8th Grade Revisionist History or Education?

[Txjake]

" to reports of the assignment, which asked students to compose a written debate over whether the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain"

"“We are striking the sentence that claims, ‘Did the Holocaust occur?’ Absolutely the Holocaust occurred,” Rialto District spokesperson Syeda Jafri"

" the school district’s interim superintendent, Mohammed Z. Islam, received death threats in connection with the assignment." School District Officials Reportedly Threatened Over Holocaust Assignment « CBS Los Angeles

Should be interesting to see how this plays out: if the Superintendant was a Jew hating white supremist, this would likely be front page news and on the 24 hour channels continuously....

[kerry]

Not sure what a superintendant would have to do with an assignment like this. I think we need some kind of explanation from the teacher. The goal of assessing historical evidence could be achieved without such inflammatory rhetoric.

I just read further down the page. It said the assignment came from the Ed Services department. The problems are much deeper if the teacher is not constructing his or her own assignments.

[cmac2012]

The link doesn't work for me. Regardless of who's pushing it, such nonsense has no place in the classroom.

Oh wait, now it works, I'll read it. Was doing that obnoxious click sound at first.

* Strange stuff. Not sure death threats are prudent regarding it but earnest objection definitely called for. So is the OP position that a Muslim sounding named person will get a pass for this?

[Botnst]

WTF is the problem? The point of education is to learn how to think independently, to challenge the accepted. If we don't teach children how to think then we create a people who accept official explanations. That's insane.

The purpose of education is not to make cute little encyclopedias, packed full of accepted facts and no faculty for developing wisdom. Or it shouldn't be.

[cmac2012]

Looking at the issue of some people thinking that is was all a scam vs. others saying it indeed took place etc. is one thing, but the way it was titled sounding just a bit like 'leading the witness.'

Imagine a school assignment:

Write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe 9-11 was a terrorist attack carried out by Islamic extremists or an inside job engineered by the Dick Cheney to give the Bush Administration a free hand at manipulating the US public into supporting a war in Iraq.

[kerry]

WTF is the problem? Does any serious historian think that the Holocaust was 'merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain'? Not to my knowledge. 'Leading the witness' as CMAC puts it is a gentle way of describing the problem. There would be no problem at all with giving the students two serious pieces of historical analysis of the Holocaust with different conclusions and asking the students to assess the strengths of the argument and the credibility of the evidence.
I don't even know what 'compose a written debate' means. Construct an disagreement? Make an argument?

[HuskyMan]

quote from the article:

"The United Nations passed a 2007 resolution that condemns any denial of the Holocaust – which killed during World War II – and urges all member nations to “unreservedly” reject any denial of the Holocaust."

Case closed.

[BAVBMW]

Angel wings on dogs.

When we're at home and want to discuss debating without actually having a debate (or argument), we use the topic of gluing angel wings on to dogs. By using a non-sense topic, we can discuss methods and tactics used to research, support, defend, promote, etc... Without the risk of anyone taking the subject personally, or emotionally. We do this specifically to avoid anyone getting angry or hurt. And we're two rational, open-minded intelligent adults.

It seems to me, that if I was looking to teach those sort of subjects at a junior high level, I'd come up with a similar plan. Allow students to debate a nonsense topic to learn the methods, without igniting an angry mob by choosing actual topics that often times adults find too hot to handle. And there's no way I'd choose an actual topic so controversial that it frequently causes adults to turn to violence.

At the (late) high school level more sedate real world topics could be introduced, since I certainly think that the ability to disagree without resorting to violence is a worthy subject of study. Maybe debate club for those so inclined (and skilled)? Polish these skills in college, and maybe we could have a society that worked just a little better than we do... But asking 8th graders and inflaming everyone? I'm not thinking that's a step in the right direction.

MV

[kerry]

This is claimed to be the actual assignment.


“When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence,” the assignment reads. “For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain. Based upon your research on this issue, write an argumentative essay, utilizing cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe the Holocaust was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain. Remember to address counterclaims (rebuttals) to your stated claim. You are also required to use parenthetical (internal) citations and to provide a Works Cited page.”

It doesn't say anything about constructing a written debate. Looks like the reporters could use some remedial work.

[kerry]

You have been kidnapped by a pissed off Armenian. You will be executed in a week unless you can convince 2/3 of the residents of Ankara that the Armenian Genocide occurred. Using all your historical skills, save your own life.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by Txjake

Should be interesting to see how this plays out: if the Superintendant was a Jew hating white supremist, this would likely be front page news and on the 24 hour channels continuously....

Well I guess you're not leaving much to the imagination as to where your allegiances lie, now are old boy?

wink wink, nudge nudge

Am I right?

[Txjake]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Well I guess you're not leaving much to the imagination as to where your allegiances lie, now are old boy?

wink wink, nudge nudge

Am I right?

I am speaking what seems to be the norm around the us these days. The Holocaust deniers will get a pass if it is not christian religion based.

disclaimer: I am not a christian, ergo no dog in that fight. I am merely stating how one sided things have and are becoming in this country.

the topic was falacious. the Holocaust occurred, the Armenian genocide occured, the Ranwandan genocide occurred. The Imperial Japanese Army committed genocide, rape and ritual canabalism in China. America killed off many of the native tribes here. These things happned and those who deny they did only do so because of prejudie or ignorance.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by kerry

WTF is the problem? Does any serious historian think that the Holocaust was 'merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain'? Not to my knowledge. 'Leading the witness' as CMAC puts it is a gentle way of describing the problem. There would be no problem at all with giving the students two serious pieces of historical analysis of the Holocaust with different conclusions and asking the students to assess the strengths of the argument and the credibility of the evidence.
I don't even know what 'compose a written debate' means. Construct an disagreement? Make an argument?

I expect more than a few of us have constructed pedagogical assignments that in retrospect, were poorly worded. I blush to admit having been there, done that, got the well-worn tee shirt.

In my past as an educator, I forcefully argued in favor of special creation and challenged my students to meet the position head-on. I was dismayed how many of the responses were a sort-of faith based response ("because it doesn't explain evolution" for example). I am not even close to a creationist but I sure as heck try to understand their arguments sufficient to honestly represent them. Anybody who presents themselves as a practicing scientist in the many threads of biology should be able to do the same, IMO. Failing to understand an opposing theory (on any subject) is the best possible way to invalidate one's own argument.

There is no doubt in my mind that the holocaust occurred. But I'll be damned if I'll accept a faith-based argument like, "all the books say so." That sort of argument supports the Pope vs Galileo.