I wouldn't say explicitly, but that is basically how most law lectures happen. You generally start with a basic rule such as the definition of a crime. Then you proceed to discussions of case law that explain nuances behind that rule. Rule: murder is killing people. Nuances: All these cases where killing people isn't murder. By starting with a simple rule, then proving that the rule is not simple, every lecture revolves around a single lie. That perspective on how every simple rule can in practice be expansive and difficult is probably the biggest and most useful takeaway of law school.
So the impression you got while teaching was that Asian students struggled to follow lectures that took the form of stating a generalization and then contradicting the generalization with non-central examples? E.g.:
Teacher: Murder is illegal.
Students: take notes
Teacher: A man kills another who was threatening him with a deadly weapon. Was this illegal?
Asian Students: silently unwilling to contradict the earlier statement from the classroom authority
I don't think that's an accurate generalization of Asian or any other culture. From what you've described, it sounds like you ran into was a very specific circumstance where you voiced an opinion about a real court decision which a student disagreed with, and they challenged you to justify that disagreement.
I wonder what OP's professor's experience was with various cultures. I would bet that nobody struggled to catch on to the game, even those raised with a relatively high default respect for authority who would usually be unwilling to challenge it.
I said asian, children of asian immigrants. Both aspects, culture and recent immigration, are factors. That isn't all Asians ... whatever definition of "asian" you mean by that.
Okay, but whatever the geographical/cultural/racial criteria is, it would be extremely surprising to me if a college-age population was stymied by contradiction of authority in a totally abstract, gamified context like OP describes. The whole "study hard to find the lie in the lecture" thing does not seem like some radical Western counter culture teaching method. Adult students will understand the intent and play along, yes, even first generation immigrants from Asia.
I think what you've described in your anecdote is a clash over a contradiction of real authority, opining that a judge was incorrect. I wouldn't be surprised if upbringing was a good predictor of the likelihood that a student question a teacher who questions somebody perceived as an even higher authority.
> I wouldn't say explicitly, but that is basically how most law lectures happen.
That's a qualitative difference.
For OP's prof, the students know from the beginning that if they catch the prof in a lie they "win the prize" per the explicit protocol. Even for a student like me who is reluctant to participate in such a lecture, I'd feel both a responsibility and a measure of safety in blurting out that I caught the prof in a lie!
For you, a critical mass of undergrads almost certainly didn't know how most law lectures happen. Maybe "arguing" with you gets them "the prize," but maybe it gets them in trouble, or just brings them more confusion, frustration, etc.
Or maybe-- just maybe-- this undefined behavior leads to a clever optimization that ends up deleting all their harddrives. (Sorry, I couldn't resist an undefined behavior joke.)
