Newsgroups: soc.college Subject: CODOH's paid advertisements: MIT Summary: Followup-To: alt.revisionism Distribution: world Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac Keywords: CODOH,Harvard Archive/File: orgs/american/codoh/university.response mit.001 Last-Modified: 1993/10/20 The following articles are reprinted, with permission, from the March 3, 1992 edition of //The Tech//, MIT's student-run independent newspaper. They are Copyright 1992 by //The Tech//. Typos are probably mine. ************************* No Room for `Revisionists' in The Tech Column by Josh Hartmann CHAIRMAN Over the last year, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust has submitted full-page advertisements to college newspapers across the country entitled, "The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate." The ads essentially claim that the Holocaust perpetrated in Germany during World War II did not occur. Roughly half the newspapers who received it, including those from Northwestern, Duke, Cornell, and the University of Michigan, ran the ad, while newspapers at Harvard, Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, and several other schools refused it. CODOH, led by a gentleman named Bradley R. Smith, is a historical revision organization. The advertisement, which is also distributed as a leaflet, makes extensive arguments about how claims of the Holocaust come from a Zionist conspiracy. Smith quotes "noted" historians, all of whom claim that gas chambers and organized plans for killing Jews never existed. Smith probably figures that the most open-minded (read: gullible) audiences will be on college campuses. It is likely that he also figures that while //The New York Times// would not hesitate to refuse the ad, college editors and publishers will face a tough decision in their zeal for freedom of speech. Additionally, Smith probably realizes that all college newspapers are strapped for cash and would gladly take thc money for a full-page ad. The publishers and editors of these newspapers each had their reasons, many very convincing, for running or refusing the advertisement. "It wasn't a decision we came to easily," said Helen Junt, last year's executive editor of //The Daily Pennsylvanian//. "Our executive board voted. We decided 5-2 not to run it. I didn't want to be accepting their $1,000 to accept their ad that had lies that promoted hatred. We weren't worried about offending the community." Kim Barker, the editor in chief of //The Northwestern Daily//, had different reasons for running the ad. "We were the first school to run it. We were sort of the litmus test for Bradley Smith. It was on the basis of free speech. I don't really think it is our job to be censoring ideas, no matter how offensive they may be." But, when Smith tried to place a second ad in the //Daily//, it was refused. "Once an idea has been aired the ad is no longer needed," Barker explained. Barker also said the ad generated extraordinary debate on Northwestern's campus, including threatening phone calls to editors at the //Daily//. Freedom of speech was not an issue for //The Daily Pennsylvanian//. "This is an advertising issue," Junt said. "The press has freedom to accept ads, if it wants to, and it also has the right to reject ads. It's not like we were telling them they couldn't come down to campus to distribute leaflets." This was also //The Harvard Crimson//'s argument. In an editorial, the Crimson said, "CODOH is free to pour their $700 into copying machines. They can print up flyers and hawk them around Harvard Square to their heart's content." Their explanation continued "But we are under no obligation to run CODOH's hateful nonsense beneath the banner of //The Harvard Crimson//." When running the ad, //The Cornell Daily Sun// used the advertisement as an exercise in education. It ran articles and columns about the advertisement in the same issue, said Niraj Khemlani, cditor in chief. "Is it our duty to protect readers from offensive idcas? I don't think so," Khemlani said. "It benefits people by knowing that such a person exists; then people can shoot him down. Any time someone has an idea, they shouldn't be shunned. Those allegations are opinions." Last week, CODOH sent the ad to //The Tech//. We refused to print it. //The Tech// will publish an advertisement with anyone's opinion. We are not afraid of offending readers with the opinions printed in our pages, since all opinions are debatable. But the fact of the Holocaust is simply not dcbatable. The overwhelming evidence of the last 45 years leads to only one conclusion --- that over 6 million pcople were killed under a plan masterminded by Adolf Hitler designed to eliminate Jews and other "undesirables." To deny that the Holocaust happened is tantamount to saying that slavery never happened. In refusing to run this advertisement, we refused to run a series of allegations which are entirely unfounded. While Smith cleverly worded the text of the advertisement in an attempt to avoid telling direct lies, the spirit of the ad is straightforward: It is intended to