ENEMY PROFESSOR (No. 19) - Robert Sussman

No Indoctrination dot org ^ | 2-22-05 | dfu

[doug from upland]

We proudly present the next in the series. Our colleges and universities are bastions of left wing, America-hating propaganda. We took back Congress. It is time to take back the universities.

PREVIOUS ENEMIES -- 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

=========================================================

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

Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #273.

Washington University in Saint Louis (WUSTL)

Oct. 25, 2003

http://www.wustl.edu

MO

  Course: ANTHRO 362: The Biological Basis of Human Behavior

  Course Catalog Description: Infidelity, marriage customs, inner city violence, infanticide, intelligence...Are the behavioral patterns we see genetically fixed and racially variable? What is the evolutionary and biological basis of human behavior? This course offers a critical evaluation of these from an anthropological perspective.

  Professor: Robert Sussman

  Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options.

  Lecture Bias: Excessive

  Comments: Interestingly, while the course was named "The Biological Basis of Human Behavior", the overarching message was "If you think there IS any biological basis to human behavior, you might as well be a nazi." Sociobiology, the idea that certain behavioral traits (ie: intelligence, aggression) may have genetic underpinnings, was deemed unacceptable by my professor because in his mind, sociobiology could be associated with anything right-wing: the dismantling of welfare programs (since there's no point in helping people whose problems are genetically fixed), forced sterilization of those deemed to be genetically inferior (he frequently made references to Hitler), and the notion that anyone who didn't accept Christianity as the correct religion must be genetically primitive. Relatively little class time was devoted to actual anthropological/biological facts to support his position. Most class time was spent denouncing George Bush and the Republican Party, Christianity, and western culture in general. Republicans and Christians were frequently portrayed as racist, irrational, and dogmatic. (Given that I am neither a Republican nor a Christian, the fact that I noticed this bias makes it all the more astonishing). The professor frequently misrepresented his opponents' positions. He joked that one of his academic oponents must have "spent too much time in Bible school." He actually once said something to the effect of "As soon as you acknowledge a biological basis to human behavior, you get into forced sterilization and eugenics, and you're on the slippery slope to Hitler's regime". Even when actual facts were being presented, I never really trusted that the professor wasn't just fabricating or exaggerating them. For example, when dealing with the question of men being more prone to violence than women, the Professor refused to acknowledge the documented evidence that men's higher levels of testosterone could be causally linked to aggressive behavior. Given that this was a large lecture class, students seldom participated - let alone in an attempt to challenge the professor's ideological creed. On the few occasions I recall that classmates tried to contradict the professor, while he did not outright ridicule the students, he didn't answer the challenges in a satisfactory way, nor did he give them any validity. He tended to use the "straw man" approach to arguing - that is, to attack simplified caricatures of arguments against his beliefs. (For example, if a student suggested that intelligence had a biological component, he would act as though the student was saying "intelligence is all genetic, and environment has no effect at all"). Mid-way through the semester we were given a chance to evaluate the professor's performance. Myself along with at least 2 classmates (1 of whom was extremely left-leaning!) complained about the professor's bias. While he addressed other issues the students had expressed in their evaluations, he blatantly ignored our criticism and continued his soap-box preaching in full force for the remainder of the semester.

  Discussion Bias: Excessive

  Comments: We were broken down once a week into smaller discussion sections of about 15 students. These were lead by a TA, who did not seem biased herself, and used a pretty "hands-off" approach in leading the discussions. However, the students very much echoed the professor's sentiments, and were utterly incapable of arguing their points rationally (rather than just labeling their opponents as racists or Fascists). When their beliefs were challenged, they usually launched into an emotive rant, rather than putting forth a coherent argument. For example, students refused to acknowledge that men were naturally more prone to violence than women (due to such biological factors as testosterone levels), because by doing so they would be "excusing" violence. This is of course a massive flaw in reasoning. Students generally belittled views that contradicted what they wanted to believe was true.

