By Liz Rodriguez
I am fed up with close-minded (intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas) college professors who hate FOX News and worship at the gate of the “Green” movement. This type is becoming way too common at colleges around the country.
Professors can have their opinion. But when they bring it into the classroom and tell naive students what and how to think, making them feel stupid for having an opinion contrary to theirs, it is unacceptable. My friend had to waste her time getting switched out of two classes and actually had to go to another campus to find an English teacher that would just teach English. You’d think an English 102 class would be straightforward, non-bias and open-minded. Wrong.
“This course builds on skills taught in English 101, focusing on developing critical thinking and writing skills through research and summarizing data, analyzing language, evaluating evidence and logical reasoning, and writing papers based on these processes.”
In my friend’s first English 102 class her teacher made it clear she was a big liberal. She also taught African-American history and thought affirmative action was necessary and made it clear is you disagreed you would be marked down. She also said you could use Wikipedia as a source for your assignments so my friend found a different teacher who was even worse.
On the homepage of my friend’s (second) English 102 class teacher’s website at Mott Community College in Flint, MI her professor with the PhD said,
“Regarding the ‘news’ forum, here’s fair warning for any fans of Fox News’s distorted reality field, especially regarding politics and environmental issues: these are strange times, and although Rupert Murdoch allows his Fox News personalities to deny any need for climate action, he’s also part of a coalition with leaders including Bill Clinton who are working for changes to fight climate disaster. As best I can figure out, Mr. Murdoch prefers to use Fox as a source of entertainment rather than reliable information, so please keep that distinction in mind.”
The teacher went on to say in his syllabus,
“The following topics in RED have a high incidence of failure as arguments for three reasons. Firsts, they have been done to death, and people often think that a topic they first wrote about in eighth grade will still be compelling for a college-level argument. Second, these topics tend to have many pre-existing biases and assumptions built into them by their writers and “researchers” (who tend not to actually research for NEW information at all, but only to support existing prejudices). Arguments about them tend to be filled with clichés that read like a series of bumper stickers. Third, many of the topics are huge and complex moral dilemmas that can’t possibly be argued in the space of 7-10 pages.
For these reasons, you are PROHIBITED from using any one of them as the basis for an argument unless you can make a convincing case (via private email) that you have a clear and relevant personal connection to it (i.e. you can lend ethos to the argument) and approach the issue from a fresh perspective.”
Abortion / Animal Rights, Dog fighting, Etc.
Anti-God/Anti-Religion /Anti-Pledge/School Prayer
Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia / Gay Marriage/Adoption
Childraising/Discipline/Medication for ADHD/ Cheerleading as a Sport
Cloning / Crime/Punishment
Driving Issues (Including Seat Belts) / Drinking
Eating Disorders / Effects of Media on Women’s Bodies
Effects of TV/Films/Games/Music on Children 1-25/ Flag Burning
Gun Control / Hunting Rights
“Intelligent Design”/Creationism in Public Schools Legalized/Medicalized Street Drugs
Pro-God/Pro-Religion Pro-Pledge/School Prayer
Steroids, Sports Scandals, Etc. / STDs/Teen (or Single) Pregnancy
Smoking / Welfare/Affirmative Action
Waterboarding/torture techniques / Conspiracies (Waco, 9/11, JFK, etc.)
On the other hand, here are GREEN topics that are strongly ENCOURAGED because they have a direct and fairly immediate impact on the rest of your life:
•Alternative fuels/energy •Peak Oil/”demand destruction”
•Environmental impact of “global economy” •Environmental impact of technology
•Alternative/future transportation •Buying local, organic farming/buying
•The death of mass transport in the U.S. and possible future models
•Consolidation of media outlets/impact on information
•Environmental impact of Chinese manufacturing and Wal-Mart’s role in it
•“Energy Star” ratings and high-draw electronics (e.g. plasma TVs)
•Genetic modification (crops/foods/animals)
•Global warming prevention/economic or political causes
•“New Journalism” (e.g. blogging vs. newspapers)
•Outsourcing’s environmental impact and possible future returns to domestic manufacturing
•Recycling/”precycling”/package downsizing
•Stem cell research/medical advances/“cyberorganisms”
•U.S. political processes (e.g. elections, appointments) and possible future changes
•Responsible “small footprint” recreation (snowmobiles, tourism, watercraft, etc.)
Talk about brainwashing and bias. It’s a shame Mott Community College tolerates teachers like this. It’s unfortunate that too many colleges in America don’t let young adults think for themselves.
