Was Heidegger a Nazi?

Heidegger, according to Wikipedia, joined the Nazi Party ten days after being elected as rector of University of Freiburg. Although the Nazi party was originally formed as a fascist socialist party, the party's intent was to limit party membership to less than ten percent of the general population. Business and government elites were encouraged to join, the general population was not. Party membership was forbidden to those who served as soldiers in the army, however for the elites (the SS, for eg) party membership was required. Although government workers and bureaucrats comprised only five percent of the general population, they made up fifteen percent of the party membership.
Bureaucrats (including university rectors, I assume) were three times more likely (than the general German population) to join the Nazi party. It is wrong, however, to extrapolate that government workers and bureaucrats were therefore three times more likely to support the Nazis.

Heidegger came to prominence when philosophers still held a position of prominence in university politics and governance. Being offered a rectorship of a major university was a great honour; it afforded a level of stature and respect granted to only the best and brightest.

Heidegger joined the Nazi party ten days after being elected rector - and resigned the rectorship one year later. Hannah Arendt, a Jew and  considered one the most important political theorists of our time, was a long-time romantic partner. At the end of the war, Heidegger was judged to be a follower of the Nazi party, not an active participant. He never spoke about the war and his time as rector, other than to say that it was the stupidest thing he had ever done. He did, however, have this to say about the mechanization of agriculture:

Agriculture is now a motorized food-industry — in essence, the same as the manufacturing of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps, the same as the blockading and starving of nations, the same as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs.

This statement echoes the thought of sociologist Max Weber, an earlier Freiburg professor. Weber developed the theory of social mechanization link The horrors of the holocaust were only possible through bureaucratic and industrial efficiency. The statement above expresses disgust at the mechanization and dehumanization of war, it does not  express indifference to the horrors of the holocaust.

Heidegger is guilty of ambition and perhaps temporary hubris. His silence on the subject of WWII cannot be seen as support for the ideals of national socialism and the Nazi Party.

Heidegger's explanation of the presence and being of an object led me to reflect upon the difference between the design of an object and the utility of an object, and to consider whether technology follows the same patterns. When nature causes an object (a plant or a river, for example) to come into being, the object has no intended utility. The plant or river is a plant or a river. When man harnesses the natural object it gains utility. When man harvests or uses the plant it now has utility; we can use it to sustain us physically or we can use it to beautify our life. The flower, however, had no sense of utility, it was simply existing in nature before it was given purpose. In the case of natural entities, they are without utility until they are harnessed or consumed as a commodity. Northern rivers are without utility until they are harnessed to produce electricity. The point I am trying to make here is that natural things are without utility until man repurposes them.
Man made commodities have purpose from their inception. Without utility, they would not be created in the first place. They are created with a distinct, intended utility.
However, man made objects may have unintended utility. A screw driver may be re-purposed to pry paint can lids off, a butter knife may be used as a screwdriver.
It is our ingenuity and creativeness that allows us to use technology to produce outcomes beyond their intended purpose.
The challenge with technology in education is to see beyond the intended utility of the technology and to discover others means of harnessing the technology in ways that add utility to that technology, not to be constrained by the prima facie intent of the technology.

iPads in class

The recent announcement by St. James-Assiniboia school division that all junior high  students will be supplied with a tablet computer is an inevitable development. Whenever a new technology is introduced, the adoption of that new technology is certain. Those who develop the technology do so without knowing the impact that the implementation of the technology will have.  Those who developed the steam powered textile loom did not intend to create industrial sweat shops, Henry Ford's realization that the assembly line could make the personal auto affordable to the middle class did not extend to urban sprawl and air pollution.

The application of Mcluhan's tetrad to the use of tablet computers produces some interesting results. The use of tablet computers might enhance students technological skills, reduce the reliance on expensive and static textbooks, enable students to incorporate the Internet and personal media into the classrooms and will likely exacerbate the decline of handwriting skills. The impact on classroom culture and discipline will depend on the level of control that the teacher has on the use of technology in the classroom, as well as the level of expertise the classroom teacher has with the technology.
The level of resistance and apprehension that parents have expressed with the implementation of the technology is understandable and predictable.  As the Luddites and Sabots did earlier, the new technology is being resisted by those who are being compelled to adopt the new technology. (or, in this case, the parents of the children who will be adopting the new technology).
Questions are being raised about the cost, educational effectiveness and overall efficacy of the new technology, and rightly so. Educational institutions have often been early adopters of technology, and have been at the forefront of technological change.  Smart boards have replaced whiteboards and blackboards, graphing calculators replaced slide rules and you tube and Wikipedia are replacing films and libraries.
The usefulness of the technology will ultimately rely on the skill of the teacher. If the teacher is able to integrate the iPad into the curriculum so that learning is enhanced, then the technology will be a benefit. If not, it will just be another distraction.  Remember the open area classroom and $3000  sx286 computers?