brainwash curious, gullible people to believe things that simply are not true. Printing the advertisement does little to further education about the Holocaust. First, we believe that the members of thc MIT community are intelligent and are already educated about the Holocaust. Second, any debate about the advertisement would not focus on the Holocaust; instead, it would center around the issue of whether //The Tech// should have printed the advertisement. The issue of education can be equally served through this and other columns and letters to the editor. Any coherent, carefully thought-out attempt to justify the Holocaust is welcome and merits publication. But there is no room in this newspaper for the vicious lies found in CODOH's advertisement. ************************* //Tech// Has Responsibility to Print Truth Column by Blll Jackson LEAD GUITAR As I write this column, a pamphlet from a gentleman named Bradley R. Smith sits in front of me. Brad is a Colonel Sanders-looking guy with a really bad attitude. Smith wanted to take out an advertisement, to present a full page of what he calls "historical revisionism" in //The Tech//. Smith has been sending the ad to college newspapers all over the country. You may have already heard about Mr. Smith's brand of history, in which he calls for ``open debate'' on the Holocaust. Setting aside the pathetic insinuation that debate isn't already open, reading this literature makes it clear that Smith is not promoting open debate, but pushing anti-Semitism. Still, there was a great deal of argument among //Tech// staff members about whether to accept or refuse the advertisement. I am not a member of the Executive Board, but I was allowed to listen in on and participate in the discussion. One standard argument we discussed says that //The Tech// has a responsibility to print all points of view, and just because this is a minority opinion, //The Tech// shouldn't refuse the ad. If someone were to enter the office of //The Tech// to place an advertisement about Charles Vest being from an alien planet trying to steal Earth technology, our readership would expect us to turn the advertisement down. The Holocaust ad is no more plausible or acceptable from a standpoint of being responsible to //The Tech//'s readership. What I mean by ``being responsible'' is that //The Tech// has an editorial responsibility to its readers. While this responsibility is lessened for advertisements, The Tech can still refuse anything it feels does not fit in with the standards of the publication. It helps to think of the problem in reverse: if //The Tech// were obligated, either morally or legally, to print Smith's ad, then in a sense //The Tech//'s right to free speech --- its right to publish and not publish whatever it chooses --- would be violated. I defend Smith's right to disseminate his information. However, there is an enormous difference between defending someone's right to speak and actively committing your own resources to helping that person speak. I defend the rights of random LaRouchies to wander Massachusetts Ave. Iooking for converts and handing out pamphlets, but in order to defend that right, I do not have to stand out there and pass out copies. In debating this issue, //The Tech//'s Executive Board mulled over many different possible courses of action, including printing the ad alone, printing the ad with a disclaimer, and not printing the ad. Printing the ad with a disclaimer would have been a mistake. By choosing to give space to both ``sides'' of this non-issue, //The Tech// would implicitly give credence to Smith's side. In printing arguments from both sides of an issue, //The Tech// implicitly agrees there is a valid issue to be debated and that each side has something worthy to say on the issue. By this criterion, I, as an opinion editor, would endorse a series of columns debating the abortion issue, but not a series of columns debating the shape of the earth. I would not, however, actively stifle the Flat Earth Society. This responsibility to decide the difference between "fact" and "debatable issue" is the main reason //The Tech// was right not to run the Holocaust ad. Is it worth printing an obvious piece of garbage just to provoke violent response? The final argument, and one which came close to convincing the board to run the ad, states that //The Tech// should run it in order to make people aware that such anti-Semitism exists. I disagree for one reason; the column you are now reading should make you aware that such anti-Semitism exists. If you need more confirmation, I suggest you write to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which will send you more information about Smith and his group. This is, in my mind, a much better way for //The Tech// to get the word out about this racism. The Executive Board of //The Tech// should be commended for its decision not to run the ad. I hope that other campus and local papers follow this example and decide not to commit their own resources to help spread hate speech. --
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.