It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


OP/ED: Jihad Jane teaches Political Science

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 09:31 PM
Jihad Jane teaches Political Science, Pol 495, that is. Professor Jane T. Christensen of North Carolina Wesleyan College, drags the term science to new lows in her class: (POL 495) 911 The Road to Tyranny.

In this class you get to learn all about how the break down of the American upper educational system. No, actually, the professor will tell you that 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy, citing such stellar sources of information such as William Cooper, Alex Jones, and Jeff Rense.

The course description and suggested reading list would make many members of ATS proud, but will cause everyone else cringe and shudder at the total lack of objectivity and obvious extreme left wing bias.
The events of September 11, 2001, indisputably changed the course of American politics and history. This course is offered so students may examine various events and policies leading to 911. In particular, this course will focus largely on the specific destruction in lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. We will examine the official story and analyze it critically. We will consider alternative explanations of what occurrred as well. 911 was a catalyst for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the attack on civil liberties in the United States. We will examine each of these with a critical eye. The goal of this course is to arrive at a solid understanding of how 911 has shaped our political future and to promote critical analysis by students of this catastrophic event and its aftermath.

This course is outside the scope of traditional "political science" in many ways. First it is "unscientific" in that it relies much on eyewitness accounts and speculation. Secondly, there is not yet a solid literature on the September 11 "attacks" or on the war on terrorism. This literature is emerging, particularly on the latter. Thirdly, this course will rely somewhat extensively on alternative news media accounts and a variety of films and videos in lieu of literature.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Note the emphasis on the fact that this class is "unscientific." At least she is honest about that. I personally think that any college professor that uses Jeff Rense and Alex Jones as source material is highly suspect as to the quality of her scholarship.

If, by any chance you think that she will treat the material from those sources with a healthy dose of skepticism, I have to direct you to her personal web site, with it's picture of her in black garb, and a ski mask while holding an M-16.

Other links on her page include anti-Semitic rants and links to al jazera, and High Times web sites.

While I could see the point in assembling those links in an effort to provide access to various viewpoints, that is not the case here. This professor is clearly biased to the point where she is incapable of properly teaching requisite course material.

Related News Links:

[edit on 6-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 6-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 6-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 6-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:30 PM
Pretty disturbing stuff. Political Science? The reading list reads more like a guide to anti-government activism.

Policital Science
Students are encouraged to develop critical thinking and writing skills in analyzing political issues and ideas. Students are offered courses in the American Political System, State and Local Government, Political Parties, the Presidency, Big Business and American Politics, Constitutional Law, and Media and Politics. Independent studies are available to students seeking to explore a particular topic of interest. These courses are designed to expose the student to various perspectives and theories of American politics and to prepare the student with critical thinking skills necessary for informed citizenship. In addition, quantitative reasoning is considered an indispensable tool for political science research. Students are offered courses in statistics, research methods, and computer applications.

Reminds me of the 70's. Political science taught everything but democracy.

Make me wonder how many tax dollar$ go to Wesleyan (North Carolina) to support a department with one isntructor that clearly buys into every conspiracy theory in existence.

Surprisiing that the Onion is not a listed 'primary source.'


posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:33 PM
Hmm....The opening paragraph is a little bias don't you think?

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:37 PM
The Final Exam for one of her courses

Instructions: Write essays on each of the following 4 questions (25 points each). Your answers should be at least one page each, no less. You will be graded on your writing and organizational skills as well as your ability to bring the readings into your discussion. This test is designed to see how well you have thought about the materials we have read and discussed and your ability to discuss these materials after you have reflected on them.

1. How has the war on terrorism contributed to the powers of the Bush presidency? (Discuss at least 4 ways).

2. Discuss the sweeping attack on democratic rights under the Bush administration and what this means for the future of democratic government in America.

3. Whose interests are served by the foreign and domestic policies of the Bush administration?

4. Describe and discuss the role of the Bush advisors. Who are they? What is their agenda? And how is it being carried out?

A little biased on her part, don't you think? I wonder what kind of grade you would get if you disagreed with her political viewpoint?

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:50 PM
Agreed, but I am not denying bias on either side. However, the opening paragraph for an ATSNN submission must be free of bias, unless it is an OP/ED, which this one is not.

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:02 PM
I have no problems with the course description, with the reasons listed for the curriculum being 'unscientific' (where science is the scientific method, not artificial authority) or in the value of the presentation of this material to students.

It looks like a prerequisite for rational post millennium deconstruction of mythology and spin, and the students completing the course will have more knowledge of the importance of 9/11 in shaping the political climate of America than many members who submit or respond to posts like this.

Arguing against this course is similar to arguing that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not worth seeing because it was not a highly successful documentary produced by Miramax for international and domestic distribution.

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:05 PM
Oh... Questions 1, 3 and 4 in the "final exam" carries no bias at all.

Q3 is especially worthy of attempts at discussion. Then you will see the real biases come out, when interest groups are clearly identified and weighed in. Whether or not the policies of this administration can be adequately reconciled with any national or social good is full of conjecture.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:07 PM

The point of college level coursework is to teach critical thinking. It is up to the student to discern and determine their viewpoint withou having it rammed down thier throat by the instructor.

This course is a private propaganda forum for the teacher.

There is clearly no attempt to balance viewpoints in her courses or her web page.

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:09 PM
And those questions on the test are clearly biased and leading. It is clear that if you don't parrot her viewpoint back to her you will fail the class.

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 11:11 PM
But your view of "coursework" is so limited.

