Part 7: Right-Wing Hate, Left-Wing Excuses - AMU’s Playbook

Subjects of Interest:

• American Military University (AMU)

• Homegrown Violent Extremism (HLSS323)

AMU claims that its Homegrown Violent Extremism course offers students an objective study of terrorism. The course promises to define terrorism, explore why people radicalize, and show how violent extremists can be stopped. But the reality is different. The curriculum applies double standards. Islamist terrorism is described as a reaction to Western failure. Left-wing violence is treated as activism against oppression. Right-wing violence is portrayed as driven by hatred, racism, and bigotry. This political bias shapes how students are taught to see terrorism and undermines the goal of offering a fair, fact-based education.

The course provides a broad legal definition of terrorism as the use of violence to intimidate or coerce a population or government for political or social goals. This definition could apply to violent actors of any ideology. But it’s not applied equally. Right-wing violence is labeled as terrorism driven by hate and racism. Islamist violence and left-wing violence are described as reactions to injustice or oppression. Week 1 of the course shows that defining terrorism is hard not because the concept is complex, but because it’s political. The government and this curriculum apply the label selectively. This selective use of the word “terrorism” sets the stage for the spin seen in the rest of the course.

It's also clear that the course avoids labeling those with mental illness as terrorists, but this effort is applied unevenly. When minorities commit extremist violence, the material is quick to connect their actions to mental illness. When white actors commit violence, they’re labeled as extremists or terrorists right away. The reading material shows this pattern clearly:

• When the reading material discusses Islamist or minority attackers, it often links their violence to personal struggles, identity crises, alienation, or trauma. These are treated as mental or emotional factors that help explain or soften their actions.
• When white attackers are discussed, especially right-wing extremists, the focus is on ideology, hate, racism, or group ties. Their violence is shown as driven by belief, not by personal breakdowns or mental health struggles.
• The curriculum leans toward calling white extremists terrorists or violent extremists immediately, while describing minority violence in terms of personal or psychological problems. This is part of the same political bias seen throughout the course, as well as other counter-terrorism courses I have taken at AMU.

Islamist terrorism is repeatedly explained as the result of exclusion, discrimination, and anger at Western foreign policy. The course focuses on how Muslim extremists feel caught between two worlds, pushed toward violence because they don’t belong in Western society. Grievances over wars in Muslim countries and foreign interventions are highlighted as reasons for radicalization. The solutions aren’t focused on stopping violent ideology but on fixing Western failures through programs like mentorship, job opportunities, and community support. The blame is shifted from the extremists to Western society. This sends the message that the violence is understandable, even if it’s wrong. The course presents Islamist extremists as victims of exclusion, but it ignores that in cases like Mubin Shaikh, Nidal Hasan, or the Tsarnaev brothers, the choice to abandon Western society or embrace radical ideas played a major role. These men weren’t oppressed or struggling for survival. They had privilege, opportunity, and status. Yet the curriculum still describes their violence as driven by grievance. This double standard would never be applied to right-wing actors.

Left-wing extremism gets very little attention in the course. When it does appear, it’s described as activism against oppression or inequality that went too far. The course presents left-wing violence as the work of idealists who lost their way, not as terrorism that deserves serious focus. The harm caused by left-wing extremists isn’t discussed. There’s no plan offered for how to stop it. The course pits left-wing violence against right-wing violence in a way that makes left-wing acts sound noble. Left-wing actors are described as fighting injustice, while right-wing actors are described as spreading hate. This imbalance makes it look like the course is picking sides. It is, and it’s obvious which side.

Right-wing violence is treated as the greatest domestic threat. It’s described as driven by hate, racism, and the desire to harm others. The material focuses on white supremacists, militias, and anti-government extremists. There’s no attempt to explain what grievances these groups believe they’re fighting against. Their violence is described as senseless hate with no deeper cause. The course shows no interest in understanding their motivation. These attackers are portrayed as people who deserve no sympathy or explanation.

