• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Muriel Schwenck

Beloved Curmudgeon
Political correctness interferes with learning.
19 April 2019

A Middlebury College chemistry professor’s exam question asked students to calculate the lethal dose of the poisonous gas used by Nazis during the Holocaust, reports say.
In the question, professor Jeff Byers asked students to calculate the amount of Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) that would be a lethal dose in a particular room, the student-run newspaper, The Middlebury Campus, reported.
HCN, the question’s preamble said, was a poisonous gas used by Nazi Germany “to horrific ends in the gas chambers during The Holocaust.”
[...]
The Vermont liberal arts college said last week that it was investigating the incident under the terms of its faculty misconduct policy. Meanwhile, Byers has taken a leave of absence.
"This inexplicable failure of judgment trivializes one of the most horrific events in world history, violates core institutional values, and simply has no place on our campus," Middlebury President Laurie Patton wrote in a statement last week. "We expect our faculty to teach and lead with thoughtfulness, good judgment, and maturity. To say we have fallen short in this instance is an understatement.”

The school said an investigation into Byers' past exams also found a second objectionable exam question that made references to the Ku Klux Klan, that “appeared to be humorous in intent, but which was gratuitous and offensive.”
[...]
Byers apologized to students in a letter posted on the school’s website on April 10.
[...]
The school's Community Bias Response Team, which is charged with assessing and responding to bias incidents, sent out a campus wide email criticizing both the exam question and The Local Noodle for making light of it, The Middlebury Campus reported.
[...]

I don't have a problem with the exam question. It does not trivialize history, it brings real events to life by posing a real life example of a terrible event, which makes the equation more interesting. (Those are students who won't yell "you're a Nazi!" when someone says something objectionable.) Also, only the administration is upset by this but apparently no student complained about the question. The professor is in trouble, and a school newspaper for not taking it seriously.
 
The Holocaust did happen and people were gassed. World history is not all rainbow unicorns and pink roses, nothing is gained by sanitizing history.

I'm not sure what this has to do with sanitizing history. It has to do with making a historically sensitive issue into a disturbing question, at an extremely liberal college. This shows piss poor judgment, professor should be tossed. This is edgy shittery at best which has no place in a classroom.
 
I'm not sure what this has to do with sanitizing history. It has to do with making a historically sensitive issue into a disturbing question, at an extremely liberal college. This shows piss poor judgment, professor should be tossed. This is edgy shittery at best which has no place in a classroom.
Apparently, no chemistry student at this extremely liberal college had a problem with the question. I think that shows the students took it in stride, which is a good thing. And I bet when they were done with the calcs, the students said "holy shit, those Nazis were really evil." Why would that be an issue?
Only admin had the problem.
 
Apparently, no chemistry student at this extremely liberal college had a problem with the question. I think that shows the students took it in stride, which is a good thing. And I bet when they were done with the calcs, the students said "holy shit, those Nazis were really evil." Why would that be an issue?
Only admin had the problem.
How do you know only admin had a problem? I missed that in the article
 
Apparently, no chemistry student at this extremely liberal college had a problem with the question. I think that shows the students took it in stride, which is a good thing. And I bet when they were done with the calcs, the students said "holy shit, those Nazis were really evil." Why would that be an issue?
Only admin had the problem.
Administration absolutely does not review every test question. It was brought to their attention so clearly someone had a problem.

I also am wondering where you got that idea though.
 
After rereading what I posted, I see how my post is not a comment on the actual thread. For college students, liberal or otherwise, a question set up with a back story is not actually necessary to get the point of the question across to supposedly already educated people.

A pared down question such as "How much gas would it take to make the atmosphere in a 250 square foot area toxic", might be better. It would take up less room and use less paper too.
 
Though I believe Byers shouldn't be sacked for these questions. A warning would suffice. I think we are too eager to castigate anyone that challenges our sensibilities. Be careful for thinking the world would be a better place if we could easily force out the offensive...for you might inadvertently be next to fall with one slip of the tongue.
 
So, this is common chemistry and a necessary concept to learn. If the professor wasn't an edgy shitlord, he could have posed the same question, while avoiding requesting the students how to provide the minimal amount of gas possible to engage in the Holocaust. Nobody needs to learn to apply how to produce an economically efficient genocide. Nobody at all.

Here's an example (with numbers that really make no sense, but I also don't want to look up realistic quantities) that took me about no time to think up:

There is a 9'x20'x6' room with HCN pouring in at 16.2 kMol/s. How long do you have to escape the room safety before the air reaches the fatal concentration of HCN at 150 PPM?

Or as the questions are typically posed:

CO is filling a 12"x16"x18" box at a rate of 12.8 kMol/s. How long will it take before it reaches a concentration of 280 ppm?

See? Simple, non-edgy and eyerolling way to present the question, without requesting that students calculate how to commit historically horrific genocide. So simple to use basic judgment! But, apparently this professor has none of that "good judgment" nonsense. I love dark jokes, but I'm also not a professor at a notoriously liberal college and would never make such a joke at work (cause I'm not that fucking irresponsible).

If you don't want to deal with being PC, don't work at fucking Middlebury College. Simple as that.
 
I don't have a problem with the exam question. It does not trivialize history, it brings real events to life by posing a real life example of a terrible event, which makes the equation more interesting.

I dont see why chemistry class should be focusing efforts on bringing the events of the holocaust to life. There are history courses specifically for that.

Science should be cold and without such emotionally charged situations/questions. It has no place in such an environment. Idiotic move by this professor.
 