There are many other purposes to college level coursework, including practical skilling, research and library skills, presentation of argument, emergence of leadership, and (unfortunate but true) accumulation and regurgitation of key facts as may be required by professional bodies.

The Final Essay questions require much "critical thinking". Sorry if you are unable to attempt them.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 02:07 AM
But isn't her course material up to the University? I goto school near Wesleyan and have friends that go there. The school is liberal but shouldn't they have a choice of what is taught in the their institution? The greatest patriots of our nation criticized their rulers so why can't we? Do we have a freedom of speech or not. Also, how many have even tried to think about 9-11 from her point of view. I am not saying that the events are justified, but then again have any of us stopped to think why someone hates us? And if you say that it is because of freedom you are a fool. Muslim versus the west began with the crusades and has resonated since. We are both at fault for the way the world is today, but that does not justify violence on either side.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 04:52 AM
This is the first encouraging peice of news Ive heard coming out of America in years.

Someone in some kind of position of power DARES not tow the official bull# story on what happend on 9/11??? Stop the presses.

It is unfortunate that shes so abbrasive but maybe thats what will be needed to show American goverment up for what it really is.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:34 AM
This leads me to another point. I was pro-gun in a thread recently and I was rebuked with a "What are you afraid of? the Injuns?" We have a right to bear arms to defend ourselves not from a foreign invader but from a tyrant. it is not that Americans do not trust people, believe me they do. It's the devil inside that they don't.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:38 AM
This looks even worse than Ward Churchill. I hope this comes out and someone like O'Reilly gets on to it quick.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:27 AM
O'Reilly? What a joke! He's not a true conservative. He's a fricking NeoCon. This nation was based upon the principles of freedom of ideology. O'Reilly stands for yelling at the other person and losing the debate before it starts. Churchill was offensive and unpatriotic but it was within his rights to say what he did. This professor is teaching a class. Therefore she does not have to be ridiculed for it. Have any of you ever been to a University? Unless your at Bob Jones U, most likely it is a liberal campus. Especially Wesleyan. If that is what they wish to teach then let them. it is within their rights. Leave them alone.

Also in reference to the test, it is not a test on what is your ideology; It is a test on the material covered in class. The teacher taught the material that was covered in the exam. If you decided to be a jack ass and argue with her through your exam that's your choice. There is a time to fight and fail or bs and make an A. This isn't high school, kids. Do what you need to get ahead. # the RNC. Churchill and this Prof. are within their rights and you jumping all over them is only proving their point about "Conservatives" being Neo Con "Shove democracy down your throat".

[edit on 7-4-2005 by CAConrad0825]

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:54 PM

But isn't her course material up to the University?

Well it would normally be up to the department head, but since she in the only faculty member in the Political Science Department, I have no idea who, if anyone would validate her course materials.

Also in reference to the test, it is not a test on what is your ideology; It is a test on the material covered in class. The teacher taught the material that was covered in the exam.

Then this is an incredibly bad teacher. This is a senior level course. The questions on that test as slanted so that there is only one right answer, parrot back the teacher’s viewpoint.

That is simply not acceptable for a senior levels course. She should be teaching critical thinking skills and then let the students use those skills to independently evaluate the data and come up with their own conclusions. There is no way you can do that with those questions.

If you decided to be a jack and argue with her through your exam that's your choice.

No, it is your obligation to apply critical thinking skills to the materials presented. If you do not come to the same conclusion as the professor, then it is your duty to present those conclusions as such. It is the professor’s duty to evaluate your application of those skills, irregardless of whether she agrees with them. That is what college level learning is about

Somehow, based on those test questions and that teacher’s home page, I doubt that would be the case. I doubt that anyone who disagreed with her position would receive a passing grade. This is political science, not physical science. There are no absolute answers.

There is a time to fight and fail or bs and make an A.

And there is a time to complain to the administration that your money is been wasted in classes that fail to teach fundamental skills at the expense of a teacher’s personal political agenda.

This isn't high school, kids.

Nope, it’s a 400 level college class. I would expect a greater level of teaching competence.

Do what you need to get ahead.

Perhaps you need to take an ethics course, yourself.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 04:22 PM
I have taken many but at that point I am sure many people who are been at Wesleyan for 4 years already know what she is like and chose her class. This has probably been a left wing professor for years and everyone now notices? This thing was only brought up because of Churchill. Just a conservative professor can teach what is approved so may she. This is a university issue and does not need the likes of O'Reilly in it. Remember individual, local and states rights?

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 08:28 PM

The Final Essay questions require much "critical thinking". Sorry if you are unable to attempt them.

Oh I would have no with those questions. I think, however, that the professor would not particularly like my answers as they would not agree with her pet viewpoint.

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 09:28 PM

Howard said
The point of college level coursework is to teach critical thinking. It is up to the student to discern and determine their viewpoint withou having it rammed down thier throat by the instructor.

This course is a private propaganda forum for the teacher.

Is that truly the point of college level coursework? I think not.

I do agree with the balance of your argument. That is why I referenced the 70's [in America] That was the problem then and seems to be this Prof's problem. Instead of teaching concepts (which is what I believe college work should be about) she comes to class with a clear agenda driven plan. However, as you pointed out this is a 400 level course. I missed this and erase the rest of my 'rant.'

The disagreeing student would have to 'fight' the Prof throughout the entire semester.

The Prof's web site screams BIAS. Any student taking this course would be higher level and should realize that either agreement is warranted or substantial argument is going to be mandatory with plenty of resources to back it up.


posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 12:30 AM
Wouldn't that make the student all the better? Do you really learn from someone who agrees with everything you believe or does "tempering" a student do more good than evil?

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in