Pages: 1 2
So yes, I understand the strategy. What I don’t understand is why Dr. Wysong, and his superiors who allow this professional malfeasance to occur, think they can get away with it. There is not one respected, rational political scholar in the United States today who would seriously try to attach a moderate label to the positions or person of Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi has achieved a rating of 100% from the National Abortion Rights Action League for her rabid support of child sacrifice, the NAACP for her support of reverse discrimination, the radical Human Rights Commission for her promotion of the homosexual agenda, Americans United for her commitment to eradicating religion from the public square, the National Education Association for her commitment to funneling more money into failed education policies, and the left-wing lobby group SANE for her anti-military voting record. She has received a 21% rating from the National Taxpayer Union for her consistent attempts to raise taxes, a 0% rating from the Federation for American Immigration Reform for her support of illegal immigration, an “F” rating from the NRA for her anti-2nd Amendment positions, and is rated by the online issues analysis organization “On The Issues” as a “Hard-Core Liberal.”
That anyone then, particularly an esteemed college professor, could ludicrously consider Pelosi a moderate is as much an outrageous as it is telling. Such an incident teaches us far more about the political perspective of Dr. Earl Wysong – and IUK, should they continue to stand by him – than it does of Nancy Pelosi.
On behalf of the student, I called Dr. Wysong’s office and e-mailed him three times in the last month seeking an explanation. And while he has ignored me, he has not ignored the incident. The student reported that shortly after I ran with the story, Dr. Wysong announced a policy change for his classroom. He is no longer returning student work for them to keep after he has graded it.
Upon learning this, I contacted IUK’s Department of Social Sciences, Office of Academic Affairs, and the Office of the Chancellor seeking comment. No one has given the courtesy of a response. Given that IUK is an institution being financed with taxpayer dollars, they not only should rectify this situation, but they owe the public both an explanation and an assurance that such flagrant pedagogical misconduct won’t continue.
Pages: 1 2