School apologizes over pro-Nazi essay assignment

[garbon]

Is it though? I mean the task is asking them to make strong rational arguments. I'm not sure how that helps convey "how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism,  can lead to horrific public consequences."

[Malthus]

Is it though? I mean the task is asking them to make strong rational arguments. I'm not sure how that helps convey "how shabby ideological thinking, unexamined and unchallenged, relying on emotion and prejudice rather than logic or fact, in an atmosphere of chrisis, hysteria and false patriotism,  can lead to horrific public consequences."

From the OP:

The Albany Times Union reports that 10th-grade students at Albany High School were given the assignment as part of a critical thinking exercise where they are challenged to make an "abhorrent argument."

"You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" say the assignment instructions for the five-paragraph essay.

The task isn't "to make strong rational arguments". It is to make arguments solidly grounded on Nazi government propaganda - in short, using Nazi rhetoric to make an argument that is acknowledged in the very assignment as being "abhorrent", all as part of an exercise designed to promote "critical thinking".

[garbon]

From the OP:

The Albany Times Union reports that 10th-grade students at Albany High School were given the assignment as part of a critical thinking exercise where they are challenged to make an "abhorrent argument."

"You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!" say the assignment instructions for the five-paragraph essay.

The task isn't "to make strong rational arguments". It is to make arguments solidly grounded on Nazi government propaganda - in short, using Nazi rhetoric to make an argument that is acknowledged in the very assignment as being "abhorrent", all as part of an exercise designed to promote "critical thinking".

Sure but if the arguments aren't supposed to aim at being convincing then I think the assignment is even worse.  I don't think we need children spending time making irrational arguments  - they are already quite capable of that ().  And putting together a weak argument that just draws on a smattering of propaganda isn't really critical thinking.

[The Minsky Moment]

I concur with garbon's point: there is a tension here between the objective of teaching kids to make and defend arguments and of teaching them to understand history.

That comes through in Malthus's last response, where he says the point is to teach "critical thinking", with the scare quotes in his own post.  That's a bit vague to say the least.  it certainly sounds a lot more like the skill of devising and making arguments but M insists that is what it is not about.  Hence my confusion.

For the purposes of understanding history, I could understanding this kind of play-acting method if used for an historical period or area that is very unfamiliar to contemporary Americans, as a way of trying to bridge the vast differences in mentalities and culture.  It might make sense for example for ancient Greece, or medieval Russia or 19th century China.  But Nazi Germany is not particularly unfamiliar or strange.  It was a modern Western society.  it used familiar forms like video, visual imagery, and newspapers.  Its racist ideology sadly is not all that unfamiliar in the present day, even in present day America where Nazi-influenced organizations are not exactly unknown.  So the value of this particular method seems questionable in this context.

[Valmy]

Using rationale the speeches of Cato the Elder write a convincing paper on why Carthage must be destroyed.

[Malthus]

I concur with garbon's point: there is a tension here between the objective of teaching kids to make and defend arguments and of teaching them to understand history.

That comes through in Malthus's last response, where he says the point is to teach "critical thinking", with the scare quotes in his own post.  That's a bit vague to say the least.  it certainly sounds a lot more like the skill of devising and making arguments but M insists that is what it is not about.  Hence my confusion.

I'm not using scare quotes. I'm actually quoting the article in the OP. It you find the term vague, blame the writer of the original article.

I've said what I thought the exercise was about. It isn't about "teaching history", but about using an extreme historical example to teach them the uses and abuses of rhetoric. No scare quotes needed around "critical thinking", because learning how an abhorrent argument may be put persuasively and passionately (even where its basis is irrational nonsense) is, in fact, an important aspect of critical thinking - in that it insulates the learner from being persuaded by such arguments in the future.

For the purposes of understanding history, I could understanding this kind of play-acting method if used for an historical period or area that is very unfamiliar to contemporary Americans, as a way of trying to bridge the vast differences in mentalities and culture.  It might make sense for example for ancient Greece, or medieval Russia or 19th century China.  But Nazi Germany is not particularly unfamiliar or strange.  It was a modern Western society.  it used familiar forms like video, visual imagery, and newspapers.  Its racist ideology sadly is not all that unfamiliar in the present day, even in present day America where Nazi-influenced organizations are not exactly unknown.  So the value of this particular method seems questionable in this context.

The notion that modern American schoolkids are likely to be familiar with the mentality and culture of Nazi Germany is I think quite incorrect. To the vast majority, it will be quite as alien to them as Medieval Russia.

[garbon]

I've said what I thought the exercise was about. It isn't about "teaching history", but about using an extreme historical example to teach them the uses and abuses of rhetoric. No scare quotes needed around "critical thinking", because learning how an abhorrent argument may be put persuasively and passionately (even where its basis is irrational nonsense) is, in fact, an important aspect of critical thinking - in that it insulates the learner from being persuaded by such arguments in the future.

If that's all it is - why not read/view (as they did) some nazi proganda and then write an essay about how Nazis used that to formulate/propagate their world view.  Not sure where an essay where you must argue that Jews are evil fits in. 

[Malthus]

I've said what I thought the exercise was about. It isn't about "teaching history", but about using an extreme historical example to teach them the uses and abuses of rhetoric. No scare quotes needed around "critical thinking", because learning how an abhorrent argument may be put persuasively and passionately (even where its basis is irrational nonsense) is, in fact, an important aspect of critical thinking - in that it insulates the learner from being persuaded by such arguments in the future.

If that's all it is - why not read/view (as they did) some nazi proganda and then write an essay about how Nazis used that to formulate/propagate their world view.  Not sure where an essay where you must argue that Jews are evil fits in.

Because actually doing something teaches you more than writing about someone else doing something.

It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.

[The Minsky Moment]

It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.

Right so this might be a useful exercise if the end purpose was to make someone a really effective Nazi propagandist.  But I assume that was not the purpose.   

[garbon]

It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.

Right so this might be a useful exercise if the end purpose was to make someone a really effective Nazi propagandist.  But I assume that was not the purpose.   

Indeed. I think that's why in this case I don't see why a critique isn't more useful. After all, as Malthus said - the point isn't to make convincing arguments - so it seems like students would just be aping Nazi propaganda with the hope that they'd see how terrible it is.  Not sure how that's more effective than trying to examine why such propaganda is unconvincing / thinking about how people could have found it convincing.

[Martinus]

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.

What does it mean? Aside from you mentioning sexuality twice, are you saying these are fine to debate or not fine to debate?

[Martinus]

I can't stand teaching kids.

Use a chair then. 

[Malthus]

It is easy, for example, to critique someone elses' trial advocacy skills. Much harder to actually run a trial - but doing it teaches you a lot more. This is why lawyers spend big bucks doing trial advocacy programs, where you have to actually "act out" a trial, rather than simply writing a critique of the great trials of history.

Right so this might be a useful exercise if the end purpose was to make someone a really effective Nazi propagandist.  But I assume that was not the purpose.   

At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.

[The Minsky Moment]

At this point, I'd just be repeating myself. I assume you at least understand what I was saying, even if you disagree with it.

I understand, but I don't agree about its likely effect or efficacy.

[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.

What does it mean? Aside from you mentioning sexuality twice, are you saying these are fine to debate or not fine to debate?

One was supposed to be race. I think it is fine not to have students create racist, homophobic or sexist arguments as a lesson in critical thinking.