Part 4: AMU’s Global Terrorism Class Is the Smoking Gun

Subjects of Interest:

• American Military University (AMU)

• Global Terrorism (SCMT319)

• Dr. Kate Brannum

Terrorism isn’t a one-party problem, and it’s not limited to one race or ideology. But you wouldn’t know that if you took AMU’s Global Terrorism course. The syllabus claims the course examines both international and domestic terrorism, cultural and ideological philosophies, and the historical and contemporary aspects of terrorism to help students understand motives and ideologies. It promises attention to both conventional and unconventional tactics, the media's impact, U.S. counterterrorism policies, and special focus on Al-Qaeda. From the first week, it becomes clear that the curriculum is built to push a specific agenda. White supremacists and right-wing extremists are the main threat, and everyone else is a footnote. The course downplays Islamic terrorism, barely mentions left-wing extremism, and avoids touching current leftist violence altogether. When minority attackers are involved, they’re often labeled mentally ill rather than terrorists. That pattern isn’t just lazy. It’s dishonest.

This paper argues that AMU’s Global Terrorism class is ideologically biased. The readings, case studies, and government reports used in the course consistently inflate the threat of right-wing violence while omitting or downplaying other forms of terrorism, especially left-wing extremism and recent Islamist attacks. On top of that, the racial spin is hard to ignore. If the attacker is white, they’re called a terrorist. If they’re Black or Muslim, the word mental illness shows up instead. That kind of selective language undermines any real understanding of modern terrorism. This isn’t just academic sloppiness. It’s political storytelling, and AMU’s liberal bias is on full display.

From the start, the Global Terrorism course is saturated with content targeting right-wing extremists. White supremacists, militias, and conservative-linked violence are presented as the primary domestic threat, while other ideological movements get ignored or brushed aside. Terms like white nationalist, right-wing, conservative, and domestic extremist are used interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. This kind of grouping isn’t academic. It’s deliberate. The message is clear. If you're on the political right, you're a potential terrorist. That doesn’t just distort the facts. It poisons the entire discussion.

When left-wing extremism shows up in the curriculum at all, it’s like it’s over and done with. Some sources mention 1970s groups like the Weather Underground or old eco-terrorists, but there’s no mention of what’s happened in the last decade. That’s not a small oversight. It’s a deliberate omission. While recent left-wing violence like the 2020 and 2025 riots, murders, firebombings, and attacks on government buildings barely gets a footnote, old cases are treated like they still define the movement. That’s academic malpractice.

The age of the readings used in this course isn’t just a sign of lazy syllabus planning. It helps hide the truth. Many of the key texts are over a decade old. A large number were published between 2001 and 2010, with some even older. That time gap matters. A lot has happened since then. The rise of ISIS, the 2015–2020 domestic unrest, waves of BLM, Antifa, and anarchist violence, and an increase in politically motivated attacks that don’t fit clean ideological molds. But you wouldn’t know that from the reading list.

One of the ugliest patterns in this course is how the word terrorist gets used. When the attacker is white, that label comes fast. But when the attacker is Black, Muslim, or a member of another minority group, the term gets watered down or replaced with mental health excuses. This isn’t just something seen in media reports. It’s in the course material too. The curriculum reinforces this double standard. Black nationalists, Islamist radicals, and anarchist extremists are labeled as disturbed, isolated, or marginalized. White perpetrators, meanwhile, are grouped under organized threats like militias and white nationalist groups even when acting alone. The message is clear. If you're white, your violence has a political cause. If you're not, it's just a mental breakdown.

Words matter, especially in counter-terrorism. The course materials use language in a way that clearly favors the left. Terms like white nationalism, right-wing extremism, and domestic terrorism appear constantly and often get lumped together as if they mean the same thing. But when the topic shifts to Islamic or left-wing groups, the tone changes. Suddenly, it's all about root causes, marginalization, or socioeconomic factors. That’s not objectivity. That’s narrative control.

