Mock exam participants:  By taking the test you agree to the following:  "I swear on my honor that I have completed the translation and the essay within one continuous period of four hours, with no aid except a monolingual English dictionary.  I have received no help from anyone.  I have not seen an English translation of the German text, and I have not used any sources (on the Internet or otherwise) to write my essay.  I read the article for the first time, and wrote my essay (400-600 words) about it, and completed the translation, all within a continuous four-hour period.  I understand that the essay should present an argument for or against something mentioned in the article, with a clear thesis and well-developed supporting points.  I will not summarize or quote extensively from the article, but will develop my own argument in my own words.  I understand that both the essay and the translation should be easily comprehensible to an English reader who knows no German and is unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Follow the instructions at www.mdmorrissey.com/mock.

Mock exam, May 21, 2004

There are two exams here, 5a and 5b.

Translation:  Translate the following into clear, correct English.

Zweimal trat Präsident Bush am Donnerstag vor die Kameras des arabischen Fernsehens. Es waren unbeholfene Versuche der "Schadensbegrenzung", nachdem die Aufdeckung von Folter durch die US-Besatzer in der arabischen Welt Empörung ausgelöst hatte.

Bush gab sowohl dem Propagandasprachrohr der amerikanischen Regierung, dem Satellitensender Al Hurra, ein kurzes Interview als auch dem in Dubai ansässigen Sender Al Arabiya. Al Dschasira, der populärste Sender im Nahen Osten, wurde dagegen wegen seiner relativ objektiven - das heißt kritischen - Berichterstattung über die amerikanischen Kriegsanstrengungen schroff abgewiesen.

Bushs Lenker standen vor einer entmutigenden, wenn nicht unlösbaren Aufgabe. Ihr Ziel war es, den Präsidenten, dessen sadistische Vorliebe für Gewalt und Tod - von der Hinrichtung zum Tode Verurteilter in Texas bis zu den Schlachtfeldern von Afghanistan und Irak - seit langem bekannt und dokumentiert ist, in einen sensiblen und mitfühlenden umzuwandeln. Der ehemalige Präsident Clinton konnte, wenn nötig, viel betroffener gucken als Bush. Bush wirkt einfach zu unaufrichtig.  (Published May 6, 2004)

 

Translation 5a

 

On Thursday, President Bush faced twice the cameras of the Arabian television. Those were clumsy attempts to limit the damage after the exposure of torture by US-invaders caused outrage in the Arabian world.

 

Bush gave a short interview not only to the satellite channel “Al Hurra” – the propaganda mouthpiece of the American government – but also to channel “Al Arabiya” which is located in Dubai. Al Dschasira, the most popular channel in the Middle East, was, in contrast, rejected abruptly because of its relatively objective – what means critical – reporting of the American efforts of military action.

 

Bush’s guides were facing a disheartened or even insoluble task. Their aim was to transform the President, whose sadistic delight for violence and death – concerning both the execution of those who were sentenced to death in Texas and the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq – was known and documented for a long time into a sensitive and caring man. If necessary, former President Clinton could look much more shaken than Bush can. Bush simply appears too insincere.

 

 

Translation 5a (corrected)	Original
On Thursday, President Bush faced twice the cameras of the Arabian television. Those These were clumsy attempts to limit the damage after the exposure of torture by US-invaders occupation forces caused outrage in the Arabian world.	President George W. Bush made two appearances on Arabic-language television Wednesday, in a clumsy attempt at “damage control” in the wake of the outrage provoked by the exposure of the US torture of Iraqi prisoners.
Bush gave a short interview not only to the satellite channel “Al Hurra” – the propaganda mouthpiece of the American government – but also to channel the “Al Arabiya” network, which is located in Dubai. Al DschasiraJazeera, the most popular channel in the Middle East, was, in contrast, rejected abruptly because of its relatively objective – what that is, means critical – reporting of the American military efforts of military action.	Bush gave brief interviews to the Al Hurra satellite station, the American government propaganda outlet, and the widely followed Al Arabiya, the network based in Dubai. The administration snubbed Al Jazeera, the most popular station in the Middle East, because of its relatively objective, i.e., critical, reporting of the US war effort in Iraq.
Bush’s guides handlers/guidedogs? were facing a disheartened disheartening or even insoluble task. Their aim was to transform the President, whose sadistic delight for violence and death – concerning both the execution of those who were sentenced to death in Texas and the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq – was has known and documented for a long time, into a sensitive and caring man. If necessary, former President Clinton could look much more shaken than Bush can. Bush simply appears too insincere.	The task facing Bush’s handlers was a daunting, indeed impossible one. Their aim was to transform the president, whose record of either taking sadistic pleasure in violence and death (from the execution of condemned prisoners in Texas to the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan) is lengthy and well-known one, into a sensitive, caring soul. Former president Bill Clinton was much more effective at pulling a long face when necessary. Bush simply reeks of insincerity.

