•••
The concern that professors might indoctrinate impressionable students with the professors’ political philosophy is intense and extremely politicized, but it is nothing new (”Extremist ideology has already hijacked state’s public schools,” Opinion Exchange, April 7).
When I first started teaching law students in the 1970s, I was worried about that very issue. Along with a colleague, I developed a questionnaire designed to measure student attitudes toward crime both before and after each of our criminal-law courses. We wanted to see if the student attitudes were influenced by our teaching. As part of this study we decided that on the issue of insanity we would openly advocate polar opposite positions. My colleague advocated for an expansive insanity defense that would provide a broader umbrella of mental conditions that would excuse a defendant. I argued for a much narrower defense that would make it extremely rare for an accused successfully to raise insanity as a defense.
To our surprise, the attitudes of my students shifted toward my colleague’s expressed views, and his students moved toward my espoused position. The results were not statistically significant but interesting and a bit humbling. It occurred to me after that if I wanted to indoctrinate my students (which I didn’t) maybe I should take positions I don’t believe in. It also occurred to me that maybe we underestimate our students’ ability to think for themselves. After all, that is what we are trying to teach.
Peter Nicholas Thompson, Minnetonka
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
It would be a clown show. Skip it.
In response to the April 15 article “Trump, Biden urged to debate,” I believe (strongly) that President Joe Biden should not debate — for multiple reasons.
First, Biden says that whether he will debate Donald Trump “depends on his behavior.” Trump’s behavior never changes. Second, the news organizations that signed on to encourage the debate explain that presidential debates are a part of a “rich tradition.” Trump has cancelled tradition with his denial of what has always been assumed in our democracy — that the loser accepts the result. Third, Trump lies. How can anyone debate against falsehoods and lies? Differences of opinion can be debated but not falsehoods. Fourth, I believe the news organizations that signed on to encourage debates did so because a Trump/Biden debate would be the sensation of the century. It might even surpass the infamous spectacle of O.J. Simpson, riding in the white Bronco.