Posted on 01/15/2022 8:25:23 AM PST by Signalman
There are so many ridiculous things being taught in American colleges and universities these days that a professor who defends the Taliban may seem staid and conservative compared to some of his colleagues, but that’s just a sign of how far American academia has fallen. Christopher Cook, a professor in the Department of International Politics at Pennsylvania State University – World Campus, is teaching a class called “Politics of Terrorism,” in which he has given the students an essay assignment: “Explain why the Taliban are not terrorists.” Imagine a professor in 1944 making his students write about how the Nazis really aren’t so bad, and you’ll understand how ridiculous and outrageous Cook’s assignment really is.
Cook’s assignment was not an example of the common pedagogical exercise in which students adopt a point of view that is not their own in order to sharpen their ability to understand and present arguments. He explained his assignment in this way: “In one page* explain why the Taliban is have [sic] not and are still not a terrorist organization. You are not allowed to answer this question in any other way. Any attempt to avoid this prompt as written; or trying to argue otherwise will result in a failing grade. If you have any questions on the pedagogy behind this assignment– please contact me.”
The warnings that students could not argue the opposite view, or avoid the question altogether made clear where Cook was coming from, and he made it even clear in several tweets (after his class assignment became widely known, he deleted his Twitter account). Cook wrote: “Do you think any of my students will see this before Sunday’s deadline? The one where I ask them to tell me why the Taliban are *not* terrorists.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Christopher Cook isn't his real name. He changed his name from Allahu Akbar when he came to the U.S.
The only answer: because you say so.
Because the democratic party in the US says they aren’t.
Just write the paper from the viewpoint of the US State Department, which does not designate the taliban as a terrorist group
Throw in some of our shared values, like on the status and rights of women and gays
Is it possible the prof simply wanted the students to engage in a bit of contrarian thought, force them to consider and then argue from the opposing side, to see things from the Taliban’s side? (Yes, they’re still terrorists.) These sorts of exercises used to be common practice. Debate teams still do this . . . don’t they?
The contrarian point of view is allowed. It’s the contrarian contrarian view that is not. The other side is exercising free speech. By arguing against it you are suppressing free speech and need to be suppressed as anti democratic. You probably believe in voter suppression to wanting citizenship and ID and ballot integrity and all of that.
A drunken homeless dude from State College, PA once told me, “those who can’t do teach international politics at Penn State.”
they make their women cover from head to toe for their own good
they beat children flying kites for their own good
they don’t want girls going to school for their own good
they beat musicians for their own good
they marry pre-pubessant children for their own good
they have sex with little boys for their own good
etc. etc. etc...
do i get an A+???
This reminds me of an assignment I had from the Philosophy class teacher when I was a Freshman in college. We had to justify NAZIism. I wrote the best treatise and the teacher talked to me afterwards.
He said there were several things I could have brought up to do a better job. My answer was “That was the beauty of the assignment, because NAZIism is indefensible, so it didn’t matter how good I defended it.” He did not like my answer.
The best way to complete this assignment is to say the US gubmint, as well as the enemedia trying to cover Xho Bai-Dan’s ass, clearly felt they were “good” enough for us to turn over control of the country to them.
When you see the Taliban calmly sitting in the presidential palace after spending 18 months NOT killing Americans, it is very clear that we’d made a deal with them and they were just reaping what we’d promised. Those fine gentlemen don’t seem to have the faintest fear that a cruise missile was on its way to take out the lot of them...
Debate teams do indeed have to argue both sides. The prof isn’t a debate instructor. He really believes his crap
You get the A+ because you included the required “etc. etc. etc.” That triplet covers the problem, that social chaos is the outcome endorsed by thugs.
Thugs are people who are strongly attracted to The[ir] Arts of Messing with You.
Thugs allow a black hole in their heart, to remain open, and thugs “work” to feed that hole, by using force (coercion, cruelty, deception, threats, violence) in order to reduce your ability (including your rghts) to defend your self.
Jesus love can plug that hole, but there is so much temptation of empowerment in what thugs “feel” by their worshipping the black hole in their heart.
Thugs can deny that hole, but turning away, requires courage to exercise love.
Kindness, love, truth — what Lenin hated.
The Taliban actually are not “terrorists”.
They are the legitimate government and armed forces of Afghanistan.
Now, whether or not the existence of “Afghanistan” (never mind Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) is consistent with our safety and our happiness is a separate question.
islime is right about women...
Are sure this professor wasn’t just trolling the class? Or trolling the university? He comes off as a Looney Tunes cartoon level caricature of the wokeist. I wouldn’t discount trolling.
That’s easy: change the definition of terrorist to meet your needs, like the Feds did with the definition of a vaccine...
Here’s why they ARE terrorists:
https://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/christianity-vs.-islam
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.