School apologizes over pro-Nazi essay assignment

[Barrister]

I stated it before but now I'll ask it - did most of Languish have to complete a similar assignment?

Well lawyers are trained to be able to defend either side in any dispute, and there are an awful lot of lawyers here on Languish...

[grumbler]

Grumber- Would you mind writing an essay that Jews are evil and the source of our problems? I ask because I'm pretty sure the Nazis never came up with a consistent reason why, they just expected everyone to believe and shot everyone who didn't.

I wouldn't mind writing such an essay if you gave me your propaganda that showed how and why you believe the Jews are the source of all your problems.  I am pretty sure the Nazis explained why the Jews were one of Germany's problems, whether you are aware of them or not.  The Holocaust Museum has a web site that can maybe help you get started: http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007679

[garbon]

Certainly one can. But I don't see why one must. Using controversy to generate interest is not inherently a bad thing.

The modern notion of shying away from anything that hints of controversy (or violence), or that may possibly upset anyone, strikes me as designed to produce the sort of bland, boring versions of history and rhetoric under which I suffered as a high school student.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not assigning children to emulate racist thought. I don't think that's making things bland. After all, even without that assignment, we're still having kids confront the horror that is the holocaust.

We did one much less controversial (and, admittedly, less interesting) - to take a position from Canadian history and support it (I got the Family Compact, a group of colonial grandees that effectively ruled Upper Canada with patronage and corruption).

Yeah, I'm going to say that's not really the same though yes it does involve critical thinking.

[garbon]

I stated it before but now I'll ask it - did most of Languish have to complete a similar assignment?

Well lawyers are trained to be able to defend either side in any dispute, and there are an awful lot of lawyers here on Languish...

I don't think similar should be reduced simply to using an argument to defend a position you don't support. I don't think anyone is saying that's a bad idea.

[grumbler]

Considering how you think this is a great assignment, I am pretty relieved to hear that you can "tell I can't teach."   

Given that you are resorting to ad homs, I conclude that you are past the point where you can participate in the debate on an intellectual basis.

[grumbler]

I think we all win when our students avoid such a poorly designed critical thinking assignment.  Was this a companion follow-up to reading Uncle Tom's Cabin and assignment on using passages that were cited from the Bible to state how black people deserve to / should be slaves?

I think we smart people win when blinkered people censor learning that doesn't fit their narrow little stereotypes of what learning is.  less competition for us.

As for the Uncle Tom's Cabin story, it isn't comparable to the story in Night, but I certainly could see where you would need to teach students about slavery before they could successfully undertake UTC.  In this case, the unfamiliar to the students would be the mental viewpoint of the slaves, so I'd probably have them write something based on an excerpt from  Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, whether that horrified you or not.

[chipwich]

(b) some races of humans are provably better that others - more intelligent, more creative (many anthropologists believed this to be true);

(e) a thinking person, belonging to a particular race, would naturally want his or her race to prosper at the expense of all others - struggle what science states is the state of nature, of reality itself (many non-Nazis believed that struggle was both inevitable and a positive good - see Marx);

(f) the basis of morality should be science, and the scientific morality pointed to treating humans as one would treat any other type of livestock - to attempt through eugenics and culling, to make the race better - to fail to do this is actively immoral (again, eugenics);

(h) the Jews have always known and acted on the theory of the struggle of the races (though not presumably with such scientific rigour)  - they are attempting to be "the fittest" by infecting non-Jewish society and culture, deliberately spreading degrading and immoral art and philosophy for the specific purpose of undermining competing "races" such as the Germans;

Yet without this these being factually true, the argument is still a non-sequitor.

[Malthus]

Certainly one can. But I don't see why one must. Using controversy to generate interest is not inherently a bad thing.

The modern notion of shying away from anything that hints of controversy (or violence), or that may possibly upset anyone, strikes me as designed to produce the sort of bland, boring versions of history and rhetoric under which I suffered as a high school student.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not assigning children to emulate racist thought. I don't think that's making things bland. After all, even without that assignment, we're still having kids confront the horror that is the holocaust.

Yes, but I thought the issue was that one should not set such an assignment - indeed that one should (as per the story in the OP) be required to apologize for having done so, or even be disciplined for it.

While I quite agree that this particular assignment isn't somehow essential for a complete education and that many alternative assignments could be created, the idea that a school or a teacher should be in serious crap merely for setting such an assignment seems to me guaranteed to provide blandness and lack of creativity in education. It's handing over the curriculum to those who are easily offended by the controversial.

