CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Hitler Lives

I've been comparing ian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler for years. It's a well-deserved comparison. So I was delighted to hear Columbia University President Bollinger tell Ahmadinejad that the Hitler wannabee exhibits "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," and question the ian leader's record on human rights and his statements that the Holocaust was a myth.

I also found myself largely in agreement with my esteemed RedState colleague, Pejman Yousefzadeh, who writes that it is good that Ahmadinejad was forced to deal with boos, hisses, denunciations and derisive laughter in response to his propaganda and lies. Nevertheless, Reuters reports the ian tyrant got his talking points in:

Ahmadinejad also insisted in a forum at Columbia University 's nuclear program was purely peaceful. Challenged over his past comments that Israel should be wiped off the map and questioning the Holocaust, he said his concern was why the Palestinians were suffering.

[. . .]

Bollinger asked a string of tough questions, most of which Ahmadinejad ignored in a 30-minute speech which dwelt at length on science as a gift from God and the importance of using knowledge and learning purely and in a pious way.

Answering questions about his views on the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad said there were no absolutes in academia, and "a different perspective" was necessary given the impact on the Middle East of those events.

"I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all," he said. "I said, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people."

Ahmadinejad also rejected criticism of human rights in his country, notably persecution of homosexuals: "In we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he said, sparking loud laughter from the audience. "In we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you we have it."

Providing the ian the Columbia soapbox lends the junior Hitler more legitimacy for his poison and admirers.

Bollinger and John Coatsworth, Columbia's interim dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, defended Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad, saying it would provide a forum for free speech and healthy debate. The event did provide a forum for Ahmadinejad, but there was no debate, there was merely an exchange of insults and a recitation of ian propaganda. Wherefore, I respectfully disagree with Pejman and submit that it was not a good thing that Columbia provided the evil madman from a now diminished but still valued, at least by Ahmadinejad, platform.

You can watch Bollinger's introductory tongue lashing of Ahmadinejad in this video:

Flunking Student Loans

The U.S. Department of Education operates two competing loan programs. Under the original Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, private companies provide the capital and administer the loans, which are largely subsidized and insured by the government. Under the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, the Department administers loans to borrowers.

In May the House of Representatives passed the Student Loan Sunshine Act in response to criticism of the $85 billion per year student loan industry.

The legislation would bar private companies from offering perks, a.k.a. kickbacks, to colleges and universities in exchange for student loan business and would require student loan companies to disclose their relationships with schools.

The Senate education committee approved its version of the legislation yesterday, one week after the House education panel took similar action. Senior Democrats predicted that the bills would come to a vote by the end of next month and would be reconciled without significant difficulty.

The House plan explicitly exempts the government's own student loan program from the new disclosure requirements. Prompting the Leslie Carbone to write in the Sun-Sentinel:

The Sunshine Act forces private companies, which operate under the FFEL program, into the light, but leaves the government's Direct Loan program under the cover of darkness.

A similar thought caused Allison Kasic to post: "The Federal Government has found a new theme song in Bill Withers’ classic “Ain’t No Sunshine.”

According to Carbone, the Sunshine Act's hypocritical exemption of the Direct Loan program creates two sets of rules — one for the government and one for everybody else. This violation of American ideals will restrict students' consumer choice, allow the government's program to flourish, and is a step toward scaling back, or eliminating, the private sector FFEL program.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) analyzed the management of and cost differences between FFELP and FDLP as well as the extent to which such expenses are borne by taxpayers.

CAGW found the government program is losing money. In typical big government fashion it has paid more in interest to the Treasury than the amount of interest it has gotten back from borrowers. CAGW concluded:

After spending 10 years in college with little to show in return except an $13 billion deficit, it is apparent FDLP is flunking out.

Will so-called reform of the Student Loan industry become an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign? I doubt it, but Andrew Cuomo, attorney general of New York, sent a letter to presidential wannabee, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, complaining about how the school a student attends can determine the interest rate on student loans. Dodd, unable to gain in traction in his presidential race is willing to try to make anything a presidential campaign issue.

With Senator Kennedy and the Democrats trying to "reform" student loans in Hugo Chavez fashion - requiring the government to run it regardless of the financial losses, I'm reminded of what Everett Dirksen used to say about government programs:

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

I think I will just go listen to to more Bill Withers. Ain' t no sunshine . . .