Classroom discussions highlighted these same double standards. In Week 2, I pointed out how violence from groups like BLM and Antifa was excused or downplayed in the same way the curriculum downplays left-wing terrorism. This mirrored the pattern in the readings and case studies, showing that the bias is baked in at every level of the course. Even students saw through the bias. During Week 2, I pointed out how political agendas shape the definition of terrorism, with left-wing violence often excused and right-wing violence exaggerated. The fact that this had to be raised in discussion, rather than being addressed in the curriculum, proves the course fails to deliver a fair and adequate education. In Week 3, I went further. I warned that AMU’s biased curriculum won’t just misinform students. It’ll leave future analysts unprepared, and that’ll cost lives. I pointed out that left-wing terrorism was being erased while right-wing threats were magnified. These warnings came before I even saw the visual evidence that would prove my point beyond argument.

So, what is terrorism? It’s important to know what terrorism really means in order to study it and counter it. As you’ll see in my research, defining terrorism is almost as tricky as defining what a woman is. Political views and personal biases shape how people define it, and who gets labeled a terrorist is heavily slanted. According to an article shared by Dr. Brannum, this issue is very real.

The article argues that left-wing groups like BLM and antifa shouldn’t be labeled terrorist organizations. It points out that the vast majority of BLM protests were peaceful, and that antifa, which is a loose network rather than a formal group, doesn’t meet terrorism criteria despite significant violent acts. On the other hand, the article emphasizes that certain right-wing groups and individuals involved in violent incidents, such as militias and participants in armed confrontations, fit the definition of terrorism more closely because of their political motives and the deliberate use of violence intended to create a broad psychological impact. While the article cautions against sweeping terrorist labels, it clearly draws a line where right-wing actors are more aligned with terrorism definitions than their left-wing counterparts.

This aligns perfectly with my own experience in AMU’s courses, where I was explicitly not allowed to focus on BLM or other left-wing groups in my projects on domestic terrorism. Instead, I was required to choose a right-wing group. Once again, Dr. Brannum’s stance and AMU’s curriculum march in goosestep, reinforcing a one-sided narrative rather than encouraging fair, evidence-based analysis.

This is where the smoking gun appears. The Homegrown Terrorism and Hate Groups slides from the course make the bias undeniable. The Homegrown Terrorism slide brushes off ethnic and left-wing violence as unpredictable or minor while focusing on jihadist threats. The Hate Groups slide portrays left-wing terrorism as the result of injustice and inequality while denying that right-wing violence has similar underlying causes. These slides belong here as images because they show the spin as clearly as words can.

What’s not in the course says as much as what is. You’d expect a modern counter-terrorism class to at least mention recent violent events like the 2020 George Floyd riots, Antifa-led attacks on federal buildings, or the assassination attempt on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. None of these are covered. Not even in passing. Of course, in 2024 and 2025, violence is widespread, from attempted assassinations of former President Trump to successful assassinations of other politicians and CEOs, attacks on law enforcement, destruction of courthouses, looting, the razing of city blocks, damage to university property, and targeting of Jewish students. But this will never make it into AMU’s counter-terrorism courses, unless they were being committed by white supremacists, which they aren’t. These weren’t random outbursts. They were organized, ideological, and violent. By any honest definition, they fit under the umbrella of domestic terrorism. The fact that these cases are excluded while white supremacist threats from decades ago are brought up repeatedly shows exactly where the priorities lie.

Academic programs have a duty to challenge students and present the truth even when it's uncomfortable. Counter-terrorism courses train future analysts, policymakers, and security professionals. That responsibility demands accuracy. Leaving out modern threats or applying biased language undermines that mission. When a university chooses to see terrorism through a partisan lens, it stops being a place of learning and starts being a factory for political indoctrination.

The Global Terrorism course at AMU doesn’t teach terrorism. It teaches a political worldview. The readings highlight white, right-wing groups while downplaying or ignoring violence from the left or from minority-led movements. The sources are outdated. The omissions are strategic. The language is manipulated. This isn’t a curriculum. It’s an editorial disguised as education.

Students deserve better. Universities should prepare people for real-world threats, not feed them selective information to fit a political bias. If AMU wants to claim authority in counter-terrorism education, it needs to start by presenting all the facts.

Click the links below for a breakdown of AMU’s counter-terrorism and homeland security curriculum. Each entry focuses on a specific course, pattern, or policy, exposing how bias undermines national security and professional training.