It is unclear, as of 2017, how many students from this disaffected post-truth demographic will
enter college classrooms and employ populist tactics.^40 If they become more prominent, the
Socratic professor will be faced with new problems. Shemight not identify with the intellectual elite
that is the target of populist anger, but she will be perceived that way by some students. She can try
to reason, but the troll mentality may have little patience for Socratic dialectics; indeed, to even
speak about“critical thinking”will be perceived as a sign of elitism.
To respond to this mentality, the Socratic professor should take some preliminary steps. Talen
noticed that his class discussions were becoming confrontational in the immediate aftermath of
Trump’s election. He had his students develop a code of conduct: recognize the difference between
genuine“critical thinking”and just“being critical”; avoid personal attacks on other people for their
opinions, but encourage critical engagement with those opinions; insist that students identify the
mediums and sources on which their opinions are based.^41 These guidelines may cut down on
trolling, and may make it easier for a Socratic professor to distinguish between a genuine Troll and a
student with conservative opinions who is open to critical debate.
A Troll requires different strategies than a thoughtful conservative or liberal. If a Troll is
threatening or insulting,disciplinary action is required. But if a Troll is simply stating opinions, then
he must be engaged, no matter how outrageous his opinions. Trolls may be partially helpful from a
Socratic perspective as they will at least question left-wing platitudes. However, given the“post-
truth”nature of contemporary demagoguery, with its anti-intellectual belligerence, it is more likely
that a Troll’s comments will need to be qualified or rejected. Add to this the tendency of Trolls to
propagate outrageous conspiracy theories and the Socratic professor may find her class descend
into chaos.
When a Troll says something intended to outrage, it is incumbent upon the professor to
momentarily suspend comments from other students (to avoid a shouting match), and confront the
student directly in front of the whole class. Rather than saying to the Troll that his opinions are
beneath consideration and will not be discussed (which will only encourage the student’s belief that
universities are citadels of left-wing“group-think”), it is likely best, no matter how ridiculous or
unsavory, to examine the student’s statements head-on. If the professor does not feel equipped to
respond to the Troll in the moment, she can bring the conversation temporarily to a close, indicating
that the matter will be revisited in a future class. This way the Troll knows that he is not off the hook,
while giving the Socratic professor time to explore the student’s claims and respond accurately.
By seriously considering certain outrageous opinions and giving the Troll a classroom platform,
the Socratic professor may raise the ire of Safe Spacers, who might accuse the professor of creating
a“hostile learning environment.”Nevertheless, this is a risk that should be taken. The Safe Spacers
may learn to respect the Socratic approach, because the intent, ultimately, is to shame the Troll, not
by personally attacking him but by cross-examining him. Post-truth conservativism cultivates
resistance to shame. Doubling-down, rather than admitting error, seems to be a winning strategy for
right-wing populists, and it may increasingly serve as a model for those who support such public
figures. This means that the Socratic professor must use shame strategically, in much the same way
that Socrates made Thrasymachus and Callicles feel shame for their“might makes right”arguments
(Gorgias, 481b–527e;Republic, 336b–354a, especially 350d). Rather than getting emotional,
insulting, or censorious–exactly what a Troll wants–the Socratic professor demonstrates, through
logical cross-examination and consideration of sources, how the student’s opinions may be false or
contradictory and how the student’s entire approach is unproductive. Trolls, as opposed to Safe
Spacers, are more likely to respond positively to“tough-talk,”but the toughness is in the argument
and in the professor’s composure. This will, hopefully, lead to a productive form of shame in the
mind of the Troll. There is no guarantee that this will happen. Feelings of shame did not stop
Socrates’student Alcibiades from becoming a lecherous demagogue (Symposium, 216b), nor did
Socrates’shaming of his accusers stop the Athenian jury from sentencing him to death. To be sure,
the use of shame is perilous. But with the Troll, it is likely the best strategy.
The Socratic Method in Today’s University 147