And for your homework, please design a torture device (Updated)

On first reading, this seems like a bit of a 'whoops' story (and that's being kind). But as I read it I kept thinking, 'hang on, there's a possible logic to this' and there it is, right in the last line. But don't spoil it for yourself, read the whole thing...

My thoughts after the article.

An architectural school was at the centre of a row last night after it emerged that students were required to design a fully operational torture device.
The project, part of a masters course aimed at first-year students of the University of Kent's School of Architecture, was described as 'sick'. One student has lodged a complaint on the grounds that he was uncomfortable about carrying out the brief. Illustrated by a skull and a view of a Gestapo electric torture chamber, the brief handed to a class of students at the school was to 'design, construct and draw a fully operational prototype torture device based on ergonomic principles'.

They were encouraged to 'be original' and instructed: 'You may use a historical precedent as a point of departure or attempt to develop something completely without precedent. Through design development we hope you may advance your understanding of ergonomics as it pertains to torture.'

Paul Hyett, a former president of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) responsible for the Treatment Centre for Torture Victims in London, said the school was dabbling in 'dangerous territory' and called for the project to be stopped.

Hyett said: 'It's sick. Architecture should be about enriching our lives culturally and lifting the spirits of the people who live or work in the buildings we create. There is absolutely no circumstance where any piece of equipment for torture has any positive use in our lives or our society. This is monstrously complicated territory and I don't think that amateurs should mess around in it. I'm appalled.'

George Ferguson, also a past RIBA president, said: 'Architecture isn't practised in some Britart external gallery. What we should be teaching students is about people-friendly buildings and it is obtuse to start with extreme discomfort as a way of teaching it. I would understand it in a philosophic course but I do not begin to understand it in a serious architecture course.'

The head of the University's architecture department, Professor Don Gray, confirmed that one of the 12 students had complained. He said: 'The only person who has raised any objection has been given the opportunity to address the project from a different angle. I agree that it is a slightly shocking introduction to a very serious long-term design project. I'm neither justifying it or defending it but that is how we are going about it.'

The two-week project was designed by course tutor Mike Richards, in advance of a project to design a new headquarters for Amnesty International.

So here's my two penn'orth:

I've used provocation with students in the past to get them to see a problem from 'the other side' as it were. It can be controversial, but it's in keeping with the spirit of free enquiry enshrined in our university system and culture. If you're designing something for Amnesty International, it makes complete sense to immerse yourself in the problem of torture and the minds of those who do it.
Without knowing the full story, it's stupid to speculate. So in the best tradition of 24hr news programmes let me do just that.

I suspect Mike Richards believes this is a legitimate way to help his students understand the issues that Amnesty campaign on, and if that's the case then I support his novel approach. I would have suggested that the brief be explained in these terms and, seeing as only one student has complained, suspect that this did in fact happen (there's always one).

The people quoted in this article have either not appreciated that higher education isn't a cosy world of teaching students what they need to know to do a docile job, but of confronting them with knowledge of how the world works, or they've been given only half the story. If the former, they should think again. If the latter, they shouldn't have commented at all (and the Guardian should be ashamed of itself).

(Update: Design Week is carrying the story, and even more badly written)