[merithyn]

I've been convinced of the value of this particular assignment (though not from grumbler; Malthus made some very good points).

I do, however, still object to there not being an "opt out" option. I know that as a senior in high school, I wouldn't have been able to do this assignment. In fact, as a 43-year-old college graduate, I would still struggle with this assignment. I believe that having the option to find another topic to use for a similar lesson should be in place.

[Malthus]

(b) some races of humans are provably better that others - more intelligent, more creative (many anthropologists believed this to be true);

(e) a thinking person, belonging to a particular race, would naturally want his or her race to prosper at the expense of all others - struggle what science states is the state of nature, of reality itself (many non-Nazis believed that struggle was both inevitable and a positive good - see Marx);

(f) the basis of morality should be science, and the scientific morality pointed to treating humans as one would treat any other type of livestock - to attempt through eugenics and culling, to make the race better - to fail to do this is actively immoral (again, eugenics);

Yet without this these being factually true, the argument is still a non-sequitor.

Most of the points you highlighted are not disprovable. In fact, the only one which is, was highly controversial at the time the Nazis were around among actual scientists (though the weight of evidence was already highly against them at the time) - namely, that races were distinct and some better than others. None of the rest is really disprovable.

How can you say that "the basis of morality should be science" is "not factually true"?

[grumbler]

Says the guy who's "clarified" his assertion that the assignment should be challenging students to regurgitate the propaganda and not realistically think like an actual party member.  I've got a kettle I'd like you to meet, sir.

I have no idea (nor would the students) of how to "realistically think like an actual party member."  You'd have to be a party member to do that, and I don't think even you want to create Nazi party members.

All you can ask is that the students, to the best of their ability, place themselves in an unfamiliar position:  that of someone trying to use official propaganda effectively to support an abhorrent position and so "prove" their loyalty to the "Nazi state." 

Your kettle remains unmet.

[chipwich]

(b) some races of humans are provably better that others - more intelligent, more creative (many anthropologists believed this to be true);

(e) a thinking person, belonging to a particular race, would naturally want his or her race to prosper at the expense of all others - struggle what science states is the state of nature, of reality itself (many non-Nazis believed that struggle was both inevitable and a positive good - see Marx);

(f) the basis of morality should be science, and the scientific morality pointed to treating humans as one would treat any other type of livestock - to attempt through eugenics and culling, to make the race better - to fail to do this is actively immoral (again, eugenics);

Yet without this these being factually true, the argument is still a non-sequitor.

Most of the points you highlighted are not disprovable. In fact, the only one which is, was highly controversial at the time the Nazis were around among actual scientists (though the weight of evidence was already highly against them at the time) - namely, that races were distinct and some better than others. None of the rest is really disprovable.

How can you say that "the basis of morality should be science" is "not factually true"?

I don't remember who has the burden of proof in this case, but I believe the Nazis are the ones that need to prove them

Note that I am aware that Lawyers should be capable of taking both sides, but to my knowledge that doesn't extend to counterfactuals or non-sequitor opinions.

[11B4V]

I ask because I'm pretty sure the Nazis never came up with a consistent reason why, they just expected everyone to believe and shot everyone who didn't.

Read Masters of Death, Ordinary Men, and The Good Old Days. Even psychos can justify to themselves "why", however fucked up the thought process is.

[grumbler]

I do, however, still object to there not being an "opt out" option. I know that as a senior in high school, I wouldn't have been able to do this assignment. In fact, as a 43-year-old college graduate, I would still struggle with this assignment. I believe that having the option to find another topic to use for a similar lesson should be in place.

Those who find this kind of critical thinking hard are the ones for which it would be of the most benefit.  I don't think students should be able to opt out of assignments that they think are too hard; they often need to fail to succeed.

[garbon]

Yes, but I thought the issue was that one should not set such an assignment - indeed that one should (as per the story in the OP) be required to apologize for having done so, or even be disciplined for it.

While I quite agree that this particular assignment isn't somehow essential for a complete education and that many alternative assignments could be created, the idea that a school or a teacher should be in serious crap merely for setting such an assignment seems to me guaranteed to provide blandness and lack of creativity in education. It's handing over the curriculum to those who are easily offended by the controversial.

I think the issue is with this particular assignment and not the notion that one can't have critical thinking assignments that involve the Nazis.  After all this assignment asked them to prove Jews are evil and to do a good enough job so that their instructor - standing in a a Nazi government official, would be convinced of their loyalty to the party.