NoIndoctrination.org - View Listing

[Help NoIndoctrination.org - Donate Now Through Network For Good]

Warning: Postings are only opinions. (See Terms of Service)

Note: Although the postings appear to be anonymous, NoIndoctrination.org knows the posters' names. We communicate with the posters before putting their comments online. We also research each posting and ask for corroborating material when appropriate.

Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #493.

University of Minnesota (UMN)

Jan. 26, 2006

http://www.umn.edu

Course: HIST 4337: Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court Since 1865

Course Catalog Description: Constitutional, political, philosophical, social context of leading U.S. Supreme Court cases on Bill of Rights. Emphasizes property rights, free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, criminal defendants' rights, death penalty.

Professor: Joel Samaha

Required? Yes, for my major or minor

Lecture Bias: Excessive

Comments: Class lectures started with anti-conservative cartoons on the overhead. They were 100% anti-conservative. There was never a week where there was a liberal-bashing cartoon. The effect was clear (as I discussed it with classmates during the breaks)...conservatives, much less their viewpoints, were not welcomed. The beginning of the course provided some demonstration of the complexities of the Court cases even though those who disagreed were ridiculed. By the time the course reached the 1940s, the discussions were progressively one sided and ignoring the complexities of the cases. By the end of the course there was little discussion about the sides Prof Samaha disagreed with, except to declare how wrong those Justices were. Each class started with turning in reviews of the cases we read for that class discussion. Each class ended with us writing a review of the class discussions. The reviews had to stress the correct viewpoints of cases or be marked down. If a ruling was one Prof Samaha disagreed with, then the papers had to express the improper ruling of the court. If Prof Samaha agreed with a case, then the papers had to express how there was no other way to rule. Some of the papers would be returned with a low grade and not any other mark on the paper (some of mine included). From my own personal experience, I know that there was no justification for the lowered grade. I specifically asked each time for justification, and the responses were close to "you just are on the wrong side because you don't understand the case," "That is the grade I felt like giving you," and similar. Other students tried to mimic the Professor's views in their papers even if they had initially disagreed during the class discussions. Prof Samaha started the course by declaring something like "Only 2 people will get A's in my class. Myself and maybe God. To get a B+ you will have to see these cases my way." (Some of us put a great case together regarding University grading standards having nothing to do with a comparison between "God Almighty, your inferior, and the rest of the class." I am not sure if it was this or the fact that we had a tape recorder, but he relented on this policy.) It was clear that concurrence was demanded.

Discussion Bias: Excessive

Comments: Professor Samaha did initially declare the class was open for discussions, but also declared that it is his classroom and the discussions will go the way he wants. Prof. Samaha demanded concurrence with his view the Bush v Gore (not a part of the syllabus, but discussed in many weeks) was 100% wrong. Each student was asked at various points in the term what they thought of Bush v Gore, and were openly ridiculed as a partisan if they found the ruling correct in any manner. Discussion on other cases had to agree with his view or else be ridiculed for being "uninformed", "stupid", "silly", etc. I understand that dissenting students sometimes are unaware of the boundaries of proper or respectful discussion. This class was actually unique in that these boundaries were rarely crossed. The exceptions were the students who were supportive of the Professor's viewpoints and shouting down the opposing viewpoints held by other students. The discussions of the Bakke v CA case (affirmative action in college) was the worst where those who supported the dissenting Justices were called racists, hate-mongers and other similar names. The professor took part in the attacks, being careful to not call specific students these names. Instead he would say, "those who believe this do so out of their own racism." It resulted in a be-on-Samaha's-side-or-be-called-a-racist session. There never was the impression that any of what the Professor said or allowed were in jest. Given the portions of the atmosphere that I described, it was only a few brave students who engaged in offering any disagreement.

Readings Bias: None

Comments: The readings chosen were strictly landmark Supreme Court cases and were without bias in their selection by themselves.

General Comments: The Univ of MN Conduct Code [http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Conduct.pdf] is nice on paper. "Members [faculty] must support intellectual freedom." The reality is there is no way to enforce this, and the professors know this. I had one graduate instructor tell me when I was complaining to him about another instructor, "there is nothing anyone will do about it. You have the choice of giving them what they want to get the degree or giving what you want. In the end it is his classroom. He only has to allow what he wants to consider to be relevant to the discussion." I replied that "relevant to the discussion" is the way out of intellectual freedom of students; the answer: "Yes." On this campus "intellectual freedom" exists to protect the professors from scrutiny, not to encourage open discussion.

Rebuttal

When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here.