Students Asked To Consider Arguments For Holocaust Denial

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And with the Holocaust, we say "Here is what happened, here are the pictures, here's the testimony of the survivors, the guards, and the soldiers who liberated the camps". We don't invite students to take a side as to whether or not it actually happened, as there is no doubt that it did.

And here is the problem with you not having the common fucking courtesy to read back just a little bit more. This has been covered.

Yes. And that is exactly how you respond to arguments that the holocaust didn't happen. Not by dismissing the claims.

Again, already covered.

[Shofercia]

You're right.

While we're at it, let's debate whether gravity is real, or is actually the result of tiny invisible demons dragging everything down to earth.

Or the roundness of the world. Really? Looks flat to me, and you can't prove that those so-called pictures from the supposed space station aren't mock-ups made in a studio somewhere.

I'd also like to state for the record that students should be given credit for critical thinking when arguing that 2+2=5.

And what's all this nonsense I hear about a Berlin Wall?

What you are not realizing here is there's a difference. No one is trying to stop people from debating the existence of these things. People are trying to stop the debate of the holocaust. It should be able to stand up to fact like anything else.

People aren't trying to stop the debate of the Holocaust. People are fucking sick and tired of proving the obvious juvenile shitstorians and every other conspirationist wannabe who's whoring for attention for whatever petty, juvenile, politically beneficial, self-serving, or other completely idiotic reason there is. (I'm talking about actual Holocaust Deniers, not you.) The Holocaust took place. We know that. We don't know if it was 4 million Jews, 5 million Jews or 6 million Jews that were brutally murdered, and those numbers are up for debate. Go for it! Debate them. However, we do know, for a fact, that millions of Jews were brutally murdered by Nazis in the Holocaust. We know that. It's been proved, reproved, and proved yet again.

The reason for studying history, at least one of the main reasons, is to learn from the mistakes of the past. For instance, we know that exposure to nuclear radiation is very bad. That's not something that should be up for debate in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or anywhere. We know that. And the reason that such bullshit should be stopped in its tracks, at least in history classes, is because there are more important things to worry about. For instance, it's important to know that Bush didn't do 9/11, and that in the wake of 9/11 Bush wanted to implicate Iraq. That way we know that America's Government isn't out to get Americans, but will use the current political mood of the country to benefit the lobbyists, i.e. those who lobbied for the Iraq War. You have to diagnose the problem before fixing it.

America's problem is that too little time is spent on studying and learning about the outside World, other countries, etc, which makes it harder and harder for America to lead a more and more diverse World, meaning that America should either ramp up the education system, or let multipolarity take its hold, or better yet, do both. However, America's problems cannot be diagnosed by idiots running around going "Bush did 9/11!"

Or take the current Ukrainian Crisis. If only we knew that it was instigated by turf wars amongst Ukrainian Oligarchs, instead of Russia or America, damn, well we could've avoided quite the confrontation. But that's not the case, precisely because bullshit was able to predominate from both sides. Russia's solution is to find out what the fuck's going on and act accordingly. America's continuing to listen to whatever the idiot Oligarchs in power are saying. Hmm, who's winning? Well let's see here, Russia added Crimea and is thinking about DonBass, so that's what, 2-0?

Look, anyone can study whatever the fuck they want on their own time. But when it comes to school, or other uses of the taxpayers' dime, we should focus on reality, on the facts, on the blatantly obvious, and figure out where to go from there. Or, in the current case, instead of staging a debate about the Holocaust, why not talk about Israel and the Middle East? Oh, right, that's because that's the kind of critical thinking that some Holocaust Deniers don't want the people to engage in, because then some people could come to the conclusion that Israel has a right to exist, which would be very bad for some Holocaust Deniers. On the other hand, if the "critical thinking" lesson revolves around the Holocaust, then hey, if people conclude with the facts, nothing lost, nothing gained; if people come to the other conclusion, Holocaust Deniers just bolstered their ranks. All while wasting taxpayer dollars.

(Note: just because I think that Israel has a right to exist, doesn't mean that I don't want a settlement that's fair to Palestinians, nor does it mean that I support everything that AIPAC does.)

