From a site I follow:

"Sometimes when we make excuses for allowing civil society to enable evil, we are not excusing evil—we are excusing civil society. Nobody wants to believe that the nation they live is capable of allowing this kind of poison to penetrate its bloodstream. Few of us want to believe that the mechanisms that have mostly worked to keep us safe—especially if we are white, straight, male, or middle class—are also capable of coexisting with a brand of fascism to which the prefix “crypto” is rapidly becoming redundant.

Those mechanisms have never worked as advertised. If you believed they did and would and could, you have made a dangerous error, and the very worst thing you can do right now is stick to your guns, because for a lot of angry white men out there, the guns they’re stuck to are anything but metaphorical."

I had a student in my class come up with a wonderful idea for the Aesthetics assignment.  She wanted to focus on the ugliness that came out after the election in November.  She was intent on creating images that conveyed the oppression felt by Muslims, LGBTQ people, and women.  She was passionate.  I liked her direction because she could clearly identify why she needed to do this and the concrete ways she had seen the people targeted in the past and how that had increased recently.

Then, she went to another teacher for feedback.  And she lost her focus, in more ways than one.  He played "devil's advocate" and as a result, she was now convinced that those who voted for and supported the candidate now installed in office were victims of persecution as well, for instance if the rest of the family did not support that candidate.  When talking about her discussions with him, she said he was "brilliant."  

By including images that portrayed a boy who supported the "president" as being victimized, she completely diluted her message.  I would say she invalidated it.  Why did I not say anything at the time?  I tried to counter what she had been told by the teacher.  It did not work.  He (note the gender) is highly respected, teaches History, and can do no wrong in the kids' eyes.  I am a she, teach fluff - I mean, Photography - and am used by my kids for support and advice until graduation.  Then I am thrown out like a piece of trash (until they need some help from me post-graduation - more on that later.).  Why would a student listen to me (a she) over another teacher (a he)?  

Reread the above quote.  

If a member of the group that has occupied a position of unencumbered privilege is playing devil's advocate, it comes form a place of ignorance.  If a member or an oppressed group does not play devil's advocate, it comes from a place of knowledge and experience.  The relationship with this female student deteriorated fairly quickly after this.  She seemed to lose respect for me, did not work, and even challenged me.  Connected?  Perhaps.  I did not take the bait and change my attitude towards her by leaving her art out of shows.  As a matter of fact, I made sure to continue to promote her work.   

Now, less than one week after the events in Charlottesville, can you tell me that there is any place for devil's advocacy?  A couple of weeks into the summer, said student e-mailed me asking for a favour.  She wanted her sister to use photo backdrop equipment for the summer theater program.  I replied with a yes and asked her to be careful with it due to budget issues and lack of ability to replace things.  

Did I get a "thank you"?  Take a guess.......  That is the last I heard from her.