I think this could fly in at least some universities. But I’m also sure it’d be tremendously controversial—not just for its content, though I’m sure “students made to defend Nazism” would make a wonderful headline, but for its goals.
A preference for emotionally unentangled discussion of controversial issues is not itself uncontroversial, even if we’re not talking about sacred values. It now seems fashionable in some circles to believe that offense carries an irreplaceable contribution to the ecosystem of ideas: the theory seems to be that certain sets of life experience lend themselves more or less inevitably to rage, and that failing to lend an ear to this rage amounts to removing those experiences from consideration (and thus contributing to selection bias within the space of acceptable discussion, though that isn’t the primary objection). In practice this often seems to sneak in certain assumptions as to what is and isn’t real outrage, but that shouldn’t matter much in this context.
A preference for unbiased discussion of controversial issues is not itself uncontroversial
Exactly.
Once my students started a discussion about religion, so for the sake of discussion I told them that this discussion is allowed to continue only if both of them agree to switch their roles and defend the other position best they can.
The religious student said that this manner of discussion would be interesting generally, with a different topic; but specifically when speaking about religion, defending the other position, even jokingly, would be a sin or at least something dangerously close to a sin.
I had no good answer to that; mostly because I realized that even if I could come with some clever explanation that would convince the student, there is a good chance their parents would see it otherwise, and I did not wish this kind of a conflict.
I think this could fly in at least some universities. But I’m also sure it’d be tremendously controversial—not just for its content, though I’m sure “students made to defend Nazism” would make a wonderful headline, but for its goals.
A preference for emotionally unentangled discussion of controversial issues is not itself uncontroversial, even if we’re not talking about sacred values. It now seems fashionable in some circles to believe that offense carries an irreplaceable contribution to the ecosystem of ideas: the theory seems to be that certain sets of life experience lend themselves more or less inevitably to rage, and that failing to lend an ear to this rage amounts to removing those experiences from consideration (and thus contributing to selection bias within the space of acceptable discussion, though that isn’t the primary objection). In practice this often seems to sneak in certain assumptions as to what is and isn’t real outrage, but that shouldn’t matter much in this context.
Exactly.
Once my students started a discussion about religion, so for the sake of discussion I told them that this discussion is allowed to continue only if both of them agree to switch their roles and defend the other position best they can.
The religious student said that this manner of discussion would be interesting generally, with a different topic; but specifically when speaking about religion, defending the other position, even jokingly, would be a sin or at least something dangerously close to a sin.
I had no good answer to that; mostly because I realized that even if I could come with some clever explanation that would convince the student, there is a good chance their parents would see it otherwise, and I did not wish this kind of a conflict.