As of today, all three of my spring semester classes are full. History 353 is the seminar that is going to Budapest during spring break. History 354 is History of the Holocaust (which filled a long time ago). History 391 is History of the Crusades.
In History 351 we read an excerpt from Homo Sovieticus by Zinoviev and a student asked what exactly was satirical about it. In my explanation, I let slip that satires were the most honest genre. I was thinking that satires don't pretend to be anything they're not, that is, they acknolwedge that aren't accurately portraying or relating the ideas contained within them.
We had an interesting, if too brief, discussion in the capstone course about why historical context is important. As one student put it, "if you take anything out of its context, you aren't gonna understand it right." True, so true.
The question was presented in a chapter, from a book useful for getting such discussions started, in such a way as if there is ever any historical utility in making moral judgment about a historical context. To make a moral judgment indicates to me that the historian is not well enough aware of his/her own context. Amoralism is the more logical approach than moral relativism because moral relativism is simply another moral judgment.
I sometimes do, especially when administrators want to cancel a class that doesn't have enough students enrolled two weeks before the semester starts. One week before the semester started, my History 351 technically didn't have enough students enrolled, but look at it now: 3 short of the maximum. (History 490 is capped at 15.)