The last few weeks of the all-consuming Butzgate uproar have been among the most discouraging experiences of my two-and-a-half years at Northwestern.
Why? First and foremost by far is Arthur Butz himself. My grandmother survived the Nazi concentration camps; most of her family, including her parents and all but one of her siblings, weren’t so lucky. So I have no trouble understanding how infuriating it is that a professor can trade on this university’s good name to conclude that the Nazis weren’t really trying to kill millions of my people – to say nothing of the additional millions of non-Jews also killed in the camps – using theories and sources that have mostly been discredited (including by Emory University Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, who wrote in this space yesterday).
The outrage his comments sparked was heartfelt, genuine and well-justified. It has taken the form of forums, letters to the editor and petitions among students and faculty who repudiate Butz’s views.
Some of the petitions call on him to resign, although all acknowledge that his tenure and the importance of academic freedom prevent NU from firing him. Just in the pages of this newspaper, Butz has been called a crank, an embarrassment and – in University President Henry Bienen’s memorable and apt description – “odious.” And that’s just a sampling.
As far as I’m concerned, Butz deserves every word of it. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. But journalistic principles also say that when someone is attacked in your paper – not just the man’s views in general, but the man specifically and by name -you should make every effort to present his response. That this principle apparently isn’t self-evident is discouraging as well, and a comment on how poorly the public understands journalism. We gave Butz a guest column, and we ran an editorial a few days later explaining why we did so. Cue the next firestorm.
People on both sides misinterpreted and twisted our words. On the one hand, some of Butz’s supporters tried to claim us as their champion; on the other, groups both on and off campus, including the Anti-Defamation League, denounced us as irresponsible. Much of the criticism was focused on our statement that “the facts used were all verified, even if (Butz) drew horrendous, misguided conclusions from them.” Critics interpreted that to mean that we were claiming to verify Butz’s view of the Holocaust. Pay no attention to that second clause, I suppose, or to our explicit statement that we didn’t doubt the truth of the Holocaust.
What we actually meant was that we checked Butz’s specific assertions. Yes, a chemist named Germar Rudolf is in prison for violating German laws against denying the Holocaust. Yes, Timothy Ryback wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent” at Auschwitz. (Although the quote is out of context. Ryback goes on to explain that “the Nazis were scrupulous when it came to obscuring the ‘Final Solution’ in bureaucratic euphemism and also dismantling or obliterating their machinery of death.”) No, none of this means we chose “to provide legitimacy to the views of a Holocaust denier,” as the ADL asserts. No, I don’t particularly appreciate the implication that I’m an anti-Semite – and yes, I do take it personally.
If nothing else the whole fiasco has gotten people talking. Something encouraging could still come out of all this. Maybe more people will sign up for Prof. Peter Hayes’ course on the history of the Holocaust. And if the newly launched Never Again campaign really takes off, maybe some of this will have been worth it.
The other alternative is for us all to go through the same vicious cycle every few years. Now that’s a discouraging thought.
Campus Editor Michael Beder is a Medill junior. He can be reached at [email protected].
