Sure you can, just ask the Conservativist writer Gary Coats who supported Andrew Smart but now supports Jim Lee.

http://theconservativist.com/2010/03/10/who-did-jeffrey-support-in-2008/

That sounds like she was saying the course should simply give “equal time,” or something thereabouts, to Nazi and KKK perspectives.

You may be correct that what she meant was a discussion of evil ideologies — but that isn’t at all clear based on the quote itself.

http://www.audubon-area.org/NewFiles/jef97ses.doc
“The first clue that the leader is corrupt is the failure to tell the truth. These kinds of leaders have to be replaced. You are not going to like this, but Kelly Flynn needed to be removed from the Air Corps, the officer corps of the United States, not because of adultery, but because she showed herself capable of lying. A leader must tell the truth.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378217/posts
“If we were serious,” Jeffrey said, “the punishment would be loss of the ill-gotten gains — to wit, the job one obtained by cheating.”

Going after her for these past comments seems petty and dishonest, especially given their substance. It seems like she was simply pointing out that educational programs ought to point out that the Nazi’s and the KKK possessed points of views, a set of beliefs. Nazi’s weren’t an evil to be destroyed because they wore shiny uniforms and the KKK wasn’t despicable because of their scary robes. Their ideas conflicted with our fundamental values and that is what made them evil. If you don’t understand what made them dangerous, you cannot combat emergence of evil in the future. We should reward those with bold moral clarity.

Go Jeffrey!

Just what would be the proper Nazi or KKK “perspective”? Just how are history books supposed to present that “perspective”?

How deeply are historians required, in Jeffrey’s view, to dig into the views of the Nazis? I mean, I guess it’s known that Adolf Hitler hated Jews, right? It’s generally acknowledged, I think, that Germany went through some awfully rough times after WWI and that folks there may have been susceptible to demagoguery and scapegoatism. But is this the same as a “perspective”?

I guess what I mean is that, OK, maybe we should take it as legitimate that Jeffrey meant to put across some serious academic argument. Fine. But, then, what are historians supposed to do with that? How would Jeffrey suggest that her take on all this — the need for KKK and Nazi “perspective” — be incorporated in textbooks or the teaching of history?