The problem that exists is that none of the issues are binary: - "Yes allow it a voice" doesn't define what form that voice takes (taught as an alternative, an

The problem that exists is that none of the issues are binary: - "Yes allow it a voice" doesn't define what form that voice takes (taught as an alternative, and example of denial, etc.) - Holocaust denier is a broad term that covers those who outright deny anyone died to those who question things like the scale, or the culprits/responsibility, or other facts. - Some Holocaust denial is simply anti-Semitism in a new package, some of it is rather more genuine questioning of history And then throw in the fact that overwhelming public opinion is that the holocaust did happen largely as recorded in mainstream history books and you have a situation where "Yes" isn't a very meaningful answer. I guess that is the point of the paper; to reach that conclusion critically. I wonder how much your response is born out of critical thinking, and how much it is born out of an ideal that people should not have their voices repressed just because they hold a view that is diametrically opposed to the mainstream. And if the latter is true (I don't wish to make assumptions :)) I wonder whether you would write an unequivocal yes after taking this course, it being apparently designed to address such attitude. As I read it, the point of this post is to say "students are useless at critical thinking until taught it, and the way I do that is to introduce them to the idea of holocaust denial and force them to make their own critical assessment". Extending that to a general idea of teaching holocaust denial without the accompanying tutoring in critical thinking is another consideration entirely :) It's an interesting debate for sure.