George Will on David Irving

George Will always deserves reading--his thought is honest, and his writing is clear and thoughtful. This piece, from yesterday's Washington Post, is no exception. Will shows the folly of Europe's laws banning Holocaust denial--as he says in the opening line, "In some recess of David Irving's reptile brain, he knows that his indefensible imprisonment is helping his side."

Will takes his sentiments to their logical conclusion, arguing against any limitations on speech, including--his pet issue--campaign finance laws. He also objects to the category of hate crimes, which draws its justification from the same well.

I happen to agree with most of Will's column (as, to my surprise, I frequently do; would that all conservatives were as seemingly honest and wrote as clearly). Though I would open up the question on hate crimes: Doesn't the motivation for hate crimes--to give the less-powerful ammunition against the more-powerful (think lynchings in the South)--stem from a similar place as the victims' rights movement?

Will's point is that simply enforcing our laws equitably is what ensures the greatest liberty for the greatest number. True. So we shouldn't be making any special provisions for the less powerful (minorities--or victims). I want to believe that such an approach works. But Will assumes perfect efficiency the administration of the law, something our history does not reflect. In the words of Colin Powell, "Power corrupts, and absolute power is pretty neat."

The effect of hate crime, or victims rights, or Holocaust denial legislation is to move public sentiment--to carry out crimes is bad enough, to do so with these narratives becomes worse. But to twist legitimate power according to these narratives is also bad (see "Wallace, George"). I agree with Will that criminal legislation is not the way to educate; yet our law codes do necessarily reflect our social values. The question for George Will, and all of us who value freedom of speech above nearly everything else, is: How do we educate the public towards tolerance, respect, a liberal ideals (small L) in ways that don't involve government coercion?

Dubai: The Dems hit the bottom, and Bush finds a graceful exit strategy

It was refreshing to hear of a graceful leadership move on the part of the Bush Administration this morning, as the Dubai-based company seeking management of six U.S. ports voluntarily (nudge-nudge, wink-wink, as reported in yesterday's NYT) asked for a full review of the deal. Everyone's interest is served: Congress, who gets to say they were tough on security; Bush, who gets to say he was right all along; and Dubai, which will get the contract at the end of the day.

There are two frustrating elements to this story: One is that Bush brought this upon himself by not doing the review process publicly to begin with. Yes, this kind of thing goes on all the time in the running of the U.S. government, but as Daniel Shor said last week on NPR, these days, when the word 'Arab' is involved, you have to be careful. Sad but true. It was Bush's stupidity or hubris (take your pick) that led to this situation.

But I could expect secrecy from the president. What else is new? What was more disturbing was the scaremongering of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Exclude a company from a contract simply because they're Arab-owned? Jews have a special role to play here in being sensitive to this kind of thing: The issue should be one of merit, not ethnicity. If you can do the job--which includes making sure security isn't breached--at the lowest price, you get the job, case closed. Good for Congress that it spoke up, but shame for the way much of it was done.

Never Again Campaign passes 5,000 signatures!

Hats off to the over 5,000 people who have signed the Never Again Campaign petition! This is a major achievement for the organizers of the campaign, and a tremendous statement of support for the students of Northwestern. How soon will it reach 10,000?

What other country needs a right to exist?

Here's a great piece from today's issue of Haaretz that points up the singular status of Israel in the world. About what other nation do we ask the question, "Does it have a right to exist?" To quote: "Hamas must now come to grips with the possibility that if it insists on withholding recognition of Israel's right to exist as a nation, some of the Palestinians' traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere may begin to withhold recognition of the right of Palestine to exist as a future nation." Or maybe not.

Slavery Still Exists--In Israel of All Places

Every year on Passover Jews recite a text from the Haggadah that reads, "In every generation one is commanded to view himself as if he personally had left Egypt." It takes a lot for us to make those words meaningful, because we are fortunate to live in good conditions, with unprecedented access to food, water, shelter, health care, and education. We psychologize about what slavery means: "You can't be a slave to work:" or "Liberate yourself from your addiction to money."

But the truth is, slavery still exists, all over the world. What is perhaps most shocking for many Jews is that slavery exists in our very own state. This is a story that has not gotten much publicity, but one which needs to be told. It is a cause I have been involved with for a few years, particularly through my mentor and friend Rabbi Levi Lauer, founder of ATZUM (www.atzum.org). And so it was very heartening to see the following editorial in this week's Jewish Week.