 

Translation 5b

 

President Bush last Thursday stepped in front of the cameras of the cameras of the Arabian television. It had been quite helpless attempts of damage limitations after the torture by U.S. occupying forces had been discovered and feelings were running high in the Arab world.

 

Bush gave a short interview to satellite broadcasting station Al Hurra of the U.S. propaganda machine, as well as to the Dubai based station Al Arabya.Al Dschasira, the most popular broadcasting station in the Middle East, was strongly rejected because of its rather critical reports on American war efforts. The crucial people behind Bush were confronted with a discouraging task, even with one that can not be solved.

 

It was their goal to convert the President into a sensible and emphatic personality, whose preference for violence and death has long been known and documented, ranging from the execution of death candidates in Texas up to the battle fields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Former President Clinton could much more concerned than Bush if necessary. Bush simply has the appearance of being dishonest.

 

 

Translation 5b (corrected)	Original
President Bush last Thursday stepped in front of the cameras of the cameras of the Arabian television last Thursday. It had beenwas a quite helpless attempts of damage limitations after the torture by U.S. occupying forces had been discovered and feelings were running high in the Arab world.	President George W. Bush made two appearances on Arabic-language television Wednesday, in a clumsy attempt at “damage control” in the wake of the outrage provoked by the exposure of the US torture of Iraqi prisoners.
Bush gave a short interview to satellite broadcasting station Al Hurra of the U.S. propaganda machine, as well as to the Dubai- based station Al Arabya. Al Dschasira, the most popular broadcasting station in the Middle East, was strongly (categorically) rejected because of its rather relatively critical, that is, objective, reports on the American war efforts.	Bush gave brief interviews to the Al Hurra satellite station, the American government propaganda outlet, and the widely followed Al Arabiya, the network based in Dubai. The administration snubbed Al Jazeera, the most popular station in the Middle East, because of its relatively objective, i.e., critical, reporting of the US war effort in Iraq.
The crucial people behind Bush were confronted with a discouraging task, even with one that can not be solved.It was their goal to convert the President into a sensible and emphatic personality, whose preference for violence and death has long been known and documented, ranging from the execution of death candidatescondemned prisoners in Texas up to the battle fields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Former President Clinton could appear much more concerned than Bush if necessary. Bush simply has the a conspicuous appearance of being dishonest.	The task facing Bush’s handlers was a daunting, indeed impossible one. Their aim was to transform the president, whose record of either taking sadistic pleasure in violence and death (from the execution of condemned prisoners in Texas to the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan) is lengthy and well-known one, into a sensitive, caring soul. Former president Bill Clinton was much more effective at pulling a long face when necessary. Bush simply reeks of insincerity.

Essay:  Write an essay of 400-600 words agreeing or disagreeing with some point in ONE of the following texts.  Make sure your thesis (main point) and supporting points are clear and easy to follow.

Text 1:

May 21, 2004

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR, The New York Times

Why We Built the Ivory Tower

By STANLEY FISH

CHICAGO

After nearly five decades in academia, and five and a half years as a dean at a public university, I exit with a three-part piece of wisdom for those who work in higher education: do your job; don't try to do someone else's job, as you are unlikely to be qualified; and don't let anyone else do your job. In other words, don't confuse your academic obligations with the obligation to save the world; that's not your job as an academic; and don't surrender your academic obligations to the agenda of any non-academic constituency — parents, legislators, trustees or donors. In short, don't cross the boundary between academic work and partisan advocacy, whether the advocacy is yours or someone else's.