Post-Indoctrination Snobbery Stress Syndrome Update

Yesterday California Yankee posted Post-Indoctrination Snobbery Stress Syndrome and lamented the absence of the main stream media on the story of Ahmad Al-Qloushi and his kerfuffle with a political science professor. Today The Washington Times picks up the story.

I had hoped that the main stream media would be able to pry an explanation out of Foothill College and the good political science professor in question. Apparently the college and the professor are no more afraid of the press than they are of the blogosphere. The only new information the Washington Times was able add was this quote from another professor:

Keith Pratt, an English professor at the school, said he was "pretty appalled" when Mr. Al-Qloushi told him about the incident. "I told him, 'You should talk to the dean and go through channels,' " he said.

"This is a very sincere action on his part," the professor said. "There was never one hint that he had any axe to grind. I know this guy and I have had many conversations with him about the atmosphere in the classroom, but he never engaged in any character assassination."

Post-Indoctrination Snobbery Stress Syndrome

When I first read about Ahmad Al-Qloushi and his kerfuffle with a political science professor my blood boiled. I meant to post about it, but with The Fire I just didn't get around to it.

Yesterday Hyscience, one of my favorite reads, posted "U.S. Prof Attacks Arab Muslim Student's Pro-Americanism," about Ahmad Al-Qloushi's plight. So I decided that it is time I weighed in on this.

Let me start by saying there is some dispute about the facts.

On January 6, 2005, FrontPageMagazine.com posted "Dissident Arab Gets the Treatment" by Ahmad Al-Qloushi, in which Ahmad Al-Qloushi tells his story:

I am a 17-year-old Kuwaiti Arab Muslim and a college freshman studying in the USA.

[. . .]

I arrived in the United States for the first time 5 months ago with tremendous enthusiasm to study the political institutions and history of this extraordinary country.

I enrolled in Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, California and immediately registered for “Introduction to American Government and Politics." I was shocked by my Professor’s singularly one-sided presentation. Week after week, I encountered a lack of intellectual and political diversity that I would have more commonly expected to have heard on the streets of pre-liberation Iraq. In this particular class I heard only one consistent refrain: America is bad.

A week before thanksgiving 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.”

[. . .]

I wrote an essay defending America’s Founding Fathers and upholding the US constitution as a pioneering document, which has contributed to extraordinary freedoms in America and other corners of the world - including my corner, the Middle East.

Professor Woolcock didn’t grade my essay. Instead he told me to come to see him in his office the following morning. I was surprised the next morning when instead of giving me a grade, Professor Woolcock verbally attacked me and my essay. He told me, “Your views are irrational.” He called me naive for believing in the greatness of this country, and told me "America is not God's gift to the world." Then he upped the stakes and said "You need regular psychotherapy." Apparently, if you are an Arab Muslim who loves America you must be deranged. Professor Woolcock went as far as to threaten me by stating that he would visit the Dean of International Admissions (who has the power to take away student visas) to make sure I received regular psychological treatment.

The only main stream media account I could find about Al-Qloushi's kerfufle with his political science professor was buried in this San Jose Mercury News:

Needed: a grain of salt

"Arab Student Pushed to see Therapist" the headline began. The Foothill College Republicans blasted faxes to reporters this month complaining that a professor had forced a student to see the college therapist merely because the student wrote a pro-American essay.

This, the students fumed, is why the Los Altos Hills campus should adopt an Academic Bill of Rights. Nationwide, conservatives are pushing the political protection bill, which says that while colleges tolerate different races, sexes and creeds, they only welcome liberal politics.

Ahmad Al-Qloushi seems a poster child for the cause: His political science professor allegedly told him to get psychological help simply because Al-Qloushi wrote a chest-thumping patriotic essay.

But IA was suspicious. Al-Qloushi happens to be president of the Foothill College Republicans -- a fact the group's press materials neglected to mention.

What were the odds of a campaign-perfect case happening to the college Republican president?

"It is a coincidence," Al-Qloushi said, "but this is the case."

IA [Internal Affairs is the Mercury News' political news and gossip feature] tried to confirm Al-Qloushi's story -- and a subsequent release from the group that said the professor had filed a grievance against Al-Qloushi -- but campus officials said they couldn't discuss confidential professor-student matters. The professor wouldn't return calls and e-mails; the therapist simply hung up.

Do I think the mainstream media is so biased that because Al-Qloushi is president of the Foothill College Republicans? I certainly do.