  Readings Bias: Noticeable

  Comments: The textbook was just a collection of essays written by academics from all sides of the ideological spectrum, and compiled by the Professor. My only complaint was that several readings were included that were of little academic value and were only included as a way of ridiculing the Professor's opponents. ie: an ill-informed statement made by a Republican Senator about women serving in the military. My hunch is that this reading was intended to reflect an overarching stupidity present in all conservatives, rather than to enhance the learning of students.

  General Comments: I ceased to do the required reading for this class when I discovered that the only information I needed to ace the weekly quizzes was a coherent understanding of who the professor's ideological enemies were. The quiz questions were always leading and biased as to drastically misrepresent the views of those who disagreed with the professor, and it became evident that quizzes were simply tools for students to echo back to the professor an understanding that his opponents did indeed represent evil incarnate. Part of the university's statement on academic freedom [http://www.wustl.edu/policies/tenure.html#FREEDOM] reads: "It is that freedom to be judged as scholar, teacher or student, when such judgment is necessary, on the basis of legitimate intellectual and professional criteria, not personal beliefs, political views, religious, or other individual preferences, except as these may demonstrably affect intellectual and professional achievement." There is no legitimate place for the kind of ideological proselytizing that took place in this class. Political and religious views (or in this case, blatantly anti-religious views) should be checked at the door.

Rebuttal

Submitted: Feb. 17, 2004

  It is too bad that this student did not speak up during the class and discussion sections. The course is set up for dialogue and the book contains articles by authors from many sides of the issues discussed. I do have a bias in my point of view and I tell the students that I will be speaking from my own biases (and attempting to back them up with good scientific data). A number of guests also give talks in the course. In the student evaluations, 93% of the students say that they would recommend the course. Not all students appreciate some of criticism of some of their most strongly held beliefs, even if the scientific evidence does not support these beliefs. Of course, science isn't always correct and I appreciate student questioning. However, I hope that this student goes back and reads some of the material in the book more carefully.

Respectfully,

Prof. Sussman

[This response was sent 10/27/03. Our web hosting company discovered a file problem on its server that affected incoming rebuttal email. This caused a delay in posting this rebuttal. We apologize. NoIndoctrination.org]

The opinions expressed within NoIndoctrination.org are not necessarily those held by NoIndoctrination.org
Copyright © 2002-04, NoIndoctrination.org

[doug from upland]

Hello, ENEMY PROFESSOR ping list.

[doug from upland]

LITTLE WARD CHURCHILLS INFEST FACULTIES OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

[samtheman]

For decades, the leftists that run the universities have been claiming (like Noam Chomsky) that there's no difference between the US and a totalitarian state. To prove their point, they have created mini-totalitarian states in all their classrooms.

If you fail to agree, you fail.

[hosepipe]

Robert Sussman.. another "learned" Moonbat...

[deepFR]

It is time to take back the universities

long overdue, let us not forget the public schools while we are at it.

[doug from upland]

Ping

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

It is too bad that this student did not speak up during the class and discussion sections.

Yeah, right. So you can identify that student so you can more easily give him/her an "F"? And that 93% of students recomend your course? Give me a break! You can pull the wool over the eyes of 18 and 19 year olds lady, but you can sell your swill with those in the real world.

[doug from upland]

Absolutely. Grades get you into grad school and they know they have you where they want you.

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Absolutely. Grades get you into grad school and they know they have you where they want you.

And the way to get around that is not to play their game and go to the college in the first place. Unless one goes to a "conservative" college, one is only feeding and not starving the beast.

[ChicagoRighty]

Ping

[ChicagoRighty]

My oldest is 6. I hope this is effective to bring some sense of balance to the universities before he has to make a choice.

Thanks for keeping us up.

[trailboss800]

ping

[TASMANIANRED]

If I were in college now they would expel me for failing to regurgitate BS.

[doug from upland]

I would have the same trouble.