 

Marx famously said that our job is not to interpret the world, but to change it. In the academy, however, it is exactly the reverse: our job is not to change the world, but to interpret it. While academic labors might in some instances play a role in real-world politics — if, say, the Supreme Court cites your book on the way to a decision — it should not be the design or aim of academics to play that role.

 

While academics in general will agree that a university should not dance to the tune of external constituencies, they will most likely resist the injunction to police the boundary between academic work and political work. They will resist because they simply don't believe in the boundary — they believe that all activities are inherently political, and an injunction to avoid politics is meaningless and futile.

 

Now there is some truth to that, but it is not a truth that goes very far. And it certainly doesn't go where those who proclaim it would want it to go. It is true that no form of work — including even the work of, say, natural science — stands apart from the political, social and economic concerns that underlie the structures and practices of a society. This does not mean, however, that there is no difference between academic labors and partisan labors, or that there is no difference between, for example, analyzing the history of welfare reform — a history that would necessarily include opinions pro and con — and urging students to go out and work for welfare reform or for its reversal.

 

Analyzing welfare reform in an academic context is a political action in the sense that any conclusion a scholar might reach will be one another scholar might dispute. (That, after all, is what political means: subject to dispute.) But such a dispute between scholars will not be political in the everyday sense of the word, because each side will represent different academic approaches, not different partisan agendas.

 

My point is not that academics should refrain from being political in an absolute sense — that is impossible — but that they should engage in politics appropriate to the enterprise they signed onto. And that means arguing about (and voting on) things like curriculum, department leadership, the direction of research, the content and manner of teaching, establishing standards — everything that is relevant to the responsibilities we take on when we accept a paycheck. These responsibilities include meeting classes, keeping up in the discipline, assigning and correcting papers, opening up new areas of scholarship, and so on.

 

This is a long list, but there are many in academia who would add to it the larger (or so they would say) tasks of "forming character" and "fashioning citizens." A few years ago, the presidents of nearly 500 universities issued a declaration on the "Civic Responsibility of Higher Education." It called for colleges and universities to take responsibility for helping students "realize the values and skills of our democratic society."

 

Derek Bok, the former president of Harvard and one of the forces behind the declaration, has urged his colleagues to "consider civic responsibility as an explicit and important aim of college education." In January, some 1,300 administrators met in Washington under the auspices of the Association of American Colleges and Universities to take up this topic: "What practices provide students with the knowledge and commitments to be socially responsible citizens?" That's not a bad question, but the answers to it should not be the content of a college or university course.

 

No doubt, the practices of responsible citizenship and moral behavior should be encouraged in our young adults — but it's not the business of the university to do so, except when the morality in question is the morality that penalizes cheating, plagiarizing and shoddy teaching, and the desired citizenship is defined not by the demands of democracy, but by the demands of the academy.

 

This is so not because these practices are political, but because they are the political tasks that belong properly to other institutions. Universities could engage in moral and civic education only by deciding in advance which of the competing views of morality and citizenship is the right one, and then devoting academic resources and energy to the task of realizing it. But that task would deform (by replacing) the true task of academic work: the search for truth and the dissemination of it through teaching.

 

The idea that universities should be in the business of forming character and fashioning citizens is often supported by the claim that academic work should not be hermetically sealed or kept separate from the realm of values. But the search for truth is its own value, and fidelity to it mandates the accompanying values of responsibility in pedagogy and scholarship.

 

Performing academic work responsibly and at the highest level is a job big enough for any scholar and for any institution. And, as I look around, it does not seem to me that we academics do that job so well that we can now take it upon ourselves to do everyone else's job too. We should look to the practices in our own shop, narrowly conceived, before we set out to alter the entire world by forming moral character, or fashioning democratic citizens, or combating globalization, or embracing globalization, or anything else.

 

One would like to think that even the exaggerated sense of virtue that is so much a part of the academic mentality has its limits. If we aim low and stick to the tasks we are paid to perform, we might actually get something done.

