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.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
RSS