Woolcock: Firm or Flaccid?

Update: California Yankee has this up with additional insight and information and reports that the Washington Times is now on the story. See multiple links there.

File this in the "You can't make this shit up" folder.

Here Hyscience links to details of a story wherein a Woolcock seems to be oozing with the seminal idea that should a young Kuwaiti student actually like the United States, then surely he must be crazy.

Here, in yet another example of liberal academic bias, a Calif. college teacher(Professor Joseph Woolcock at Foothill College) equates a Kuwaiti youth's love for the U.S. with mental illness. From the sound of it I believe that it is the good professor that needs counseling, starting with anger management. How do you spell the sound of goose-fraaaah-baaaah?

My mind couldn't help but wonder why a Woolcock might be itching for a fight. I mean, given a resurgence in Pro-American feeling in this country post 9-11, it struck me as interesting that a Woolcock would stand so seemingly erect in direct confrontation to that trend. So, while it might not normally be my preference, I decided that in this case I would take a closer look at this Woolcock. After all, my readers have a right to know if this is a hard man taking a turgid stance on principle, or if in the final analysis his position is really a bit flaccid on the merits.

This struck me as more than a bit curious:

Thursday, February 14
African American History Lecture Series (Part II)
Reflections on Carter G. Woodson's, Miseducation (sic) of the Negro. What are the implications of Woodson's "Back Door" theory in the context of American higher education in the 21st century? This lecture will explore several questions, including has the back door that Woodson spoke about vanished or has it taken on new meaning in the context of what is called multiculturalism in American higher education today; is the education of the African American still a fundamental problem in America or has the African American become so integrated in American life that he/she no longer needs to be conscious of his/her history; is white supremacy an idea of the past or is it still a major socio-economic and political problem in America; and what must be done now.
Lecturer: Joseph Woolcock, Ph.D.

Far be it from me to judge any Woolcock's serious interest in the Back Door. Certainly a rigid scholarship demands the probing of every cavity until this Woolcock is satisfied. But isn't it just a bit disingenuous to deliver a lecture which purports to ask questions like -
"has the African American become so integrated in American life that he/she no longer needs to be conscious of his/her history; is white supremacy an idea of the past" and conclude with "what must be done now"? How is it one predetermines something MUST be done NOW, before even having the discussion? Hmmm?

Or, perhaps this lecture sheds a little more light on this Woolcock's real position:

Thursday, February 21
African American History Lecture Series (Part III)
The Questions of Reparation for the African Slave Trade This lecture will focus on the issue of reparations for the African American. Its focus is the question whether or not black people have a case to be made. In comparison, Jews continue to seek
and press their case relentlessly for reparations. Several European countries continue to pay billions of dollars in reparation for this suffering. Why then should black people not make their case and seek reparations for the harm done to them through the slave trade and slavery itself? Participate in lively discussion.
Lecturer: Joseph Woolcock, Ph.D.

To his credit, I bet Woolcock isn't at all predisposed to some conclusion here, even though those greedy Jews are blackmailing most of Europe. Wouldn't you agree? One can only imagine what a learned man this Woolcock must be. Fortunately they relieved my intellectual curiosity by stating his credentials right here:

Joseph A.Woolcock has been teaching Political Science at Foothill College since 1987. He received his undergraduate education in Sociology and Psychology from Boston College, did postgraduate work in educational administration and management at the University of the West Indies and masters and doctoral degrees in international development at Stanford University. Dr. Woolcock has taught at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in higher education and has several years’ senior level experience as an international consultant.

My, what impressive credentials. And with his broad international experience, I wonder if he ever did any time as a UN aid worker. Perhaps that's where this particular Woolcock developed his interest in the backdoor.

Should you have any additional questions for this Woolcock, I believe he can be reached here: woolcockjoe@foothill.edu

My only question is how this Foothills College finds people stupid enough to pay to attend. And why am I thinking a large part of it is our tax dollars doled out through grants in aid.

Comments

[Richard]

Great post, very informative. I think this fellow Woolcock deserves a few emails. Seems as though our professor doesn't have much appreciation for the opportunities afforded him in America. He's apparently disappointed that a Muslim has more of an appreciation for our(his too) country than he does.

[Ron]

The first question I asked myself was, if he has all these impressive credentials, why is he teaching at a JC in fruitfly land? The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.

Been a few sunsets since I attended collage (pun intended). One remarkable change has befallen the hallowed halls me thinks. Even while taking Poly Sci, we actually, gasp, learned about political science. I now see the inverse is true and all those loud mouthed, never go to class, moochers are faculty! Isn't it great to spend your day playing Plato or Socrates whilst the microcosm participates in lively discussion. Sorry Dan, I disagree. Going somewhere to learn assumes the person(s) teaching know more than you. If not, open your own damn school and teach. This transcendentalistic approach to all flavors of education, has led to nothing more than whining, self-righteous, liberals that have no concept of reality.

[Rhod]

The first thing that strikes you in this is that Woolcock is a standard get-the-boxcars-rolling modern academic totalitarian-thinking asshole. Dissenting opinion to Woolcock is a symptom of mental illness, character disorder or cultural derangement. We've had some experience with people like this. They're the ones who ran the rehabilitation asylums and re-education camps.

Under the right circumstances, this guy would be cranking up the cattle prod and acting out other sadistic impulses on the innocent under his supervision. That's why he's a teacher (no offense), a profession with the lowest SAT's and college scores in the liberal arts grove, populated by people with a need to manipulate and control.

Ron asks the right question, and the answer is that the JC's are full of tenth rate losers pumped out by diploma mills. Creds in the silly little world of academia are sprinkled like glitter and mean nothing. It's a tight little clot of self-praise, insularity and cruelty every bit as nauseating as the clergy of the Middle Ages.