I was making my comparison based on the videos you'd linked, but Mrs. Hornby clearly delineated her role-playing (of a racist archetype) from her post-simulation discussion afterward as well as other classroom discussion we'd had on the dynamics of Post-Reconstruction and Jim Crow.

By contrast, Ms. Elliott broke character many times throughout BOTH video excerpts, talking *at* the participants rather than *with* them. Maybe each of those formats were limiting her time and approach...and, since you cite her large body of work, perhaps some of her other interactions and approaches have been similar to Mrs. Hornby's? I'm just basing my assessment on the behavior she'd exhibited in those two clips...and, in BOTH of them, she exhibited the common traits I've frequently witnessed/encountered from people who want to dominate the narrative under the guise of "education." If you have any other video resources of her sessions that disprove this perception I have of Jane Elliott, I'd be more than willing to watch them.

Your last paragraph is really the key distinction. Role-playing and simulations can help any of us better understand, empathetically, a variation of an "-ism" that we haven't directly experienced...but when educators infuse such a practice into their routine teaching style as a matter of conduct and/or dogma, that's when they clearly have the chip on their shoulders that Jane Elliott appears to.

Another parallel could be drawn when Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago held a press conference where she invited ONLY journalists with BIPOC racial heritage to the event. She received criticism for that, but I thought her decision made perfect sense: Mayor Lightfoot was illustrating a point by allowing only BIPOC reporters to attend *ONE* select press conference, as a way to underscore the systemic barriers faced by journalists of color. Now, on the other hand, if she was regularly employing this tactic as standard operating procedure, then THAT would be a problem. But, as far as I can tell, she doesn't/isn't.