Critical thinking not allowed

[Gob]

A Wisconsin charter school teacher has been suspended after giving students an essay to defend the Ku Klux Klan.

The Milwaukee educator said in a letter to parents that the students would write a paper defending the white supremacy group.

The teacher, who is African-American, emphasised the goal was to teach seventh-graders to write persuasively.

The school withdrew the assignment, adding it believed there was no malicious intent involved.

Parents contacted the Business and Economics Academy of Milwaukee (BEAM) after receiving the letter outlining the essay for when class resumed in January.

[Joe Guy]

Another brick in the wall...

[dales]

The KKK wanted to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois back in 1976 (I believe).

Skokie had a very large Jewish population at the time (perhaps still does).

The ACLU came to the defense of the KKK, the march went on.

Congrats on that teacher "thinking outside the box".

[Bicycle Bill]

This is a "charter school"; a school certified by the local school district but not necessarily run by them which means they can custom-tailor their curriculum to emphasize one particular field of study — usually something like theater, the arts, graphic design, or business.

And it is schools like these that Betsy DeVos, Drumpf's new Secretary of Education appointee, is said to be in favor of ... these and the voucher plans that allow other people (usually well-heeled white families) to use public educations funds to send their children to a private or religious school, rather than an integrated public school where they would have to come into contact with black children or children of other less-than-desirable races.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

If it was indeed an exercise to enhance persuasive writing, it probably would have been better to get the students to prepare two papers and write a paper defending the Klan and another decrying its actions (and perhaps stating why it should be disbanded). It would help students understand that there are no easy arguments, and also help them to understand both sides of an issue and how to counter the opposition arguments. In debating, you usually take both sides of a proposition in successive debates for that very same reason. Seventh grade may be a bit young to emphasize this, but I think understanding how to frame objective arguments by seeing all sides of an issue is a skill that is very important to learn.

[Crackpot]

When is a good tine to emphasize it?

[Big RR]

Not being an educator, I am not certain. I would think many in 7th grade might well be ready to do such an exercise, but it would depend on the curriculum up to that point. Personally I would think all students should be ready for understanding issues have two sides by high school at the latest. There is a big difference from vomiting back "facts" in response to questions and looking at both sides of a question, and it requires a different type of critical understanding that must be taught--if 7th graders have not been exposed to this, writing papers supporting or decrying the klan might well be misunderstood as it apparently was here (then again, if I thought I could get out of the assignment by complaining to my parents and having my friends do the same, I might do so even if I did understand the reasoning behind it).

[Crackpot]

At what point should those concepts start being applied? If you ask me seventh grade is far to late for intro to critical thinking

[Big RR]

I would tend to agree with you, but I think this has to be balanced against basic skills education that require a correct and a wrong answer (whether it's basic arithmetic or science or understanding what a written word means, basic grammar, etc.). I would generally think around 4th or 5th grade would be a good tome to introduce this subject, but perhaps it could be done even earlier. I'd be interested about the views of those here with elementary or secondary teaching experience on this.

[Burning Petard]

" Personally I would think all students should be ready for understanding issues have two sides by high school at the latest."

This binary, black or white, two sides to every issue, is a BIG cultural landmine. Nearly every conflict has a broad spectrum of 'sides'

I am a knee-jerk liberal, and a member of the NRA. I am a self-identified disciple of Jesus, but I disagree with almost everything that comes out of Bob Jones University or the Regents University.

The pretense that it is 'fair and balanced' to present two sides to a question is self-delusion. Personally, I find children have some kind of innate BS detector that is activated soon after they discover the power of shouting NO! (typical of two year olds) Then they begin stomping their foot and declaiming 'That's not FAIR" The parents and society begin tamping that sensitivity down so they can eventually live in a grown up world with a very flexible system of morality, ethics, and fairness.

snailgate

[Big RR]

BP--two things:
First, I do agree there are multiple sides to every issue, not just two; but I think it is important that people understand that and can see all the sides for what they are. Thanks for pointing out that most issues have more than two sides.

Second, I did not mean to say all sides were equally valid (or even valid at all), but I do think kids should be taught to look at any side and understand it before dismissing it. we live in a world where not everyone has the same background or experience and dismissing a position with only a cursory glance is just silly. By all means call it "bullshit" when it is warranted, but take the time to understand it first--often you may find that the position is not all that different from your own, or that what you and the other person with whom you have a dispute may be able to work out a solution acceptable to both of you. If not, you can always resort to screaming dismissal of your adversary's position.

[Sue U]

As the parent of a seventh grader, I think this is about the right age to introduce this type of assignment. In my kids' schools, critical thinking skills are an explicit part of the curriculum beginning around third or fourth grade, introduced generally through textual analysis in the language arts program.

However, a simplistic "Defend the Ku Klux Klan," if that's what the assignment actually was, may indeed be inappropriate, as it provides no guidance or context in identifying, understanding or arguing the issues. More importantly, however, some things are simply indefensible, the KKK being one of them. The critical thinking assignment here should not be in how to defend the Klan, but how to permanently eradicate it and its ideology.

[BoSoxGal]

Here's the letter that went home about the actual assignment:

When we return in January, students will watch the movie To Kill a Mockingbird and do a research paper on the history of the Ku Klux Klan. This paper will be a persuasive paper defending Klan members on trial. The research is being done leading into Black History Month 2017. The goal of this paper is not to teach the students the Klan was correct in their behavior, but rather to teach the students to write persuasively.”

Considering the ACLU has actually defended Klan members I don't think it's so outrageous; one of the fundamentals of rhetoric is learning to argue (or counter) both sides (or multiple sides) of an issue.

It used to be a commonly understood premise that the best way to undermine one's 'enemy' was to know that enemy.

I think the assignment would have raised great classroom discussion and would have been overall beneficial to the students. The overreaction to it is symptomatic of what I see as one of our big hurdles to ever becoming 'post-racial', and that is our extreme reluctance to talk about that shit painfully and openly.

[Crackpot]

We are to be he point where racism bears such a stigma that any sort of meaningful discourse on the subject has been rendered impossible.