Quote #1, A Major Theme:
Q: What happens when you teach students how to lie?
A: They learn how to be historians.
Kelly writes that the number of students who leave his class on historical methods without learning as much as the basics (the difference between primary and secondary sources, the ability to determine the validity of a source) was unsatisfactory. Thus, he opts to teach them in a more engaging and playful manner, by teaching them how to lie to the public, and how to lie effectively. They do this by taking factual evidence and presenting a lie using them as a basis. Kelly argues that this both teaches his students how to do effective research into their sources, and how to present their information to an audience in a way that is persuasive and engaging.
Quote #2, A Question:
“Finally, I insisted that any hoax created would not violate the university’s responsible use of computing policy, because I had no desire to be censured or fired as a result of a student project. This latter stipulation ruled out, for instance, any hoax that had to do with pornography or gambling.”
It was a good idea not to break university policy, however I was wondering about the decision to later use the real-life murders of prostitutes as a hoax. Is it too far to use actual murders as a hoax? Is it unethical due to the fact that there were real-life people who did suffer, or is it what was needed for the experiment to work? Where do we draw the line when it comes to the ethics of historical hoaxes in an academic context, and is it okay to use something so morbid to mislead people?
Quote #3, A Critique or Point Worth Exploring:
“I don’t regret the trust networks we violated only because those that we violated didn’t do their jobs as historians, they didn’t do their research, they didn’t check their facts, they took what we presented them at face value because they wanted to believe in the project that we had created.”
I am conflicted about Kelly’s nonchalance in tricking the populace. On the one hand, it could be a valuable teaching opportunity for his students, and potentially serve as a warning to others if they do get tricked by these fake facts. However, there is already so much misinformation out there, and as an aspiring historian, it makes me feel a little queasy knowing I could contribute to it, even as a social experiment. What level of transparency do we owe to the public, and when is it okay, if it is indeed justifiable, to abandon this transparency?
