I think we are getting away from the OP here – which is not a debate about whether Scott was ‘an idiot’ or not, but what we think about the question being posed in a classroom.
Personally, I think it is an excellent idea, because it teaches you people a very valuable life lesson, and will fit them perfectly for their time on the AB. The lesson is – you can have absolutely any opinion you want, on anything at all – but you’d better be ready willing and able to back it up, because if you don’t or can’t, there are people on here who do and can, and they will eat you for breakfast.
It’s a simple instance to start with. The individuals questioned are unharmed by a simple school debate, they know nothing about it, and if they are not unharmed, then their reputations are on shakier ground than history and the passage of time would indicate.
So instead of everyone deciding if Scott was, or was not an idiot – let’s look at this in context – it’s a debating question for schoolchildren.
They are being given a question, and allowed to offer their views, but their views may be challenged, and it will show if they have researched the evidence to back up their individual points of view.
As an adult, I have no particular view one way or the other, but I have enough experience of debate and research to be able to provide a convincing argument for either side. All this exercise is doing is giving young people in education a chance to learn how to do that – which is what education is all about.
So, let’s not get into a tizzy about Scott’s name being maligned – it isn’t, it is simply a question, to be considered and thought about and discussed.
One teacher asking one question does not re-write history, or gainsay years of opinion, or indeed fact, so let’s not pretend that it does, or more importantly, that it is trying to do that. Clearly that is not the object of the exercise.