There is a little more to the controversy that might be keeping the MSM away from this story. The political science professor filed a grievance against Al-Qloushi for mentioning the professor's name in the media. According to a press release, the professor filed the grievance through an institutional process normally used by students who experience inappropriate behavior on behalf of Foothill teachers such as an "act or threat of intimidation or general harassment."

I can't dig up any more about the grievance. So what do we have here? This chronolgy, prepared by Al-Qloushi and edited by California Yankee, sums it up succinctly:

Chronological Overview of Foothill Outrage

November 24th: An Essay is Assigned in Ahmad Al-Qloushi political science class, the topic is: "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."

Ahmad Al-Qloushi submits an essay of which the thesis is, "The US constitution was a very progressive document, which has contributed to freedom beyond America's borders."

November 29th: The Professor returns the paper without a grade and he asks Ahmad Al-Qloushi to see him the next day.

December 1st: Ahmad Al-Qloushi Sees the Professor, who tries to intimidate Al-Qloushi into seeing the school therapist. He says statements like, "America is not God's gift to the world" and "Your views are irrational" and "You need regular psychotherapy" He even threatens to call the Dean of International students (this Dean has the power to take away student's visas)

Dec 2nd: Ahmad Al-Qloushi and the Foothill College Republicans decide to publicize the outrage. The message being, "This is not an isolated case...The only way to guarantee that intellectual diversity is respected is to have Foothill's elected Board of Trustees adopt the "Academic Bill of Rights."

Dec 4th: www.davidlimbaugh.com and www.townhall.com/clog pickup this story

Dec 5th: Ahmad Al-Qloushi is a guest on a talk radio show in Kansas City. Numerous e-mails are sent to Board of Trustees members expressing shock and urging them to pass the Academic Bill of Rights as official school policy.

Dec 6th: Ahmad Al-Qloushi is a guest on the Brian Sussman Show on 560 KSFO in Northern California.

Dec. 7th: The Professor files a grievance against Ahmad Al-Qloushi for harassment.

Dec. 8th:A local GOP group donates the money for us to send press release #2 on a newswire service.

Dec 11th: Ahmad Al-Qloushi to appear on Barbara Simpson Show.

I wish the main stream media would put their resources to work to pressure the college to tell its, or the professor's side of this kerfuffle. So far we only have one side and there is always more than one side these issues. After several weeks it looks like the MSN is going to leave it to the blogosphere to sort this out.

Many in the blogosphere have been posting about this story.

Joanne Jacobs posted:

If the student's tale is accurate, it's outrageous. It's one thing to flunk him -- I think the essay is not bad for a 17-year-old immigrant -- quite another to treat him like a lunatic because he thinks the Founders were good guys and is grateful America liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.

Joanne also posts that one of Roger Simon's commenters posts a link to Rate Your Professor. There are quite a few complaints about political bias and favoritism, though the instructor also has some defenders.

InTheBullpen posts that no professor should push their own beliefs, no matter how right or how wrong, on any student.

At Riehl World View, Carnivorous Conservative posts that this yet another example of liberal academic bias and wonders where Foothills College finds people stupid enough to pay to attend.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that I got the name wrong for the Carnivorous Conservative's blog. It should be, and now is Riehl World View instead of Right World View. I extend my apologies for the error.

At Say Anything, Rob sums it up nicely:

One has to wonder…if this professor hates America and its history so much (and I think “hate” is the right word given his reaction to this student’s essay) why is he still living here? Canada isn’t that far away. South America has several very nice countries he could live in. And there’s always Europe

.

My apologies to Dave Huber at Hube's Cube for this post's headline I found the "P.I.S.S. - Post-Indoctrination Snobbery Stress acronym there.

Other blogs covering this story include:
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Princeton Rations A's

In recent years 46 percent of grades at Princeton University have been A's.

The Associated Press reports that Princeton University's faculty approved a plan Monday to limit the number of A's awarded to undergraduates to 35 percent. For junior and senior independent work, the percentage receiving A's will be capped at 55 percent.

According to the Associated Press few students supported the change.

I'm shocked!

Illegal Immigrants Need Not Apply

The Hartford Courant reports that Children of illegal immigrants have a tough time getting into four year colleges.

Shaira Mitchell-Cohen came to Connecticut with her mother from their native Chile in 1997. Her mother is an illegal alien, undocumented immigrant to the PC police.