Great! Next in Finance, How much would a 6'5" 250lbs slave be worth in today's currency?
So, this is common chemistry and a necessary concept to learn. If the professor wasn't an edgy shitlord, he could have posed the same question, while avoiding requesting the students how to provide the minimal amount of gas possible to engage in the Holocaust. Nobody needs to learn to apply how to produce an economically efficient genocide. Nobody at all.

Here's an example (with numbers that really make no sense, but I also don't want to look up realistic quantities) that took me about no time to think up:

There is a 9'x20'x6' room with HCN pouring in at 16.2 kMol/s. How long do you have to escape the room safety before the air reaches the fatal concentration of HCN at 150 PPM?

Or as the questions are typically posed:

CO is filling a 12"x16"x18" box at a rate of 12.8 kMol/s. How long will it take before it reaches a concentration of 280 ppm?

See? Simple, non-edgy and eyerolling way to present the question, without requesting that students calculate how to commit historically horrific genocide. So simple to use basic judgment! But, apparently this professor has none of that "good judgment" nonsense. I love dark jokes, but I'm also not a professor at a notoriously liberal college and would never make such a joke at work (cause I'm not that fucking irresponsible).

If you don't want to deal with being PC, don't work at fucking Middlebury College. Simple as that.
[/QUO
Thirty years ago in my public high school, both these questions along with the solutions were later out to us in graphic details in both my American and World history class to show how evil men reduced the innocent to practical, cold, statistic. It was chilling, and had its effects on me then, and now. I consider it one of the most valuable lessons on morals and ethics I ever learned. Adolph Eichmann said, 'The murder of 100 men is a tragedy, but the murder of 1 million men is a mere statistic'. This shows us how callous we can be to the suffering of others, and how we trivialize the loss of human lives in historical events, reducing them to mere numbers on paper and not human lives.
 
Thirty years ago in my public high school, both these questions along with the solutions were later out to us in graphic details in both my American and World history class to show how evil men reduced the innocent to practical, cold, statistic. It was chilling, and had its effects on me then, and now. I consider it one of the most valuable lessons on morals and ethics I ever learned. Adolph Eichmann said, 'The murder of 100 men is a tragedy, but the murder of 1 million men is a mere statistic'. This shows us how callous we can be to the suffering of others, and how we trivialize the loss of human lives in historical events, reducing them to mere numbers on paper and not human lives.

That's very odd, considering they mostly used trial and error to see what the cheapest idea was if I recall. I don't think they did actually calculate that, especially since for a while they were just using diesel engines that emit CO. So although it is quite correct that the victims became subject numbers and scientific data to the madmen, I don't think they actually performed serious calculations as you say they did. The Holocaust was all about trial and error, and I absolutely remember stories where they didn't quite kill the people since they were just seeing how inexpensive they can go. If you know they actually performed calculations and somehow knew the fatal concentrations of very new chemicals like Zyklon B, I would love to see some sources on that since it's possible I was taught different events.

I also doubt your professor posed those two specific questions to begin with at all, especially considered how unrelated both questions are so I don't believe this actually happened. I think you're claiming that a single professor mentioned both things because you want it to be more of an eye opening experience than it would be in real life. Also, that's not really a high school chem question and it would NEVER be asked in a history class, considering that's college level chem. This story does not add up.
 
That's very odd, considering they mostly used trial and error to see what the cheapest idea was if I recall. I don't think they did actually calculate that, especially since for a while they were just using diesel engines that emit CO. So although it is quite correct that the victims became subject numbers and scientific data to the madmen, I don't think they actually performed serious calculations as you say they did. The Holocaust was all about trial and error, and I absolutely remember stories where they didn't quite kill the people since they were just seeing how inexpensive they can go. If you know they actually performed calculations and somehow knew the fatal concentrations of very new chemicals like Zyklon B, I would love to see some sources on that since it's possible I was taught different events.

I also doubt your professor posed those two specific questions to begin with at all, especially considered how unrelated both questions are so I don't believe this actually happened. I think you're claiming that a single professor mentioned both things because you want it to be more of an eye opening experience than it would be in real life. Also, that's not really a high school chem question and it would NEVER be asked in a history class, considering that's college level chem. This story does not add up.
Doubt if you will, it is your prerogative. I said that these things were laid out in two different HISTORY classes, taught by two different teachers in a very good Catholic hs, were all that was taught was flavoured by the ethical, moral, and religious. I didn't say that estimates given were necessarily in a textbook, nor did I say that these financial, chemical, and numerical calculations were scientifically correct to a certainty. It was that the idea of the suffering of humans, including their work value, and the practical calculations of what it would take to kill them, WAS considered as cold statistics, reducing the human being to only a financial or numerical concern, thus dehumanizing them. Not only was I taught this in hs, but also in Catholic trainer school that humans, slaves, Holocaust victims, et al, were reduced to such calculatable objects. Why do you find this so hard to believe? It obviously is being done in a secular school.
 
Political correctness interferes with learning.
19 April 2019



I don't have a problem with the exam question. It does not trivialize history, it brings real events to life by posing a real life example of a terrible event, which makes the equation more interesting. (Those are students who won't yell "you're a Nazi!" when someone says something objectionable.) Also, only the administration is upset by this but apparently no student complained about the question. The professor is in trouble, and a school newspaper for not taking it seriously.

If I was teaching a large group of strangers I would not do this. There are plenty of psychos out there. We read about them everyday. There are better analogies that could have been made. I wouldn’t want a neon sign flashing saying “Hey! Here’s an easy way to kill a room full of people kinda like the one we’re standing in!”
 
Back
Top