School apologizes over pro-Nazi essay assignment

[Malthus]

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.

Huh? I'm saying that a statement like "the basis of morality should be science" is not disprovable. It's an axiomatic statement of opinion. Burden of proof doesn't enter into it.

I dunno where you are getting the "counterfactuals or non-sequitor opinions" from. It isn't a "counterfactual", as the Nazis (at least, some Nazis) actually believed this. Indeed, so do some people today (though this does not, of course, make them Nazis).

In fact, when one studies the Nazis, one realizes that their philosophy (insofar as it has any coherence) is simply a farrago of notions popular among Europeans at the time, all jumbled together and taken to an extreme. The version I set out was the more "intellectual" one; other Nazis absorbed all sorts of odd notions, ranging from hollow-earth theories to neo-paganism (Hitler himself thought they were "nuts").

[Malthus]

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.

It's self-evidently play-acting.

In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.

In my school assignment, I was supposed to defend the Family Compact. No-one expected that I would thereby end up a real 19th century Upper Canadian plutocrat (more's the pity!  ).

[garbon]

It's self-evidently play-acting.

In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.

Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.

[merithyn]

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.

The critical thinking part isn't too hard. The emotional impact would be, however.

[Malthus]

It's self-evidently play-acting.

In this case, no-one expects that the kids will come out of the exercise being real Nazi propagandists, any more than one expects a Shakespearian actor in drama class will really go on a murderous rampage and be haunted by guilt.

Agreed but if the articles around are any indication, more than a handful of students didn't feel comfortable with this play-acting.

Well, sure.

And I assume that more than a few in drama class would be uncomfortable playing the Jew in The Merchant of Venice or the Moor in Othello or, for that matter, the woman Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew.

The fact is that, depending on the level of outrage one is willing to cater to, pretty well all of Western literature and drama will eventually be 'off limits', as themes or racism, violence, and mysogeny can be found throughout.

[garbon]

Well, sure.

And I assume that more than a few in drama class would be uncomfortable playing the Jew in The Merchant of Venice or the Moor in Othello or, for that matter, the woman Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew.

The fact is that, depending on the level of outrage one is willing to cater to, pretty well all of Western literature and drama will eventually be 'off limits', as themes or racism, violence, and mysogeny can be found throughout.

I think there is a difference between your examples and asking people to pretend as though they are racist.  That said, I don't think I'd have an issue if a teacher let a kid switch parts if they felt uncomfortable.

When there are better ways to teach children the same skills, why not steer clear of having them defend racism? I don't think most of us had to defend racism growing up in order to learn about Nazis and develop critical thinking skill, so why should kids now?

[CountDeMoney]

In order to understand Nazi thinking, you have to understand scientific racism and social Darwinism.

Because that's covered so well in 10th grade English.

[Martinus]

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.

It is perfectly possible to get to completely wrong results by applying logical reasoning to facts - and nazis were quite rigorous in their "scientific" thinking - they just took a number of opinions (which are neither provable nor disprovable facts) to extreme (but logical) conclusions.

For example, eugenics is a *very* logical point of view - its main failing is that it is inhuman and immoral, not that it is a non-sequitur or counter-factual.

[derspiess]

Which begs the question, what would a "think like a Pole" exercise be like?

[Martinus]

When there are better ways to teach children the same skills, why not steer clear of having them defend racism? I don't think most of us had to defend racism growing up in order to learn about Nazis and develop critical thinking skill, so why should kids now?

This was English class, not history class - it was about defending the indefensible/wrongheaded position, not about "learning about Nazis".

Nazis may be an extreme example - but I guess that's why they are even better as a subject of such exercise, since everyone knows they are evil.

Besides, by that reasoning, is there any socio-political thesis that is not generally shared by the majority of the populace that you would use for such exercise? I mean in each case, someone might find defending such position abhorrent.

[garbon]

Besides, by that reasoning, is there any socio-political thesis that is not generally shared by the majority of the populace that you would use for such exercise? I mean in each case, someone might find defending such position abhorrent.

I think it's okay if we brightline a few items like sexuality, gender and sexuality.  I also think you can engage in critical thinking about these concepts without be assigned to pretend to be someone would socially backwards views.

[Ed Anger]

Which begs the question, what would a "think like a Pole" exercise be like?

You have one potato. The Jew down the road has a bag of potatoes. How many times must you hit him with a shovel to get his potatoes?

How many screen doors are needed to finish a submarine?

[grumbler]

The critical thinking part isn't too hard. The emotional impact would be, however.

That's part of the reason to do the exercise; to demonstrate that it is possible to engage in intellectual pursuits, and that not everything has to be about one's emotions.  It is precisely those who have the hardest time separating their emotions from their intellect that can gain most by a challenge like this.

School isn't about teaching students to avoid challenges, it is about teaching them to overcome challenges.

If you tried it, you would discover that, over time, you could control your emotions and respond to challenges like this assignment in a purely intellectual manner.  A good school will allow one to do this as a teenager, and not be crippled by emotionalism into adulthood.

[The Brain]

am i crippled by emotionalism

[grumbler]

I think it's okay if we brightline a few items like sexuality, gender and sexuality.  I also think you can engage in critical thinking about these concepts without be assigned to pretend to be someone would socially backwards views.

I put this through my gibberish-English translator and it came out gibberish.  You might want to re-word it in English.  Before you do, look up "bright line" so you don't misuse it again, and re-think whether "socially backwards" is really the kind of view you think you are describing.