Utter callousness and stupidity

Primary schoolchildren in tears after they are told they will be removed from families as part of Holocaust 'game'

A teacher decided to do a roleplaying exercise to teach her eleven-year-olds how it might have been for Jewish children during the Holocaust. Unfortunately, the kids didn't know it was a roleplay, for the teacher neither informed students or parents about the intended programme.

One girl said her classmates began crying when Mrs McGlynn told them she had a letter from the Scottish Executive saying nine children had to be separated from their classmates.

She told the shocked youngsters those who were born in January, February and March had lower IQs than other children, 'due to lack of sunlight in their mother's womb', and that they had to put yellow hats on and be sent to the library.

The mother added: 'When I asked why on earth they thought it was appropriate to deliver a role play situation to the children in this way, Mrs Stewart informed me that they didn't inform the children beforehand.

'This was because they wanted the children to experience an "accurate emotional response" to this scenario in order for it to be reflected in their story writing.

'Mrs Stewart then invited me to come up to the school and see the excellent work that had been produced as a result of the exercise.

'I declined and my position and opinion on the method used to extract emotive story writing from the children was cruel, barbaric, traumatic and totally, totally unethical.

'My daughter and indeed no child needs to feel the terror, fear, panic, segregation and horror that a child of the Holocaust experienced during one of the worst atrocities in history to be able to empathise with them in order to produce good story writing.'

Well said. It reminds me of the Jane Elliot's controversial 'blue-eyed/brown-eyed' exercise, which was used as an example of unethical use of human subjects in sociology class, along with the Milgram experiment. Ironically, had the teacher in the British case been a scientific researcher, her exercise would never had made it past an institutional review board (IRB) because it violates the first point of the Nuremberg Code--that informed consent of the subject must be obtained. The Nuremberg Code was, itself, set up as a response to Nazi human experimentation methods during the Holocaust to prevent exploitation and harm to the experimental subjects.

Interestingly, several commentators on the story mentioned that children today are coddled and that the children shouldn't have been so upset. But they are missing a crucial issue--trust. I don't think the parents are wrong to be upset. There's a difference between coddling a youngster and sheltering him or her from the realities of the world and betraying the trust that school is a 'safe place' in which to learn. I do not believe the teacher in this case thought out the emotional distress that this would produce coming from a trusted adult.

Interestingly, despite the ethical issues surrounding the Elliot and Milgram exercises, the majority of participants in each case looked back on them as positive experiences. Perhaps these children will as well. But considering the manipulation of emotions involved, I can't help but think that there are psychological explanations for the overwhelming support the subjects gave, perhaps a refusal to believe that anyone in a trusted position would abuse their power through manipulation. But in my opinion, that is what was done in all three of these cases.