 

Stanley Fish will step down next month as dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

 Text 2:

May 21, 2004

OP-ED COLUMNIST, The New York Times

'Gooks' to 'Hajis'

By BOB HERBERT

The hapless Jeremy Sivits got the headlines yesterday. A mechanic whose job was to service gasoline-powered generators, Specialist Sivits was sentenced to a year in prison and thrown out of the Army for accepting an invitation to take part in the sadistic treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

But there's another soldier in serious trouble to whom we should be paying even closer attention. His case doesn't just call into question the treatment of prisoners by U.S. forces. It calls into question this entire abominable war.

 

Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia is a 28-year-old member of the Florida National Guard who served six harrowing months in Iraq, went home to Miami on a furlough last October, and then refused to return to his unit when the furlough ended.

 

Sergeant Mejia has been charged with desertion. His court-martial at Fort Stewart, Ga., began Wednesday, the same day that Specialist Sivits pleaded guilty to the charges against him. If Sergeant Mejia is convicted, he will face a similar punishment, a year in prison and a bad-conduct discharge.

 

Sergeant Mejia told me in a long telephone interview this week that he had qualms about the war from the beginning but he followed his orders and went to Iraq in April 2003. He led an infantry squad and saw plenty of action. But the more he thought about the war — including the slaughter of Iraqi civilians, the mistreatment of prisoners (which he personally witnessed), the killing of children, the cruel deaths of American G.I.'s (some of whom are the targets of bounty hunters in search of a reported $2,000 per head), the ineptitude of inexperienced, glory-hunting military officers who at times are needlessly putting U.S. troops in even greater danger, and the growing rage among coalition troops against all Iraqis (known derisively as "hajis," the way the Vietnamese were known as "gooks") — the more he thought about these things, the more he felt that this war could not be justified, and that he could no longer be part of it.

 

Sergeant Mejia's legal defense is complex (among other things, he is seeking conscientious objector status), but his essential point is that war is too terrible to be waged willy-nilly, that there must always be an ethically or morally sound reason for opening the spigots to such horror. And he believes that threshold was never met in Iraq.

 

"Imagine being in the infantry in Ramadi, like we were," he said, "where you get shot at every day and you get mortared where you live, [and attacked] with R.P.G.'s [rocket-propelled grenades], and people are dying and getting wounded and maimed every day. A lot of horrible things become acceptable."

 

He spoke about a friend of his, a sniper, who he said had shot a child about 10 years old who was carrying an automatic weapon. "He realized it was a kid," said Sergeant Mejia. "The kid tried to get up. He shot him again."

 

The child died.

 

All you really want to do in such an environment, said Sergeant Mejia, is "get out of there alive." So soldiers will do things under that kind of extreme stress that they wouldn't do otherwise.

 

"You just sort of try to block out the fact that they're human beings and see them as enemies," he said. "You call them hajis, you know? You do all the things that make it easier to deal with killing them and mistreating them."

 

When there is time later to reflect on what has happened, said Sergeant Mejia, "you come face to face with your emotions and your feelings and you try to tell yourself that you did it for a good reason. And if you don't find it, if you don't believe you did it for a good reason, then, you know, it becomes pretty tough to accept it — to willingly be a part of the war."

 

A military court will decide whether Sergeant Mejia, who served honorably while he was in Iraq, is a deserter or a conscientious objector or something in between. But the issues he has raised deserve a close reading by the nation as a whole, which is finally beginning to emerge from the fog of deliberate misrepresentations created by Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. about this war.

 

The truth is the antidote to that crowd. Whatever the outcome of Sergeant Mejia's court-martial, he has made a contribution to the truth about Iraq.  

Essay 5a

May 21, 2004

 

Re: ´Gooks´ to ´Hajis´ by Bob Herbert, The New York Times

 

Dear Editor,

 

I would like to comment on Bob Herbert’s article ´Gooks´ to ´Hajis´ which was published in The New York Times. I am so glad that somebody personally witnessed the mistreatment of detainees in a prison. Sergeant Sgt. Camilo Mejia was sent to Iraq in April 2003 and served there for six month. Then he went home on a furlough. After the end of it, he decided to refuse going back to war again. He had qualms about the war from the beginning… And now, he has to face a military court.

