Joseph Woolcock, Again?!?!?

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat! On January 6, 2005, I blogged about a certain professor at Foothills College in Los Altos Hills, CA by the name of Joseph Woolcock (see here for my previous post to which I am referring).

I first became aware of mister Woolcock when reading this article at Little Green Footballs. Having read the article, I put Google to use to see if I could find anything else concerning this matter and I found this. If you'll click on that link, you'll find that this story was being covered all over the internet.

Nevertheless, before I wrote my blog post, I wanted to find out more about mister Woolcock. After all, it was possible that one irate student with a grudge might be fabricating his story of woe in retaliation for a bad grade received.

Fortunately, there were some helpful and telling pieces of information that point rather decisively to the conclusion that Little Green Footballs and all the other sites reporting on this were not simply misled by a single disgruntled student with an axe to grind. For example, mister Woolcock has been rated by his students here. With 49 of his students having rated him, his overall rating on a scale of 5.0 being the highest and most favorable is 2.3. That's hardly a stellar rating. However, don't take my word for it. Click on the link that I provided and read some of the comments of his students.

Further, mister Woolcock immediately filed a grievance against the student who had exposed Woolcock's intimidation tactics to the media and the blogsphere. Woolcock, it seems, was more than willing to paint himself as a victim of "harassment." If merely telling the truth about mister Woolcock constitutes "harassment," then I suggest he get used to it.

Much ado has been made by some others on the internet of the fact that the essay by the student in question, Ahmad Al-Qloushi, was in fact poorly written and deserving of a low grade. You can judge for yourselves by reading the essay here.

Nevertheless, even a cursory glance at the question posed by mister Woolcock speaks volumes about Woolcock's own liberal/Marxist biases:

" 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 [the]majority of the people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America’s elite interest." [Emphasis mine].

It is quite clear from the wording (talk about leading questions!!!) that the only "acceptable" answer to this question, the only answer that mister Woolcock wants and indeed demands, is the answer that the US constitution is indeed an elitist and exclusionary document that was never intended to protect the poor little pissed on and put upon proletariat, but rather it was expressly designed to augment the already vast wealth of its aristocratic framers who never gave a fig about the common man. That's the answer in a nutshell. Oh, and don't forget to throw in some quotes from Dye and Ziegler, maybe twist some words of the constitution to fit their skewed view, and by gum if you can work in an anachronism of Marx and how he would have written the constitution better, you've got an A+!

Why am I revisiting this whole mess of a lefty looney tune professor at a rinky dink two-bit community college? Why even bother with liberal loser Woolcock when there are bigger fish to fry such as Ward Churchill and Eason Jordan? I'll tell you why: because I saw my blog mentioned in connection with this whole affair at Gordon's Cranky Neocon blog.

I like Gordon's blog a lot and it is one of my daily reads. Gordon is a much more dedicated blogger than I. If you haven't been reading him, you should. He's on my blogroll and I voted for his blog in its category for Wizbang's Weblog awards. I am sincerely sorry if my original post on this subject brought about difficulties or problems for Gordon or for the pseudonymous "Dr. Rusty Shackleford" of The Jawa Report.

Nonetheless, I pose the following rhetorical questions for any and all who would propose that a patriotic but poorly performing student got what he deserved: that may well be, but how does that justify the wanton and bald-faced bias of a pseudo-intellectual socialist/Marxo-fascist such as Woolcock who is preaching from his pulpit at a community college? How does it justify the deplorable situation of the liberal monopoly or oligarchy that has practically universal and tyrannical control of our colleges and universities? Indeed, how does it justify the liberal stranglehold on education from pre-school through graduate school?

A rhetorical question means that my dear readers should ask the question of themselves. It does not mean that I require or desire a response.

One last thing -- Woolcock claims that his suggestion that the student seek therapy was taken out of context:

"Based on the nature of the concerns and the feelings of high anxiety which he [the student] expressed, I encouraged him to visit one of the college counselors. I neither forced nor ordered Mr. al-Qloushi to see a counselor . . ."

Frankly, mister Woolcock's statement is disingenuous. The student never claimed that he was "forced" or "ordered." That is a deliberate straw man set up by Woolcock. The student simply stated that Woolcock had suggested that he seek therapy. Of the two disparate versions of the story, I know which one rings more true to my ear. I'll give you a hint; it isn't the one who's trying to pull the Wool over my . . . ahem, eyes. And to the one who is trying to pull the Wool over our, er, uh eyes, I suggest he see a counselor. But I'm not forcing or ordering him.

You've been told and NOW YOU KNOW.