Posted on 04/24/2017 9:43:14 PM PDT by KingofZion
Good for him. This could have been a very informative and formative process if allowed to proceed. Obviously the “for” side won the argument at some point in history. Society needs to understand what makes the “for” argument so compellling and how to effectively rebut it. How is that done without knowing the “for” argument?
Pretty strong point to make in favor of his choice.
If you read the article it says that they would have had to go to some of the most hateful and reprehensible sources and web sites to gather the information they needed to understand the issues in context. And if you read the comments, some of their objections were based on the fact that none of their classmates rejected the entire morally bankrupt idea of forming a defense for the Final Solution in their minds. Another comment pointed out the obvious: some issues really are settled and there are no more "two sides", comparing what would have happened if the students were asked to write a defense of slavery's worst features or a condemnation of racial intermarriage.
And another comment pointed out that in today's political environment, if any of the hypothetical defenders of killing Jews were to run for office in twenty years, their paper would still be available someplace on the web, waiting to be misinterpreted by their opponents and the media.
Asking students to think this way is polluting and corrupting to their morals and character, when there are literally billions of other hypotheticals that could have been used instead of this disgraceful denial of everything our nation has shed blood to stand for.
So, they were being trained as lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.