[Arkandros]

Shofercia: While I agree that education should be focused on facts, you can't raise a nation of rational, critically thinking individuals by asking them to regurgitate facts. I can recite the Declaration of Independence verbatim, know all the amendments to the Constitution, and could quote famous politicians and scientists all day long, but that doesn't mean I understand the connotations or reasons behind these documents and quotes. (I do, but that's because I have a keen interest in the documents, not because school taught me about them)

If anything, questions about history should be encouraged. If we blindly accept one version of history, we end up with one-sided absolutes, which are rarely accurate. While some things are absolutes, and there can be no doubt about their existence (eg, cars exist) there are numerous facts that can, and should, be questioned (eg, cars are dangerous). While some car designs may be dangerous, not all are, and dealing in absolutes gives us an incomplete and often incorrect view.

Bringing this back to the Holocaust: Yes, the holocaust DID happen. However, there are a number of facts we choose to gloss over, many of which are worthy of debate, including the guards' behavior (they weren't all murderous torturers), the working conditions (it wasn't all horribly brutal slave labor), and the fact that numerous "undesirable" groups were killed, not just Jews.

On a side note, my opinion on Israel

Israel has as much claim to Palestinian property as the Native Americans have to NYC. That is to say, they don't have any fucking claim to it at all.

[Shofercia]

Shofercia: While I agree that education should be focused on facts, you can't raise a nation of rational, critically thinking individuals by asking them to regurgitate facts. I can recite the Declaration of Independence verbatim, know all the amendments to the Constitution, and could quote famous politicians and scientists all day long, but that doesn't mean I understand the connotations or reasons behind these documents and quotes. (I do, but that's because I have a keen interest in the documents, not because school taught me about them)

If anything, questions about history should be encouraged. If we blindly accept one version of history, we end up with one-sided absolutes, which are rarely accurate. While some things are absolutes, and there can be no doubt about their existence (eg, cars exist) there are numerous facts that can, and should, be questioned (eg, cars are dangerous). While some car designs may be dangerous, not all are, and dealing in absolutes gives us an incomplete and often incorrect view.

Bringing this back to the Holocaust: Yes, the holocaust DID happen. However, there are a number of facts we choose to gloss over, many of which are worthy of debate, including the guards' behavior (they weren't all murderous torturers), the working conditions (it wasn't all horribly brutal slave labor), and the fact that numerous "undesirable" groups were killed, not just Jews.

I agree with most of what you're saying. For instance, one can have a great debate as to why the Holocaust was only limited to one group in the context of the larger Nazi Genocide. That would make a wonderful debate on critical thinking. I'm up for that. But in order to have that debate, we should accept the facts that the Holocaust was a Genocide committed by Nazis within the larger context of other Nazi Genocides. I just don't want debates against the obvious, that's all.

[Arkandros]

Shofercia: While I agree that education should be focused on facts, you can't raise a nation of rational, critically thinking individuals by asking them to regurgitate facts. I can recite the Declaration of Independence verbatim, know all the amendments to the Constitution, and could quote famous politicians and scientists all day long, but that doesn't mean I understand the connotations or reasons behind these documents and quotes. (I do, but that's because I have a keen interest in the documents, not because school taught me about them)

If anything, questions about history should be encouraged. If we blindly accept one version of history, we end up with one-sided absolutes, which are rarely accurate. While some things are absolutes, and there can be no doubt about their existence (eg, cars exist) there are numerous facts that can, and should, be questioned (eg, cars are dangerous). While some car designs may be dangerous, not all are, and dealing in absolutes gives us an incomplete and often incorrect view.

Bringing this back to the Holocaust: Yes, the holocaust DID happen. However, there are a number of facts we choose to gloss over, many of which are worthy of debate, including the guards' behavior (they weren't all murderous torturers), the working conditions (it wasn't all horribly brutal slave labor), and the fact that numerous "undesirable" groups were killed, not just Jews.

