A professor conducted an unexpected “experiment” — putting a live goldfish into a blender and asking for a volunteer to press the button — at a summer camp for high-school students. It startled the students and sparked controversy and a public discussion.
The incident occurred on early this month, in a course about critical thinking given by a professor at National Cheng Kung University’s Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, as part of a 14-day National Taiwan University humanities and social science camp. It became public knowledge after a student wrote about it on an online forum, saying that the professor took out a blender and told the class about an art installation at the Trapholt museum in Denmark in 2000.
The student said the professor pressed the button to show that the blender was working, and later put a live goldfish into it, which startled the students, some of whom screamed or gasped. He then told the students that they could leave the classroom if they were scared, and about 20 of the 200 students did so.
The professor reportedly encouraged the remaining students to press the blender’s button, offering a book he wrote as a gift to volunteers. He asked the class to applaud when a student walked up to the stage to press the button. Fortunately, the blender had been secretly unplugged, and the fish was unharmed.
The student said they felt that they were the subjects of the experiment, and that many of them broke down and cried, as they experienced a combined feeling of shock, remorse, discontent and discomfort, while the professor laughed as if he seemed pleased with his successful experiment.
While the professor on July 12 apologized for any emotional distress he might have caused to the students, he also said that his goal was to use the “event” and “feelings” to inspire them to engage critically and discuss life’s meaning, and values and attitudes towards it.
The professor said the aim was not to kill the goldfish, but to inspire the students, and that he had asked the class to applaud those who left before the experiment, as they had followed their conscience and had the courage to listen to their own feelings.
Despite its goal of stimulating critical thinking, whether the experiment achieved its intended effect is questionable, as many students suffered emotionally, but were left confused about the experiment’s purpose, and only remembered applauding the volunteers, instead of those who opted out.
Ethical issues were also involved: The experiment was conducted without the students’ fully informed consent, and the possible risks were not carefully considered, despite the students being given the option to opt out and being repeatedly told that the experiment would benefit them.
Moreover, the experiment was conducted using deception, which, according to the institutional review board policies that govern research with human participants, can only be allowed after a careful review of whether it is necessary, of the appropriateness of the study population and of the potential harms — including damage to self-esteem and leaving the participant feeling ashamed, guilty, stressed or embarrassed.
However, while the professor praised the students who opted out for following their conscience, the experiment could have also induced conflicted insight (the unexpected realization of their flaws, causing emotional pain, such as shame, guilt and anxiety) among the students who remained in the classroom, which was not addressed afterward.
It is crucial that students learn critical thinking and that they be encouraged to think about the meaning of and respect for life, but educators must align their educational goals and methods, or courses might leave a deep (and possibly negative) impression on students, while the intended lesson might remain unlearnt.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then