Please write an essay, of at least 200 words, on one of the following topics.

1) Describe Searle's Chinese Room argument, and describe how exactly Aaronson wants to show that Searle is incorrect.

2) Do some research on Searle's sexual assault case. This is a good starting point: https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/famous-philosophy-professor-accused-sexual-harassment

To situate the case in a philosophical context, read (1) http://www.thecritique.com/articles/the-roots-of-modern-racism/, (2) https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/white-philosophers-and-racism/, or (3) http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198725336.001.0001/acprof-9780198725336-chapter-4.

Then, consider the question: If a philosopher turns out to have committed acts that are outrageously immoral, does it *necessarily* follow that there is something fundamentally incorrect in their philosophy?

3) Do some research on Aaronson's case of "comment 171". Here are a few places to start:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2119
https://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/on-nerd-entitlement-rebel-alliance-empire
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/the-blog-comment-that-achieved-an-internet-miracle/384539/
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-Scott-Aaronsons-comment-171-and-the-subsequent-posts
https://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/mit-professor-explains-the-real-oppression-is-having-to-learn-to-talk-to-women/

Summarize what happened, an in-depth analysis of why you believe it was such a big deal, and who you think was in the right (Aaronson, or the feminists), if any.