Rabbi Josh 

One of Butz's comrades admits his errors in court--again

Irving admits Holocaust 'mistake'
The timing really couldn't be any better. We can quibble about whether or not it's a good idea for Holocaust denial to be illegal in Europe, but we can't argue about the truth. Seems neither can David Irving anymore.

Very important article from NYT on Palestinian elections

Check out this piece by James Glanz from yesterday's Week in Review section of The New York Times. Glanz quotes extensively from Jarret Blanc, an American elections expert, who points out that, in fact, Hamas received fewer votes overall than Fatah in nearly every district, including in Gaza. Yet, because of the "bloc voting" mechanism that Fatah originally stuck into the election law in order to ensure their hegemony, Hamas was able to sweep the vote.

There are potentially some important implications here: If the Hamas vote really was about protesting the corruption of the PA, as many have suggested, then this gives Israel ammunition to stick to a hard-line policy. On that score, I would also recommend this very interesting article from the New Republic a couple of weeks ago that argues for just such a policy. In shades of the Cold War strategy of spending the USSR into oblivion, Joseph Braude argues for letting Hamas turn to Iran for support.

Arab "views" of the Holocaust

On this afternoon's edition of The World on NPR, listen in for a segment on how the Holocaust is viewed in Egypt, as embelmatic of many Arab countries. Suffice it to say that, while our local Holocaust denier here at Northwestern can cause (hopefully) a limited amount of confusion, in the hands of government and educators Holocaust denial can be and is used for hateful and destructive purposes.

Lipstadt Weighs In

This article from today's Daily Northwestern is by preeminent Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt. I hope it effectively puts to rest any confusion that Arthur Butz's academic credentials may have brought about. She went to court to prove his falsehoods, and those of his cronies, were just that--devoid of any legitimacy, and she won. Case closed.

Why The Daily Editorial Was Wrong

Ever since the entire Arthur Butz episode erupted (see the website www.neveragaincampaign.org for links to all the relevant materials), the overarching question has focused not so much on Butz's views (which are overwhelmingly discredited) but on free speech. In the background of the discussion is the current furor in Europe which aims to pit the right to freedom of the press against respect for religious sensibilities. And further in the background we have some meta-questions about the distinction between fact and story (see Oprah v. James Frey, or reality television, or critiques of the Iraq war). I want to engage some of these questions over this blog.

But that's a lot to tackle right now. In the meantime, let's look at one manifestation of these issues, in this morning's editorial from the The Daily Northwestern, explaining their decision to invite Arthur Butz to write a column:

"By publishing Butz, we hope readers looked past the byline and read the content. People hear the term “Holocaust revisionist” and jump to their own conclusions. If Butz’s comments were violent and or hateful, we wouldn’t have run them. Through the column, The Daily hoped to facilitate a more educated debate over Butz’s beliefs. If the comments on dailynorthwestern.com are any indication, that debate has begun."

Some unpacking, please:
1. "we hope readers looked past the byline and read the content." But isn't the issue here precisely the fact that Butz uses his Northwestern credential as his ticket to legitimacy? If he wasn't an NU prof., we wouldn't bothering with any of this. So you can't look past the byline in this case. No one, including the Daily, disputes the facts. So then why dispute the facts? The issue, as we all know, is the byline.

2. "People hear the term “Holocaust revisionist” and jump to their own conclusions." Yes, and people hear the term 'journalist' and jump to their own conclusions. Just because Armstrong Williams presents himself as a journalist doesn't mean he abides by the standards of journalism; and just because Arthur Butz presents himself as an (armchair) historian doesn't mean he abides by the standards of historical study. Would the Daily have published a piece, claiming to be factual (and was it claiming to be factual when it was printed on the opinion page? Interesting question.), by a discredited journalist? I would hope not. So why publish a piece by a discredited historian?

Additionally, the Daily was played here just like so many others: There is a difference between 'revisionism,' which is a legitimate form of historical inquiry, and 'denial,' which rejects facts that have been univeresally accepted by the community of scholars. Arthur Butz is a denier who presents himself as a revisionist, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

3. "If Butz’s comments were violent and or hateful, we wouldn’t have run them." What's the standard here? For many people, whose parents and grandparents still wake up with nightmares about Nazi deathcamps, Butz's words are violent and hateful. At best the Daily editors display insensitivity to many people.

4. "Through the column, The Daily hoped to facilitate a more educated debate over Butz’s beliefs." Which means you found his beliefs worthy of debate. Like one of today's letter writers, I would prefer to see the Daily's precious resources--the "Forum" on campus!--devoted to serious discussion. A debate about free speech is interesting and worthwhile. A debate about Arthur Butz's discredited delusions is another, and doesn't belong in the Daily.