I wonder if this is a hoax. The fact that neither the institution, nor the class, nor the instructor is identified does little for it's credibility. I have no doubt that many Sociology instructors, from grad-students to professors, agree with what the questions and answers reveal, but I do doubt that they would create a smoking-gun document like the one in the link. The fact that the document contains a lot of truth doesn't make it authentic. If it is, let's get on with the NAMING and shaming. If it isn't authentic, or, if it's authenticity can't be demonstrated, let's conclude it's an all-too-believable hoax.

Hi David,

That occurred to me, too. Here is what Candace de Russy (former SUNY trustee) says about its origins: "Recently, a colleague forwarded to me a copy of an exam from an introductory sociology class found lying in a room at a public college in the east." I am trusting that the colleague was the one who found the exam lying on the floor -- but the wording does leave a bit of doubt. I agree that it would be best if names were named--we don't need to know who the student is, but we should know the rest.

Tim Burke once wrote on his blog that he suspected a lot of what gets labelled as doctrinaire teaching is actually incompetent teaching. It strikes me that this might be one of those instances, as no self-respecting college teacher would write an exam that badly telegraphic, no matter what their politics. But at the same time, incompetence is a breeding ground for ideology masquerading as thought. At a certain point, there's not a lot of practical difference.

That reads like an updated version of the "found manuscript" trope in Gothic fiction...

Even assuming the text is authentic, it is hard to know how much has been redacted. Candace de Russy says that it is "quoted at length." Were the answers edited/condensed to highlight punctuation mistakes and simplistic analyses? What about the questions?

While this particular example may or may not be true, I see similar examples of handouts, quizzes, worksheets, exams, etc. left in classrooms all of the time. The greatest offenders seem to be education and the area studies, as one might expect.

And, unfortunately, I get answers that brief all too often, even when the questions are complicated and require much, much more.

why isn't there a pdf being circulated, if indeed the purported document is real?

Just Me: PDFs can be forged. They are not in themselves proof of authenticity.

All: I've written to the editors at Minding the Campus, the Manhattan Institute site where the post is located, to bring your concerns to their attention.

I posted a comment, asking for claification, at the Minding the Campus site. Comment hasn't even appeared yet (moderated comments) let alone gotten a response.

Not very impressive.

I have found they are fairly slow about clearing comments.

I have been in touch with the editors at Minding the Campus, and they have confirmed that the test is authentic. Names have been redacted by the choice of the professor that found the test and passed it on--but the test itself is real, and the quoted portions have not been edited to make them look bad, as some commenters have suggested.

For the record, this is what I expected to find. Minding the Campus is part of the Manhattan Institute, and they are reputable and responsible over there. I hope now that comments can focus on the content of the quoted exam.

Can I ask something? Would you accept that standard of evidence for a claim if it wasn't a claim you were predisposed to accept? "I contacted them and they say it's true"? How many times has that been said on the Internet only to evaporate into nothingness.

There's nothing impossible or implausible about the existence of an exam like this one, and if it existed, I'd make precisely the argument you cite above: grossly doctrinaire teaching is incompetent teaching, and the incompetence is the first and real issue, not the doctrine. (E.g., I've seen simplistic, dull-witted exams reflecting simplistic, dull-witted courses which were not particuarly political, and they share a lot in common with this purported exam). But really, I don't see any reason to see this supposed exam as evidence of anything until it's confirmed as part of a real course taught by a real person at a real institution.

Tim, John Leo and the folks at MTC went to considerable lengths to verify the authenticity of the exam. They shared as much of that process with me as they could, given confidentiality concerns. I'm prepared to accept both the rigor of their documentation efforts and the authenticity of the exam. For what it's worth, just as your comment came in, I was posting a new post, one that compliments you on your recent post about honesty and public lying.

If it can't be verified beyond "trust us, it's for real", it's not worth using to come to any conclusion of worth about anything. But in any event, part of my message in that other post is that getting beyond fabulisms is that we all have to stop looking for low-hanging fruit that allows us to laud ourselves as the confirmed possessors of virtue amid a world of cardboard villains.

Tim, Your comments set an awfully high standard for even mainstream media. Surely you agree that sometimes sources can't be disclosed--and that you have to trust that the sources have been verified? This one has been verified--to John Leo's satisfaction and to mine, though not, admittedly, personally verified to you.

If you need more documentation, maybe you should write and ask for it yourself, which is, after all, what I did. In the meantime, perhaps you could stop insinuating that I'm lying, or being fooled by people who are.

You are right that we have to move beyond the low-hanging fruit. This means that I have to verify material like that posted at MTC, which I did. It also means that you have to stop assuming, or even insisting, that I operate in bad faith. We've been over this before, Tim, and it's been the cause of a falling out in the past. Part of finding the common ethical cause that you eloquently call for is not being so ready to assume that people like me are just in bad faith because in some respects we see the world in ways you find inexplicable or even repellent. I don't assume that of you--though at times I really do shake my head at some of the things you write. At times, I'm actually appalled.

Mostly, though, I just see you as interestingly different from me, which you should be. And I believe you do your best, that you try to be fair and objective, and that you pride yourself on being more thoughtful than most. I read your site with an eye to trying first to understand where you are coming from--rather than to assuming that you couldn't be coming from anywhere good.

Maybe you could try to meet me half way?

Erin, I agree with your reply to Timothy Burke (January 31, 2010, 1:31 PM).

And Timothy, perhaps if you'd been half as skeptical of Obama before casting your vote for him as you are now about the authenticity of the test posted at Minding the Campus, you wouldn't be so disappointed with the president's performance as you are today.

It's not like there wasn't evidence a-plenty about what he and his entourage were all about.

Isn't it too short to be a real exam? And, would this really all be covered in one chapter or unit (it seems a bit diffuse for that)?