I agree with most of what you're saying. For instance, one can have a great debate as to why the Holocaust was only limited to one group in the context of the larger Nazi Genocide. That would make a wonderful debate on critical thinking. I'm up for that. But in order to have that debate, we should accept the facts that the Holocaust was a Genocide committed by Nazis within the larger context of other Nazi Genocides. I just don't want debates against the obvious, that's all.

I don't think the point of this lesson wasn't to call into question the existence of the holocaust, though. The point of the debate was an exercise in critical thinking, used to analyze how and why the Holocaust denial arguments are incorrect/flawed, in addition to looking at WHY these people want to deny the Holocaust. By setting this in a larger framework of a debate, it simply provides the structure and background to better analyze the arguments.

[Shofercia]

I agree with most of what you're saying. For instance, one can have a great debate as to why the Holocaust was only limited to one group in the context of the larger Nazi Genocide. That would make a wonderful debate on critical thinking. I'm up for that. But in order to have that debate, we should accept the facts that the Holocaust was a Genocide committed by Nazis within the larger context of other Nazi Genocides. I just don't want debates against the obvious, that's all.

I don't think the point of this lesson wasn't to call into question the existence of the holocaust, though. The point of the debate was an exercise in critical thinking, used to analyze how and why the Holocaust denial arguments are incorrect/flawed, in addition to looking at WHY these people want to deny the Holocaust. By setting this in a larger framework of a debate, it simply provides the structure and background to better analyze the arguments.

Hmm, let's see here: I don't think the point of this lesson wasn't to call into question the existence of the holocaust, though.

And from the OP: When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence

Read the OP before posting in the thread!

Edit: I'm presuming that you meant "was", otherwise you're just agreeing with me, in which case, thank you

[Arkandros]

I don't think the point of this lesson wasn't to call into question the existence of the holocaust, though. The point of the debate was an exercise in critical thinking, used to analyze how and why the Holocaust denial arguments are incorrect/flawed, in addition to looking at WHY these people want to deny the Holocaust. By setting this in a larger framework of a debate, it simply provides the structure and background to better analyze the arguments.

Hmm, let's see here: I don't think the point of this lesson wasn't to call into question the existence of the holocaust, though.

And from the OP: When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence

Read the OP before posting in the thread!

Edit: I'm presuming that you meant "was", otherwise you're just agreeing with me, in which case, thank you

yes, I meant was. Sorry about the spelling.
However, that is roughly the argument the school used to defend the essay. See here:
http://www.sbsun.com/social-affairs/20140504/exclusive-rialto-unified-defends-writing-assignment-on-confirming-or-denying-holocaust

The prompt:
“read and discuss multiple, credible articles on this issue, and write an argumentative essay, based on 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 wealth.”

Although the phrasing is geared closer to "is the holocaust real?", context is important here. Could this have been handled better? Yes. But because of the school's statement, along with the coursework associated with this essay (none of which denied the holocaust), it makes more sense that the school wanted to teach reasoning skills than argue the Holocaust's existence.

[Imperializt Russia]

It all began with an assignment regarding argumentative writing.

RIALTO >> The Rialto Unified School District is defending an eighth-grade assignment that asks students to debate in writing whether the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain.”
The district says the assignment is merely to teach students to evaluate the quality of evidence made by advocates or opponents of an issue.
“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.”

Of course, there were those with some...concerns regarding the topic.

“An exercise asking students to question whether the Holocaust happened has no academic value; it only gives legitimacy to the hateful and anti-Semitic promoters of Holocaust denial,” wrote Matthew Friedman, associate regional director of the Los Angeles office of the Anti-Defamation League, in an email on Friday.

“It is also very dangerous to ask junior high school students to question the reality of the Holocaust on their own, given the sheer volume of denial websites out there,” he wrote.
“If these questions do come up, it’s better to show the huge preponderance of evidence that’s out there (testimony, documentation, death camp sites, archaeology, etc.) and to also question why people would question the reality of the Holocaust (many motivated not by historical curiosity, but by anti-Semitism). Also, who are the people questioning the Holocaust and what do real historians say? This is more of an issue of teaching good information literacy.”

