impartiality

If anecdotal evidence counts for anything (and it certainly has to count for something) then American students are in the hands of some very scary "educators"*:

Mr. Marcus,

I just finished reading your article about referencing Hitler on LRC. Thanks for sticking up for this valid tactic.

I had something similar[...] happen to me when I was in college a few years ago. The philosophy department decided to have a debate about reparations for slavery, and being the only student on my campus actually willing to speak out against such nonsense, the department chair asked me to take the anti-reparations side and to find a friend who would join me.

During the debate my friend made a point to the effect that reparations and the idea of collective guilt are based on a kind of thinking (i.e. thinking of people as part of groups and not as individuals) that debases individuals and allows for such things as slavery and racism to exist. At this point, the professor who was supposed to be moderating the debate blew up at him, claiming that he was saying reparations were as bad as slavery and that we were being ridiculous. Rather than stop and question the logic behind their thinking, most people would rather just blow you off and call you names.

Some people just don't get it, do they?

This story astonished me, so I wrote back:

That's amazing. The professor said that? Was he a phil prof?

I majored in philosophy and as bad as one or two of the professors were, I have a hard time imagining them doing something so blatantly fallacious.

No, it turns out that the moderator was an African American Studies professor.

Now, I'm sure it would have been considered offensive to suggest before the debate that he might not make the most impartial referee. What about after the debate? Is it offensive for me to suggest that in retrospect, he wasn't the fairest choice?


* btw, I hadn't realized that the term "teacher" now needed a PC euphemism.