Shaira wants to go to college, then medical school and become a plastic surgeon. Her first choice for college was the University of Connecticut at Stamford. Shaira's high school counselor told her not even to bother applying.

UConn is one of a few public colleges across the country that flatly deny admission to undocumented aliens, no matter how long they have lived in the state or how strong their academic promise.

Shaira is suffering the consequences for her mother's illegal act. It doesn't seem fair to Shaira that her mother came to the U.S. so Shaira could have a future and now Shaira asks, "and now, what future will I have?"

It is estimated that 39,000 illegal aliens live in Connecticut. The children of those illegal aliens, are entitled to taxpayer-supported public education through high school.

UConn's approach may seem harsh, especially when viewed through the eyes of a young illegal alien such as Shaira. Any other policy would only further encourage illegal immigration. To allow illegal aliens to attend public universities reduces the number of legal residents that are able to attend. Legal residents should not be required to subsidize the education of illegal aliens.

2003's Worst Moments in Education

Porphyrogenitus refers us to Front Page, which has this year's Young Americans for Freedom's "Ten Worst Moments in Education."

My favorite:

10. Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA) administration officials censored a conservative student group’s flyer advertising a Young America’s Foundation organized lecture because the word “hate” was used on the flyer. The flyer in question featured the topic of guest speaker Dan Flynn’s speech, “Why the Left Hates America,” which is also the title of his book. The administration first approved the flyer then rescinded the approval after some professors purportedly complained of the use of the word “hate.” Furthermore, in a letter obtained by the Foundation, Gonzaga’s Office of Student Activities informed the conservative student group that a complaint was made against the group because some individuals felt “the Left Hates…” printed on the flyer was “discriminatory.”

Read the whole list.

Every Decision

These gems from this NY Times article describing the stress we are putting on our college bound children should make us think more about what we are doing to our children.

Ah, to be 17, to be a high school senior in a fancy suburb, with top grades, top SAT's, a million activities, and your whole life before you.

"The pressure's pretty miserable. I have all A's, but I'm not in the top decile. At our school you need all A+'s to be in the first decile."

Another senior hoping to get into Columbia, worries because he didn't take more advanced placement courses. "I've just taken nine, Four this year, four last year and one in 10th. That's all they'd let me take."

"The thing that controls their lives," a guidance counselor said, "that affects their every decision — the courses they pick, the activities they choose, the sports they play — all comes down to one phrase, `How will this look on my college application?'"

"Parents hire tutors in ninth grade for the biology SAT II, They hire tutors for the state Regents tests the kids need for graduation. They hire tutors for $100 an hour to make sure their children get A's in A.P. courses, and then they hire college admissions consultants to buff their applications.”

We should be ashamed!

Admission

When I first read this LA Times article, I thought this seemed backwards. As the concerned father of a high school senior anything that reminds me that factors beyond my son’s outstanding achievements and hard work will have an impact on his chances of being admitted to the school of his choice bothers me. After more reflection on this issue, I'm not sure the "new admission practices” are a bad thing. They certainly aren’t as bad as the article would have you believe. Interestingly, it was the reaction of the students that swayed me the most.

The LA Times reports that UCLA rejected more than 3,000 students with extremely high scores on the SAT entrance exam over the past two years and at the same time accepted more than 900 students with results that were far below the campus average.

This year, UCLA rejected 1,663 applicants with SAT scores totaling more than 1400 and accepted 407 applicants with SATs below 1000. The average SAT score for incoming freshmen at UCLA is 1333. UCLA contends that this year's freshman class has "the highest academic quality ever for a UCLA entering class."

The article fueled the fire ignited by the findings of last month’s confidential report to the UC Board of Regents. The report criticized similar admissions practices at UC Berkeley. The two campuses are the most selective of the eight undergraduate institutions in the University of California system. The concern is that admitting less-than-qualified students could erode the top schools' quality.

Joanne Jacobs posted that in 2002 Berkeley admitted nearly 400 students in 2002 with SAT scores of 600 to 1000, while rejecting 3,200 applicants with SATs over 1400, including 600 who exceeded 1500.

An opinion piece in UCLA’s student paper, the Daily Bruin argues that it is wrong to focus solely on SAT scores when admission decisions are being based on numerous factors including GPA, SAT II scores, athletics, rank in high school class, overcoming hardships, volunteer work, leadership or strong commitment to activities/clubs/organizations, and socio-economic status.

At Discriminations, John Rosenberg also has some thoughts about this issue.