But the school district stood by the assignment, at least initially.

“One of the most important responsibilities for educators is to develop critical thinking skills in students,” Martinez wrote in an email Friday morning. “This will allow a person to come to their own conclusion. Current events are part of the basis for measuring IQ. The Middle East, Israel, Palestine and the Holocaust are on newscasts discussing current events. Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship. This thought process creates the foundation for a good education. The progression is within district board policy and also supports the district’s student inspired motto: ‘Today’s Scholars, Tomorrow’s Leaders.’”

However, that didn't last for long.

In a statement released Monday, a spokeswoman for the Rialto Unified School District said an academic team was meeting to revise the assignment.

Interim Superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam was set to talk with administrators to “assure that any references to the holocaust ‘not occurring’ will be stricken on any current or future Argumentative Research assignments,” a statement from district spokeswoman Syeda Jafri read.

“The holocaust should be taught in classrooms with sensitivity and profound consideration to the victims who endured the atrocities committed,” Jafri said.

And, of course, sanity eventually won out, meaning that the school board as a whole metaphorically got on its collective hands and knees to beg forgiveness.

After public comments, the board conferred behind closed doors. When they emerged more than an hour later, board president Joanne Gilbert read a prepared statement:

“The board and staff are deeply sorry for the hurt and propagation of misinformation caused by this assignment,” the statement began. “There was no intent to be hurtful, but due to a lack of critical thought and a lack of internal checks and balances, this project commenced and turned into a horribly inappropriate assignment.”

Eighth-grade teachers will undergo sensitivity training at the Museum of Tolerance, she said. The museum, according to its website, “is dedicated to challenging visitors to understand the Holocaust in both historic and contemporary contexts and confront all forms of prejudice and discrimination in our world today.”

So, quite an eventful week for the district, and pretty obviously a clusterfuck of major proportions. The assignment itself was blatantly wrongheaded and offensive, especially for that age group. The group that came up with this needs to encounter some serious disciplinary action. I just can't decide if this was actual anti-Semitism or outright stupidity.

Opinions?

There is nothing explicitly wrong with the exercise in concept, though how it was actually conducted in this instance is more than open to interpretation and comment.

What could have been done to better the programme was to have this module coincide with the conclusion of whatever modules on the Holocaust in history were being taught. Then, students were to be taught, about the value of evidential debate. To test their reasoning skills, the children should have been taught to try and construct arguments for and against the hypothetical topic, on the legitimacy of the holocaust.

The point of the exercise, as a read through the OP itself seems to say, is to teach evidence-based argument.
The end result of the exercise (as I suggested) would be that those who constructed arguments for the position of the illegitimacy of the Holocaust's historical significance would not be able to form convincing arguments and would be torn asunder by those taking the against position.
The teacher would then conclude the exercise with some notes on why the exercise concluded in the manner it did, the value of evidence, the skill of debate.

As the school defended themselves, all students were meant to conduct a two-sided argument incorporating the for and against opinions, and cite their works in full so the teachers would be able to examine their sources for their statements.
This would make it relatively easy to implement my suggestion for running the exercise - explaining what makes those citations propagating the for opinion (that the Holocaust was not a legitimate event) poor sources, citing historically-accepted values, claims as articles are evidence against them.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Hmm, let's see here: I don't think the point of this lesson wasn't to call into question the existence of the holocaust, though.

And from the OP: When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence

Read the OP before posting in the thread!

Edit: I'm presuming that you meant "was", otherwise you're just agreeing with me, in which case, thank you

yes, I meant was. Sorry about the spelling.
However, that is roughly the argument the school used to defend the essay. See here:
http://www.sbsun.com/social-affairs/20140504/exclusive-rialto-unified-defends-writing-assignment-on-confirming-or-denying-holocaust

The prompt:
“read and discuss multiple, credible articles on this issue, and write an argumentative essay, based on 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 wealth.”

