job of faking it. This is fifth rate bullshit, at best. Sounds like he knew he didn't know shit, and hoped that if he wrote a "patriotic" enough paper, the Professor wouldn't DARE to fail him.

What a little punk.

[rqstnnlitnmnt]

5. it's an exam paper -- what a classic

clearly didn't know what he was talking about AT ALL and didn't want to just sit there not writing anything while everyone else around him is furiously working.

[ComerPerro]

6. maybe hoping that Faux News would pick up the story

Kind of odd when you think about it. On the same channel, you can hear about muslim students being persecuted by anti-American college professors and then minutes later hear Ann Coulter say that we should just nuke muslim countries and convert them all to Christianity.

[Maddy McCall]

3. Dye and Zeigler have a valid argument

Many historians today agree with them.

[WildClarySage]

7. That sounds like exactly the sort of essay I would have written

for a class I had no clue in and was trying to bullshit an essay question by writing everything I could think of in hopes that the instructor would give me credit for length.

[aden_nak]

8. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[ComerPerro]

11. Yes, having written numerous BS essays myself,

I know them when I see them.

But even when I was bullshitting, I at least tried to make it look like I had put forth effort.

[aden_nak]

13. I've never taken the course, and I could do better than that.

Since the question itself TELLS you the opinion about the Constitution that you have to either agree or disagree with, all you need to do is KNOW what's written in the Constitution, and know about the general state of society when it was written. He's not just full of shit, he's full of UNINSPIRED shit.

Right now, no prep, I could write a B- response to that essay. And depending on the school, perhaps higher.

[toddaa]

17. BS only works if you've got a good thesis statement

And then you stick to it. I BS'd my way through a shit load of courses following the general rule of opening thesis statement, detailed (totally bullshit, yet semi coherent) arguments supporting thesis statement, and closing summary. My suspicion is that a 4 year liberal arts degree is nothing more than proof that you can crank out an internally consistent essay that matches the thesis/support/summary formula.

[deutsey]

9. I agree that the question is leading

It could have been resolved if it just asked the student to review the Constitution and demonstrate either why they agree with Dye and Zeigler or why they disagree with their argument. The question should also stress that the student must cite evidence from the Constitution that supports their view.

Regardless, the essay sucks. Like another poster, I thought this was written by a high schooler (at most), not a college student.

Is our children learning?

[ComerPerro]

10. Yeah, that's what I thought

I mean, yeah, it was a lousy question. But the student wrote a terrible essay.

[Strawman]

16. Yep. Prof. should have asked them to summarize Dye and Zeigler's argument

If that's what he wanted or written a less leading question for an argumentative essay.

Still, it's a poor essay, not so much because of the writing itself, but because it doesn't answer the question and the examples he cites are not even germane to the writing of the constitution. It's just jingoistic bs'ing. This student was not familiar with the course readings or how and by whom the constitution was written. Conservatives should be happy that he failed lest he fall victim to the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Some people might think that "brown skinned" students couldn't write a better essay (just * says like some folks think they can't handle democracy)and would have just socially promoted this student. This prof didn't.

[da_chimperor]

12. Uh oh, looks like someone didn't prepare for the test

and tried to BS his way though it. It's a crap essay, plain and simple. Trying to talk about the questions themselves, and going off on a tangent related to the subject without actually answering what they were supposed to.

[zbdent]

14. It's not an answer to an essay question, it's

a resume for entering the Heritage Foundation . . .

Faux News? is probably frothing because the "great leaders" included FDR & JFK.

[rocktivity]

15. He SHOULD have failed--he DIDN'T answer the question at all

I agree that the question was one-sided, and I don't have a problem with the student's disagreement with its premise. My problem is that the student thought he was justified in making up a question of his own. I'm certain that if he'd explained and supported his disagreement with a critical analysis of the original Constitution as requested, he would have gotten a better mark.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Bridget Burke]

18. The kid's got a great future....

Writing speeches for our fearless leader....

[Enraged_Ape]

19. He could have answered the question as directed...

and then provided a rebuttal of all the points made, if he didn't agree.

That, in fact, was probably what the instructor was looking for, since it would demonstrate true mastery of the topic.

Instead, he didn't have a clue. And it shows.

[ComerPerro]

21. Exactly

That is he should have done

[tubbacheez]

20. Why mention this kid's religion? What's the connection?

Was Fox just singling out Muslims again?

[ComerPerro]

22. Isn't it obvious?

Fox is trying to say, "See, some muslims love America, but liberals are so filled with their hate speech that they think all muslims should hate us".

The ironic part is that its the right wingers who do things like support racial profiling.

[tubbacheez]

23. I hate it, but you're probably right.

By pointing out the fact that a Muslim is involved, every time a Muslim is involved, it doesn't matter if they're saying positive or negative things.

Fox is constantly reinforcing the belief that Muslims are different. This just creates more alienation and dehumanization.



"Look, this Muslim agrees with us."

"Look, this Muslim disagrees with us."

"Isn't this interesting! A Muslim wrote a rant like the ones we write."

"How much do Muslims and regular people have in common, anyway? Let's find out."



Do people see how the REAL message gets delivered? The real message is "Muslims are not regular people." The us-vs-them thinking is completely internalized and taken for granted.

[Ms. Clio]

24. This is an old argument in American historiography

It's not just an argument made by this one text, it goes back to the Progressive Era of the early 20th century and historians such as Charles A. Beard, who wrote An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States