 

Why can’t US forces choose whether to go back to war or not? It is not the case that he has never served as a soldier in Iraq. But he served honourably there for half a year. Therefore, military forces, in general, should have a possibility to decide whether to return or not. In this case, Mejia had doubts about the war but he served. Admittedly, it is their job to fulfil military action. But on the other hand, he did serve compared to others who have never been involved in any war.

 

Furthermore you have to take into consideration that a war bears not only physical but also mental difficulties. As Mejia described, you have to forget about the fact that you are dealing with human beings but you should only see the enemy. In addition, you should try to keep in mind that you are doing this for a good reason. You see that military action is not digested easily. But I think, after all, that military forces have to deal with their problems on their own and don’t get any professional help by psychologists.

 

Admittedly, I don’t have much information about military. As I know a soldier who had to serve in Iraq but didn’t have to stay for a long time and could return home after a few month.

As well, I don’t know in which unit he served. Maybe it was only necessary for them to stay for a short period.

 

As stated above, I think that military forces should not be exposed to fear and danger for a longer period if they don’t have the feeling that they are working for a good reason. Consequently, they should have the opportunity to return after a certain time of  service. Furthermore, Mejia shouldn’t be sentenced too hard, just because he probably prefers to spend now time with his family at home.

 

Essay 5a (corrected)

 

May 21, 2004

 

Re: ´Gooks´ to ´Hajis´ by Bob Herbert, The New York Times

 

Dear Editor,

 

I would like to comment on Bob Herbert’s article ´Gooks´ to ´Hajis,´ which was published in The New York Times. [mdm1] I am so glad that somebody personally witnessed the mistreatment of detainees in a prison[mdm2] . Sergeant Sgt. Camilo Mejia was sent to Iraq in April 2003 and served there for six months. Then he went home on a furlough. After the end of it, he decided to refuse going to go back to war again. He had qualms about the war from the beginning… And now, he has to face a military court[mdm3] .

 

Why can’t US forces choose whether to go back to war or not? It is not the case that he has never served as a soldier in Iraq. But Hhe served honourably there for half a year. Therefore, military forcesSoldiers, in general, should have a possibilitybe able to decide whether to return or not. In this case, Mejia had doubts about the war, but he served. Admittedly, it is their job to fulfil military action. But on the other hand, he did serve, compared to others who have never been involved in any war.

 

Furthermore, you have to take into consideration that a war bears causes not only physical but also mental difficulties. As Mejia described, you have to forget about the fact that you are dealing with human beings, but and you should only see the enemy. In addition, you should try to keep in mind that you are doing this for a good reason. You see that military action is not digested easily. But I think, after all, that military forces have to deal with their problems on their own and don’t get any professional help by psychologists.

 

Admittedly, I don’t have much information about about the military. As I know a soldier who had to serve in Iraq but didn’t have to stay for a long time and could return home after a few months.[mdm4] 

As well, I don’t know in which unit he served, either. Maybe it was only necessary for them to stay for a short period.

 

As stated above, I think that military forces should not be exposed to fear and danger for a longer period if they don’t have the feeling that they are working for a good reason. Consequently, they should have the opportunity to return after a certain time of  service. Furthermore, Mejia shouldn’t be sentenced too hard, just because he probably prefers to spend now time now with his family at home.  (406 words[mdm5] )

Essay 5b

There might two reasons to end the war in Iraq. One could be terrorism threatening U.S. citizens and the second an angry American nation voting against a government that continuously engages in unjust wars.

The New York Times reports about the first American soldier that officially takes a stand against the Iraq war challanging official U.S. policy. The world's outcry against the horrors and injustices of the American war is followed by the protest of the alleged deserter Sergeant Mejia. He had been on military duty for six month heading an infantry squad. During this time he had not only witnessed the maltreatment of prisoners, but he talks about a lot of atrocities in addition to the torture of prisoners. He calls into question the whole war with its horrors and makes this war look like a second Vietnam. The Bush administration has found its critics inside its own ranks and Mejia won't be the last one to rebel against the war. Bush and his administration should think about the future. Bush tries to hide the true motivation for U.S. engagement - the oil fields of Iraq for the oil magnates around Bush. Everybody knows, that this war has been started because of those interests and is still fueled by it.

