October 15, 2009
Evidence is mounting that JHU is discriminating against thesis that makes pro-aborts look bad.
As many of my regular readers know, I’m currently trying to finish my MA in Government at Johns Hopkins University. About a year ago, I proposed my thesis topic–the fact that the abortion debate has a huge financial side to it–to the head of the program who thought it was a good idea and gave his blessing that I should proceed. Although I have tried to get help and input from other professors as I have worked toward completing my thesis, the program has not been very supportive and so I’ve been flying solo. Admittedly, I’ve kind of been OK with that, although I feel like the program could have offered me more support. This is beside the point.
Today, I had a meeting with the second in charge of the program. I knew that my topic would be a tough sell because although I have been writing it completely unbiased, the issue can be interpreted as inherently “pro-life,” or, more accurately, anti-abortion, which is the term I prefer to use. I think that both the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” labels are inaccurate and misleading. They confuse the debate. Realistically, we should be using the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion, when discussing the two sides of the issue. I cannot claim that I am always pro-life, as I support the death penalty, especially for those who take a life or molest a child. And, we cannot call all of the pro-abortion people pro-choice when they oppose choice in many other issues.
I have taken a long time to write my paper because I had this fear that it would be rejected. Last week, a friend in the program told me not to worry. He had worked with the two heads of the program on his thesis and they didn’t even look at it until he handed in his first draft. His friend handed in a draft that was completely rejected by two separate professors, yet she was told to change what she could in the two weeks prior to defending and that everything would be OK. In other words, hand in whatever garbage you have and you’ll be able to defend and get your degree. With that in mind, I felt a little bit better and went ahead and set up this meeting with the professor.
I will not be able to hand in anything and just get a pass as this other girl had done. In fact, the professor told me to email her what I have written so far so that she can start reviewing it to make sure that it’s not an “advocacy paper.” In other words, she needs to make sure that it isn’t anti-abortion and doesn’t make the abortion industry look bad. She assumes that I can’t write a fair paper and present the topic without bias. Of course she assumes that, because if I were a pro-abort I wouldn’t be able to do that. The only difference is that if I was a pro-abort it wouldn’t matter if it were deemed and “advocacy paper.” As far as academia is concerned, we should all be pro-aborts advocating abortion.
Then, she told me to make sure that I include scholarly articles. I have 50 pages written. She is assuming that I have no evidence for my claim and have not done proper research. Why? Does she think that if I had read scholarly reviewed articles on abortion I would be a pro-abort? She’s probably wondering how I got this far and could remain so “closed-minded” on the topic. The truth is, as I told her, JSTOR is my lifeline. A lot of my research is done there. I’ve even read books about the topic, written by pro-aborts because we all know that those are the only books that would be accepted.
She said that maybe I would be able to defend this fall, but opened the door to the possibility that might not happen. And, it probably won’t. If I have to keep having every word I write reviewed and approved by her, I can promise I won’t be defending this fall and graduating in December. This is why I have to wonder if there is bias at play here, on her side. How many students have to submit their chapters to her and then incorporate her suggestions before they can submit a draft for review to more professors to get suggestions and then be able to defend? How much will I be penalized if I refuse to make some of her changes because I think that they are biased, wrong, or just don’t have any place in the paper? What happens if she wipes out everything I have already written because she deems it offensive or harmful to her cause?
She then had the audacity to suggest it’s a worthless thesis because the issue isn’t salient, right now. That’s when I had to remind her that the issue is salient and has the possibility of becoming more salient. In the past six months we have had two new public opinion polls come out suggesting a significant shift toward the anti-abortion side. This shift is small but it is significant because public opinion on the issue has remained generally steady and generally pro-abortion for many decades. The shift isn’t just showing less people identifying as pro-abortion; it’s showing more people identifying as anti-abortion. That, in itself, is significant.
Also, we have one of the most pro-abortion president, if not the most, in history. This could be part of the reason people are shifting in the opinion polls, because he’s so extreme and if he identifies as pro-abortion they realize that’s what they’re not and so they’re identifying as anti-abortion. We don’t know that, all we know is that since Barack Obama has been elected public opinion polls are starting to show what appears to be a genuine shift in public opinion about abortion. Either way, the election of an extremely pro-abortion president makes the issue salient. As does his request in May to find common ground on the issue.
The issue became salient when Obama reversed the Mexico City Policy. She can’t recall headlines about this? I very clearly do. It was one of the first things he did as president. He made a major policy shift on abortion three days after the inauguration. When an incoming president strikes down a law that “prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services,” it makes the issue salient.
When Time magazine reports that abortion is bubbling up as a huge part of the CURRENT health care debate, I would say that it’s a salient issue. When there is a campaign launched against public funding being used to finance abortions, it’s a salient issue. When anti-abortion members keep trying to offer amendments excluding federal funding from financing abortion and pro-abortion politicians keep voting down these amendments, it appears to be a pretty salient issue.
There is a film exposing the same side of this industry that I am trying to expose, the financial side underlying the debate. Do we have to wait for that to be released to be able to define this as a salient issue? When the film exposes how the abortion industry operated more scrupulously than the tobacco industry, will that make it a salient enough issue? When it is revealed that doctors who perform abortions make profit off of the actual service of abortion, and off the sale of the fetal remains, will that make it a salient issue?
When the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) finds its way back to the legislative agenda, which will happen soon because it’s always floating around and Obama promised to support it during the campaign, will that make it a salient issue? When is aims to put into place a federal law that will override all state laws and basically allow abortion for any reason at any time in the pregnancy, will that make this a salient issue?
As one of the most contentiously debated issues our nation has ever faced, abortion is always a salient issue. It might not be in the headlines today, but we always know it can be tomorrow. It’s an issue that will never be satisfactorily settled and, therefore, will always be right below the surface. Why would anyone want to be behind the curve writing about what’s happening now or in the past unless they could use that to make a giant leap forward toward the future? I’m taking all I know about the issue and going out on a limb. I am arguing that the American public has no clue there is a financial industry that is at play when our politicians and special interest groups are arguing about abortion. They have been fooled by the issue framing to think that this is a matter of privacy, when it’s a matter of profits.
Are they going to deny me the opportunity to argue this because no one else ever has? I can state in my thesis what my thesis is and then report I couldn’t find enough data to support it and therefore conclude that either my thesis is wrong or that there’s not enough data at this time, but that’s what the point of a thesis is. You don’t have to be right or wrong. You make an educated guess, do the research, and report what you find. At least, that was my understanding. I only need one more chapter with 25 pages. Does she think I can’t fill that? I obviously can. And, now she has motivated me to do it.
The saliency of the issue is irrelevant. Maybe my groundbreaking thesis will make the issue salient. Who knows? What I do know is that a student’s thesis topic being salient isn’t a requirement of the degree program and my thesis cannot be denied on those grounds. I also know that I don’t play victim very well. If I did, I would probably be a Democrat. So, I’ll leave this alone, for now. But, I’m not going to back down and I will not be blackmailed into silence by the threat of not getting my degree. I would rather stand by my principles and bring this topic to the forefront than have some worthless piece of paper from some wanna-be Ivy League school like JHU. I don’t even know why I’m shocked by this. What do I expect from one of Maryland’s biggest abortion suppliers?
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Courageous stands sometimes come at a cost. It would seem that the goal of education would, at least, *should be* to follow truth.
Good luck.
Comment by mj — October 15, 2009 @ 1:51 pm