Finally, there is what might be called a narrow or very restrictive approach, such as Michael Berenbaum attributed to Elie Wiesel. In this, the Holocaust is on a different plane, outside history as it were, not subject to comparison. In terms of teaching, these questions of definition concern primarily the university level, where one can expect or hope that students will get involved deeply in the subject. Teachers in schools find that debates about definition do not move the students very much. Instead, they need to be brought into direct contact with the subject, so they can feel and understand what it is about, why and how genocide happened, and in what kind of social and historical context.
Many departments can be the vehicle for teaching genocide in universities.
The historical approach is obviously very useful for gaining perspective. Genocide can provide a way of approaching many periods and aspects of civilization, a way which is novel for most students. I use the historical perspective in my own courses, taking the common element of genocide as a means of exposing the class to a great variety of human experience. More broadly interdisciplinary is the approach of Facing History, which combines the methods of history, psychology and sociology to help people get directly inside the events in question. Frank Chalk addresses the need to understand the people who actively committed genocide, and their motives.