ENEMY PROFESSOR (No. 8) - Winifred Woodhull

Noindoctrination.org ^ | Oct. 7, 2003 | anonymous

[doug from upland]

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

Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #265.

University of California, San Diego (UCSD)

Oct. 7, 2003

http://www.ucsd.edu

CA

  Course: DOC 3: Dimensions of Culture: Imagination

  Course Catalog Description: Using the arts, this course examines the evolution of pluralistic culture to the modern period. There is a special emphasis on the interdisciplinary study of twentieth-century American culture, including music, literature, art, film, and photography. The course offers intensive instruction in writing university-level expository prose. Three hours of lecture, two hours of discussion and writing instruction. Open to Marshall College students only. [UCSD's Marshall College requires its students to take a 3-quarter writing program called Dimensions of Culture. This is the 3rd-quarter class (Imagination).]

  Professor: Winifred Woodhull

  Required? Yes, for all students

  Lecture Bias: Excessive

  Comments: The point of this required writing program course was to promote a very biased view of 20th century American culture. (The course starts around the depression.) The first reading and first lecture was on George Lipsitz's (a UCSD professor) piece "No Shining City on a Hill." From the beginning, Woodhull came at the class with the ideology that the United States is nothing beyond a despicable and hypocritical country that continues to oppress minorities and the disadvantaged. She made it clear that the ones who were and are responsible for great wrongs are conservatives, who have blinded the masses, in order to keep the truth secret. She talked about how Dick Cheney's wife tried to stop these writings from being taught to students. Through each of the decades that we covered, she attacked traditional ways of viewing society. She believed that the Gulf War was a "revenge for the loss of Vietnam." She said it was just a ploy for "more oil." She inferred that conservatives were simple minded, that life was "more complex" than they realize. I would say that 40% of all her lectures dealt with the "meaning" or HER interpretation of what the assigned articles meant. She talked about how this type of literary study of "minority literature" is important to understanding the sub-culture of American society. Though I agree that this should be a portion of the lit., that was the ONLY PERSPECTIVE that we studied. She did give some historical perspectives, but no actual writing advice at all!!! And the course catalog description says that this class is heavily devoted to writing.

  Discussion Bias: Noticeable

  Comments: The TA did provide "constructive criticism" of our writing, but little discussion time was actually spent on the "how to part." (There was, and is, only ONE writing advisor for all of the DOC classes, and the sign up sheet fills up within seconds of its posting on Fridays. That is ridiculous.) I felt the TAs were open to different viewpoints, though they always sided with the professor. Students who disagreed with the TAs and the professor had NO READING OR LECTURE MATERIAL that presented other views. They only had their general knowledge and common sense to back up their arguments, whereas the TAs and agreeing students had EVERY reading as evidence to support their viewpoint. So in order to have an honest debate, I would have to bring in outside information.

  Readings Bias: Excessive

  Comments: The DOC-3 reader (a compilation of essays/excerpts) and the book "The Hearts of Men" by Barbara Ehrenreich were 100% biased towards the left. There were no moderate or conservative excerpts. From beginning to end, each reading took a liberal view, simply put. For example, the reading on the Gulf War ("Military Multiculturalism in the Gulf War and After, 1990-1999 by Melani McAlister) focused on how General Colin Powell was just a puppet of the Republican Party. His race was just used to attract African Americans to fight in the war.

  General Comments: Again, very little writing instruction was provided. The papers we wrote were an introspective style that most students had never learned, and were not really taught to any great extent. You either got it or you didn't. On the last day of class, the professor further patronized us by telling us not to be naive (conservative) - that when we see the light, we will be glad we took the "red pill" (to use, in her words, an analogy to the Matrix). Her sense of reality was the ONLY way to be informed about the world around us. [In June 1999 (more than 3 years *before* this poster's experience), UCSD's Committee on Educational Policy recommended that DOC "add greater range of viewpoints in course readings and in discussion sections." Information obtained using The California Public Records Act.]

The opinions expressed within NoIndoctrination.org are not necessarily those held by NoIndoctrination.org
Copyright © 2002-03, NoIndoctrination.org

[doug from upland]

Previous Enemy Professor posts --- CLICK.

[Straight Vermonter]

General Colin Powell was just a puppet of the Republican Party. His race was just used to attract African Americans to fight in the war.

I wasn't aware that our soldiers (minority or otherwise) had a choice in the matter.