4.2.12 WC: 191694 argue in favor of the death penalty and ask the students to come up with better arguments. Unless they can, they will never be able to persuade the majority of Americans, including judges, who favor the death penalty. Similarly, in the area of rape I present positions that students are reluctant to defend but which many Americans believe. I point out that according to FBI statistics, rape is both the most underreported and the most overreported crime of violence: For every reported rape there are an estimated ten than are not reported; but at the same time, a significant percentage of all reported rapes turn out to be unfounded, and this rate of false reports is higher than for other violent crimes. All in all, my classes on rape tend to be controversial and emotionally charged. The majority of students seem to love the exchanges. Some even change the opinions they brought to class. But my “devil’s advocate” views on rape are “politically incorrect.” Indeed that is precisely why I insist that they be expressed. The education of my students would be incomplete if they heard only the comfortably “correct” views. I tell my students that my job is not to make them feel good about their opinions but rather to challenge every view. That is what the “Socratic method” of law teaching is all about. That is also what the real-life practice of law demands. A small group of students complained about my teaching rape “from a civil liberties perspective.” I responded that it was important for the students to hear a variety of perspectives about rape, just as they hear, without objection, about other crimes. I also reminded them that the majority of students who speak in class present the “politically correct” views. I told them that the answer to an offensive argument is not to censor but rather to come up with a better argument. One of the students then told me that several radical feminist students had met and decided on a course of action: they would use the