The same double standard shows up in how the course describes countering violent extremism. Programs meant to stop Islamist extremists focus on fixing grievances and identity struggles. These programs are designed to help extremists find belonging or overcome discrimination. The material also uses ideas like frustration-aggression theory to explain how alienation, exclusion, or pent-up anger can turn into violence. This kind of explanation is offered for Islamist and left-wing actors but not for right-wing extremists. When right-wing violence is discussed, there is no talk of frustration building over time or of people escalating from grievance to hate. The course ignores that some right-wing actors, like sovereign citizens or members of groups like the Patriots, may begin with frustration over government policies or perceived injustices and only become violent as that frustration grows. It also ignores how conspiracy theories and social contexts, which the course highlights for Islamist extremists, fuel paranoia and distrust among right-wing actors too. The role of technology in speeding up radicalization is also treated unevenly: the course focuses on how Islamists use social media to spread grievances, but it downplays how similar grievances apply to right-wing groups. Even mandatory government programs, like diversity or equal opportunity training, could contribute to resentment that feeds radicalization. But the curriculum never explores these unintended effects. Instead, it portrays right-wing violence as senseless hate with no deeper cause. The “us vs. them” mindset is presented as a sign of their evil rather than as a motive that could be understood or addressed.

The course and the CVE programs it promotes risk making the problem worse. By labeling entire communities as at-risk, these programs can create the very extremists they claim to prevent. Constantly telling Muslims and those on the right they’re likely to become terrorists, or that their identity makes them dangerous, pushes some toward radical beliefs out of resentment. The curriculum also shows selective concern for civil liberties. When CVE programs focus on minority communities, reforms and safeguards are put in place to avoid unfair targeting. But when these programs focus on white, conservative, or Christian groups, no one asks whether their rights are being protected. The bias is clear: certain groups are treated as inherently suspicious, while others are shielded from scrutiny. This bias serves a political purpose. Academia and government need a villain to justify overreach, so they keep right-wing extremism as the main focus, and AMU is part of this agenda. Solving the problem would take away that scapegoat. Meanwhile, genuine threats from other sources are downplayed or ignored. This approach doesn’t stop violence. It shifts the target to fit a political agenda.

The same double standard appears in case studies I examined in earlier assignments. I asked Dr. Gardner for permission to analyze BLM as an example of a domestic extremist group for the mid-term, but was told I couldn’t, because the group wasn’t considered extremist or terrorist. I chose them anyway and explained why their rhetoric, violent protests, and radical demands fit common patterns of domestic extremism according to models like Moghaddam’s Staircase to Terrorism and McCauley and Moskalenko’s Two-Pyramid Model. I also analyzed Patrick Crusius’s attack using Kruglanski’s 3N Model, showing that his violence stemmed from alienation, conspiracy theories, and online networks. These cases confirm that grievance-driven radicalization applies across ideologies, yet the curriculum only explores these issues for Islamist and left-wing actors, never for right-wing ones. The course’s refusal to even allow certain groups to be studied as extremists exposes how deeply the bias runs. I also received several emails from classmates who said they supported my views in the discussions but were afraid to say so publicly. They chose to send private messages instead of posting in the forum. This shows how bias in the curriculum doesn’t just affect what’s taught, it creates an environment where students are discouraged from speaking up at all.

The bias seen in the curriculum mirrors the very echo chamber problem it claims to study. AMU’s course focuses so heavily on right-wing extremism and protects often violent left-wing groups from scrutiny that it shuts down critical discussion. This creates an environment where students are discouraged from learning. When open debate is stifled, students are more likely to adopt extreme views without realizing it, which is the point. This approach doesn’t build resilience against radicalization. It promotes bias and leaves students with a narrow, politicized view of terrorism. This same pattern shows up in real-world law enforcement, as I saw firsthand when monitoring extremist groups. Threats linked to left-wing actors were often ignored unless I relabeled them as right-wing. This mirrors the selective focus of the curriculum and shows how dangerous this bias can be. It leads to valuable intelligence being dismissed simply because the threat doesn’t match the preferred agenda. The course also oversimplifies solutions. It promotes shutting down extremist communication and breaking up networks without recognizing that this can make intelligence collection harder. Extremist communication channels are goldmines of information. Breaking them up may feel like action, but it can make real prevention more difficult. A serious course on extremism should deal with these issues, not push one-sided answers.

AMU’s Homegrown Violent Extremism course doesn’t give students the balanced study it promises. It excuses Islamist violence, downplays left-wing violence, and condemns right-wing violence without explanation. This bias confuses students about what terrorism is and how it should be stopped. A course that claims to offer objective analysis shouldn’t apply political spin to a subject this serious.

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.