However, the more atrocities are made public, the more critics are asking for consequences. One soldier has left the battle field and is prepared to be court-martialed for his position. It is a dirty war and waged for an unhonorable cause. However, as long as the responsible people are still in power, there is no chance to end the conflict. More Sergeants Mejias are necessary to avoid this war and avoid a second Vietnam.

I have the positive feeling, that the world is not as bad as it looks like at times. Bush is very corrupt and is guilty of the deaths of children, men, and women, and both soldiers and civilians, but he can be stopped by American voters and critics.

Terrorism is the second source that could lead to a change in U.S. policy. The spiral of violence must be stopped one day. The answer to U.S. military violence against the Islamic people in particular is an anti-American movement all over the world. Radical groups are able to recruit more followers. An Islamic conscience results of American occupation and violence against the detainees of prison camps, against the population, against Islamic ideals in general. The Western culture has formerly been greeted by the Islamic population, but is now doubted by more and more men and women. Islamic life style has gained a higher value. More people return to their religious roots being angry about intolerance of Westerners. Terrorism of fanatics does not have a chance with a less aggressive U.S. policy. Superpowers can not use their weapons to subdue the minds of the people of Iraq or the Islamic world in the Middle East in general.

Also, Western economies can not be improved by subduing countries with its natural sources important for home industries. The world could lose more than war - terror acts against the United States and Western culture could threaten the world wide peace.  (530 words)

Essay 5b (corrected)

There might two reasons to end the war in Iraq. [mdm6]   One could be terrorism threatening U.S. citizens, and the second an angry American nation voting against a government that continuously engages in unjust wars.[mdm7] 

The New York Times reports about the first American soldier that officially takes a stand against the Iraq war, challanging challenging official U.S. policy. The world's outcry against the horrors and injustices of the American war is followed by the protest of the alleged deserter Sergeant Mejia. He had been on military duty for six months heading an infantry squad. During this time he had not only witnessed the maltreatment of prisoners, but he talks about a lot of atrocities in addition to the torture of prisoners. He calls into question the whole war, with its horrors, and makes this war look like a second Vietnam. The Bush administration has found its critics inside its own ranks, and Mejia won't be the last one to rebel against the war. Bush and his administration should think about the future. Bush tries to hide the true motivation for U.S. engagement - the oil fields of Iraq for the oil magnates around Bush. Everybody knows, that this war has beenwas started because of those interests and is still fueled by it.

However, the more atrocities are made public, the more critics are asking for consequences. One soldier has left the battle field and is prepared to be court-martialed for his position. It is a dirty war and waged for an unhonorable cause. However, as long as the responsible people are still in power, there is no chance to end the conflict. More Sergeants Mejias are necessary to avoid end this war and avoid a second Vietnam.

I have the positive feeling, that the world is not as bad as it looks like at times. Bush is very corrupt and is guilty of the deaths of children, men, and women, and both soldiers and civilians, but he can be stopped by American voters and critics.

Terrorism is the second source that could lead to a change in U.S. policy. The spiral of violence must be stopped one day. The answer to U.S. military violence against the Islamic people in particular is an anti-American movement all over the world. Radical groups are able to recruit more followers. An Islamic conscience resistance? has arisen as a? results of American occupation and violence against the detainees of in prison camps, against the population, and against Islamic ideals in general. The Western culture has was formerly been greeted welcomed by the Islamic population, but is now doubted by more and more men and women. The Islamic life style has gained a higher value. More people are returning to their religious roots, being angry about intolerance of Westerners. Terrorism of by fanatics does not have a chance with a less aggressive U.S. policy. Superpowers can not use their weapons to subdue the minds of the people of Iraq or the Islamic world in the Middle East in general.

Also, Western economies can not be improved by subduing countries with its desirable/needed? natural sources important for home industries. The world could lose more than war[mdm8]  - terrorTerrorist acts against the United States and Western culture could threaten the world wide peace.