Although the phrasing is geared closer to "is the holocaust real?", context is important here. Could this have been handled better? Yes. But because of the school's statement, along with the coursework associated with this essay (none of which denied the holocaust), it makes more sense that the school wanted to teach reasoning skills than argue the Holocaust's existence.

I agree that their motivations were probably entirely innocuous. However, they went about this in a way that was simultaneously bad practice in terms of education and utterly tone deaf. It was sheer incompetence. The people who gave the thumbs up to this need to seriously evaluate whether or not they're on the right career path.

[Arkandros]

yes, I meant was. Sorry about the spelling.
However, that is roughly the argument the school used to defend the essay. See here:
http://www.sbsun.com/social-affairs/20140504/exclusive-rialto-unified-defends-writing-assignment-on-confirming-or-denying-holocaust

The prompt:
“read and discuss multiple, credible articles on this issue, and write an argumentative essay, based on 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 wealth.”

Although the phrasing is geared closer to "is the holocaust real?", context is important here. Could this have been handled better? Yes. But because of the school's statement, along with the coursework associated with this essay (none of which denied the holocaust), it makes more sense that the school wanted to teach reasoning skills than argue the Holocaust's existence.

I agree that their motivations were probably entirely innocuous. However, they went about this in a way that was simultaneously bad practice in terms of education and utterly tone deaf. It was sheer incompetence. The people who gave the thumbs up to this need to seriously evaluate whether or not they're on the right career path.

This is a school already mired in controversy. Embezzlement, abuse of students, problems with the school board; I wouldn't expect too much from them in terms of quality output. My real concern is whether the lesson (if done well) is a reasonable way to teach evidence evaluation.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I agree that their motivations were probably entirely innocuous. However, they went about this in a way that was simultaneously bad practice in terms of education and utterly tone deaf. It was sheer incompetence. The people who gave the thumbs up to this need to seriously evaluate whether or not they're on the right career path.

This is a school already mired in controversy. Embezzlement, abuse of students, problems with the school board; I wouldn't expect too much from them in terms of quality output. My real concern is whether the lesson (if done well) is a reasonable way to teach evidence evaluation.

It seems pretty bad, from what I linked earlier. An argument from a denialist website with no context, no sense of serious guidance, and no thought of the potential consequences of unsupervised research.

[Llamalandia]

This is a school already mired in controversy. Embezzlement, abuse of students, problems with the school board; I wouldn't expect too much from them in terms of quality output. My real concern is whether the lesson (if done well) is a reasonable way to teach evidence evaluation.

It seems pretty bad, from what I linked earlier. An argument from a denialist website with no context, no sense of serious guidance, and no thought of the potential consequences of unsupervised research.

Actually now that you mention it what is the worst thing that could happen as result here? I guess that some kid becomes a conspiracy nut claiming the holocaust never happened. Meh, not exactly the best outcome but in all honesty I suppose it could be worse. I mean, generally speaking these types are fairly harmless as average citizens. I don't know like I keep saying, I'm torn on this, especially when I read a phrase like "potential consequences of unsupervised research" it just sounds very very vaguely Orweilian to me, then again I'm likely just being paranoid.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It seems pretty bad, from what I linked earlier. An argument from a denialist website with no context, no sense of serious guidance, and no thought of the potential consequences of unsupervised research.

Actually now that you mention it what is the worst thing that could happen as result here? I guess that some kid becomes a conspiracy nut claiming the holocaust never happened. Meh, not exactly the best outcome but in all honesty I suppose it could be worse. I mean, generally speaking these types are fairly harmless as average citizens. I don't know like I keep saying, I'm torn on this, especially when I read a phrase like "potential consequences of unsupervised research" it just sounds very very vaguely Orweilian to me, then again I'm likely just being paranoid.

It's Orwellian to want to make sure that a thirteen year old student has someone responsible to help out while researching Holocaust denial claims? And yes, since there are other alternatives, that is a pretty horrible outcome, to become a conspiracy nut.

[The Nihilistic view]

So, I have considered it and below is my very long list of reasons and arguments in favour of holocaust denial. I have spoilered it to prevent a wall of text.

There are no valid arguments for holocaust denial.