·UCLA Weeding 101·

· The University Offers A Lesson On How It Weeds Out Students ·

UCLA Weeding 101 Homepage
Weeding 101: Introduction
UCLA Graduate Study
UCLA Student Termination
UCLA Faculty Documents
UCLA GSE&IS Committee
UCLA Graduate Advisor
UCLA Administration
UCLA Academic Senate
UCLA Dean Mitchell-Kernan
UCLA Chancellor Block
UCLA GSE&IS Forums
An Experiment at UCLA
UCLA Ethics: An Ideal Case
UCLA Faculty Statements
Jeff Schmidt's Letter
Wilfred Cude's Letter
UCLA vs. Free Speech
"Dissenting Views" at UCLA
UCLA's Volokh Conspiracy
UCLA's "Campus Radicals"
UCLA's "Distinguished"
UCLA's Academic Freedom
UCLA | Diane Ravitch Reply
UCOP | Office of Ethics
The UC Secular Priesthood
UCLA | Privatizing the UC
Noam Chomsky on . . .
About
Contact
Site Map | All Documents

"Dissenting Views" at UCLA

It appears that I need to comment on the "dissenting views" found in FIRE's press releases on UCLA's threats to force me to remove this website from the Internet.  Of course, this site’s prominent quotes from Noam Chomsky and David Graeber state that dissenting views are indeed weeded out of the schools.  But even a cursory viewing of this material makes plain that nowhere on this site do I argue that UCLA weeded me out because of my views (whatever they may be).  It might be said then that I ought to remove the quotes from Chomsky and Graeber so that people are not blinded by them, as FIRE allowed itself to be blinded by them.


Chomsky and Graeber’s quotes are here because I think they’re accurate.  But I now see that my prominent placement of them has also become a very useful experimental device for rapidly discerning between those who are able to see the facts in this case and the serious questions they raise on how the university throws out its students, and those who are able to disregard these facts and disregard the university's academic and ethical principles along with them, much in the same way UCLA has in this case.


One thing is for sure: the university would like nothing better than to have the public think that I am arguing here that I was weeded out of UCLA’s Graduate School of Education because of my dissenting views.  This way, the facts I present here can continue to be overlooked, and hence forgotten, which is all in keeping with UCLA’s strenuous (but unconstitutional) efforts to dispose of these facts (and academic and ethical principles) in its all-important work to “protect its trademarks and reputation."


All the same, following several requests I am posting below some of my views (slightly edited) as I made them on some course evaluation forms, which were given to UCLA Graduate School of Education students at the end of their courses.  I think these views are only going to severely blind some people to some very important facts showing how this university weeds out its students, but I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether these are indeed “dissenting views.”



The ignorance, the utter vacuity, and the total lack of common sensibilities displayed by this professor are beyond belief, thus difficult to convey in this evaluation.  But then again, you reviewers spend time with this guy, he's no doubt "an esteemed colleague."  So what the hell is going on here? when an incompetent fool is wasting our time and money . . . ah, but that's just it—it's precisely because he has these talents that he was given the position he now holds.  But don't you people ever get tired of this charade?  Don't you ever become tired and disgusted with yourselves out of your inability to speak frankly with one another?  Because he holds the cards that students so desperately need, they'll tell him (and consequently, you) what he already believes . . .

But if by chance any of you ever care to challenge your judgment that [these] ramblings can only be a sure sign of  'anti-intellectual' student depravity, there would be no better way than to rig up a situation whereby you could remain unseen [in class] and then endure a complete quarter of this professor's hot air  . . .

At least you owe it to yourself to know what students put up with in these classes—such knowledge might go a long way towards ending the perpetuation of all this revolting nonsense and its utterly tragic consequences.

[I]t would be completely incomprehensible to this person if you were to tell her that she is the source of the very (serious) problems that she so devoutly believes she is fighting to eliminate.  Or how are we to explain her complete reliance upon institutional propaganda for course readings, and a concomitant inability to offer up anything but the most superficial analyses of such material?  But then again, she is only one amongst the herd of those who are responsible for, as one author puts it, "reinforcing the system of indoctrination, of which they themselves are victims—as is the norm for the educated classes, who are typically the most profoundly indoctrinated and, in a deep sense, the most ignorant group, the victims as well as the purveyors of the doctrines of faith." [Noam Chomsky]  . . .

Of course, all of this has been going on for decades, and you're not fool enough to give over your job for the sake of responsibility, honesty, and other such 'unrealistic' notions . . . To the contrary, you were hired to do just as you're doing.  So continue to guard your position at the trough . . . meanwhile laughing off such commentary as this as one lowly (and obviously confused) student's cheap way to insult, without stopping for a moment to consider how deeply insulting this whole 'educational' operation is to [the students] who pay to legitimate your cowardly (but pretentious) presence [here].

How splendidly Orwellian all of this has become — the problems are always proclaiming themselves to be the solutions.

This class has been the academic equivalent of the Oprah Winfrey Show.  How else are we to explain the likes of Allan Bloom and Dinesh D'souza . . . being offered up for consideration as serious scholarship . . . And who but a captured audience would accept such lie-filled and distorted work as worthy of serious study?

And this professor, in true Oprah form, pulled class discussion back down into the mud anytime it started to go beyond the control of his show.

It's a damned good thing that you reviewers are all too busy blowing hot air into each other in an effort to convince us that the Emperor has clothes (you'd lose your job if you exercised the sense of the 10-year-old who cried the truth of the matter).  As the 'brilliance' that you use to describe each other has not only made you legends in your own minds but has [also] blinded you from seeing what we put up with day after day—for if you had to sit through this professor's nonsensical shtick, you wouldn't be able to dismiss these comments as easily as you do now.

As it stands, you'll take this as an indication of student depravity and pass it off with a laugh.

And for those of you who might counter that other students have heaped praise upon this or that professor, keep in mind that, by your own long-term training and instruments, yours is an audience of the most expert sycophants.

After all, black can be white and up can be down, if that's what it takes to get the job—or grade.

 
This professor has been told so often that he is a "radical," by the institution that defines "radical," that he has actually come to believe he is truly Radical.  Fortunately, fog has a way of dissipating.

<< Previous  | Page 19 |  Next >>