Required reading

Module I — A Survey of the Historical Record

The candidate will be expected to recall, on demand, that the Hawaiian pizza was invented in 1962 by a Greek immigrant in Ontario, Canada, a fact which, when delivered with sufficient conviction, has been observed to silence even the most strident traditionalist for several seconds. The student is encouraged to memorize the inventor’s name (Sam Panopoulos) and the precise restaurant (the Satellite, in Chatham), as these particulars are dispositive in formal debate.

Module II — The Sweet-and-Savory Tradition

The opposing party will frequently advance the argument that fruit has no place on pizza. The candidate will respond, with equanimity, that tomatoes are fruits, a position which is biologically unimpeachable and which, when delivered, generally produces a long pause followed by an attempted reformulation of the original objection. The student is to remain silent during this reformulation. It is, as the saying goes, the trap.

Module III — Fallacies of Culinary Purism

The candidate must achieve fluency in the major fallacies routinely deployed against the Hawaiian: (i) the Appeal to Italy (“a real Italian would never”); (ii) the Sliding Scale (“if pineapple, then anything”); (iii) the Ad Verecundiam (“Gordon Ramsay said”); and (iv) the most pernicious, the Appeal to the Personal (“I just don’t like it”), which the student is reminded is not an argument.

Module IV — Dinner-Party De-escalation

The advanced practitioner is expected to defend the Hawaiian without ruining the dinner party at which the defense becomes necessary. The candidate will demonstrate the four canonical de-escalations: the Genial Concession (“we can order another pizza too”), the Pivot to Anchovies (a topic upon which all parties can be reliably united in shared disgust), the Strategic Compliment (“this wine is excellent, by the way”), and the Final Withdrawal (“you are absolutely right, I am going to the bathroom”).

Module V — Final Considerations

The graduate is expected to defend the Hawaiian, when called upon, with calm authority; to refuse, on principle, the term “abomination”; and to remember, above all, that the practitioner does not eat pineapple pizza because they cannot taste — they eat it because they have decided.