Really? "Event X from 46 years ago was bad and unforgivably handled by the government. Therefore, you should never prepare for giving a speech about a future event similar to X."

Just to be fair, I think an analogous prompt for Americans might be:

"Terrorists have just destroyed the Empire State Building and Willis (fka Sears) Tower in simultaneous attacks. Three days later, you have ordered troops to invade the suspected state sponsors of these attacks. Write a speech defending this military action."

Subtly different arguing for an invasion of another country. A better analogy might be "imagine that BLM protests have been raging for several days in Pittsburgh, write a speech defending the use of federal troops to clear the streets(+) and the use of drone strikes against suspected sniper positions."

(+) yes I know this is unconstitutional, that's the point

> yes I know this is unconstitutional, that's the point

How so? The National Guard is a federal troop organization that can be called upon by a state Governor in a state of emergency. Doing so is hardly a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Given the role of Eton in this country and given the sensitivity of the political situation in Northern Ireland I would say it does look somewhat crass.

It's not analogous at all. It omits the key factor: the domestic deployment.

So you're saying that a PM has actually been in this situation? Do we need a better reason for Eton to ask for arguments supporting the government's position?

If you look at UK history, it has actually happened on several occasions. Peterloo, Amritsar. Why shouldn't we think about what to say?

In the real life situation above, the solution was; to cover up the atrocity (by planting weapons on the bodies), claim the soldiers were fired on (they weren't), and prevent the only MP in the House of Commons who had personally witnessed the event from speaking on the floor (in contravention of parliamentary tradition).

I think the point is that a political undergrad should be able to white a speech justifying any position, since this is a generally useful skill for a future politician.

Defending and justifying a position you don't personally hold is an especially useful exercise imo.

Eton is at a high-school level though.

Ugh, missed that. Still, the point stands, I believe.

It has happened so infrequently that it rather highlights it as an unusual choice of question - why not a terrorist incident, foreign war, natural disaster or incident with a Royal?

You would almost suspect that they are trying to select individuals who have a natural instinct to maintaining current power structures, but clearly that is nonsense and what they are looking for is a carefully reasoned response.

Do you think colleges should prioritize being tasteful instead of being thought-provoking?

I guess you're implying the white, priviledged, and uniformly similar kids with the same opinions and the same upbringings who attend Eton are somehow not drones.

Yeah, not so sure about that.

It's more interesting that in the UK there's sort of a bell curve of passivity.

The working and upper classes have more similarities socially than do the middle and upper classes in a lot of ways.

Interesting. Fussell, in his Class, also calls out the US middle class as a kind of outlier from the rest of the class system, cursed with an abundance of class anxiety but also a distinctive class identity and slew of misconceptions about the higher classes that often leave them looking silly in their attempts to imitate the higher classes (which they're very interested in doing thanks to the aforementioned intense class anxiety), including on matters of what proper or polite behavior & activity looks like.

It probably just seems that way from a middle class vantage point.

Outgroup homogeneity bias — they’re both unlike us, therefore they’re both kinda the same!

Bad assumption.

You could have so easily made the point that Eton aims to train the elite without being viciously dismissive and condescending. Coming in here and attacking using a throwaway account undermines the ability for the community to have a discussion.

Not sure why you're being downvoted here; I think it's a fairly important distinction to make.

Different social classes operate differently.

Citation needed. Because in the US it’s considered some straight up age old bullshit that being rich makes you some kind of high minded philosopher smarter than the joe.

The US doesn’t really have a class system though — it has a middle class and an underclass. The fact that some middle class Americans are very wealthy doesn’t change the fact that they’re essentially middle class in behaviour and outlook.

The British, on the other hand, have a very complex class system and a meaningful upper class. I wouldn’t recommend trying to transport your understanding of “class” across the Atlantic.

The wikipedia page on the UK's class system says it is mostly wealth and education, but you make this case for behavior and outlook, which I'm guessing you really mean is ideological. But really would like some clarification.

I think you're talking about something entirely different.

The working, middle and upper class in the UK behave in very different ways, it's definitional. This article is the citation.

I would bear in mind that British class is quite different to American class. It's far less to do with money here.