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.
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.
posted by Rabbi Josh Feigelson | 9:07 AM
3 Comments:
Very well-said. You make excellent points.
Yeah, see... the issue of free speech is brought up to corrupt the issue.. it is that this man is not just exercising his right to free speech.
He is an employee of a PRIVATE university. (They can fire him if they want to.) By keeping him on the faculty and allowing him use of their web resources to put his ideas out there and letting him use their name to give his opinions legitimacy they are espousing his claims in a subtle way. I'm really upset that he hasn't had his pay reduced. Surely the university can do THAT. (It's so lovely to know that our university administrators are that powerless with regard to their own insittution.)
Rachel, the fact that it's a private university is precisely the point--NU can choose whatever course of action it deems appropriate. I frankly think firing him does more harm than good--it creates a martyr, and it opens up all sorts of questions based on the history of the Jews in academia during the Nazi period. Yes, someone with these views should not get tenure; but once tenure is granted, I think you need to stick with it.
FYI, my understanding is that a) he has been stripped of his courseload for the coming quarter; and b) he hasn't had a pay raise in 30 years and is making $18,000 from NU.
Post a Comment
<< Home