I studies for a degree in biological sciences at a Scottish university in the 90s. In one tutorial, which was mixed between biology students and medics, we explored the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and how it should be managed in society.
There were a few very vocal, very well spoken medics, (clearly spent time in the debating club of posh schools) who argued that people with HIV/AIDs should be segregated ), or at the very least they should have to declare their status on everything on everything - schools, mortgages - to class mates..
To begin with many in the class just nodded along despite the homophobic and plain nasty views on display. The tutor let this conversation play out, prompting them to take it to the natural conclusion (one medic thought putting people with AIDS on an island was best).
Myself and others began to challenge this way of thinking, pointed out that if we did this with HIV / AIDS then why not all communicable diseases, that this was horrifically discriminatory, that it was a total over reaction given what was known then about the disease, and that it simply wasn't humane.
By allowing the dialogue to unfold, people started to think for themselves, challenge points being put forward very confidently by extremely well spoken and domineering public school boys. The consensus at the end of this was broadly the right one, but we only got there because no-one was censored, even when saying really quite abhorrent things, and everyone was prompted to think for themselves and form their own views. This is how academia should work.