The Emory Wheel and Other "Antisemitic" Incidents at Emory

EDITED 10:27 A.M. [EDITS IN ITALICS]

The editor of the Emory Wheel has an editorial in today's paper regarding the editorial board's decision to run the cartoon. It is written in a way that will allow people to interpret it as they wish, though it does seem to acknowledge that many people in the Emory community found the editorial distasteful. After posting this I heard from the editor. He said that, since there are still letters coming in to the paper, he did not want to shut down conversation by making a definitive statement one way or the other. [Or, at the least, that's how I understood him...]

Another Emory related item: Last week on a Sunday evening there was a fire set at the fraternity house a fire at the AEPi house. The fraternity is known as a "Jewish" fraternity. Many people linked this to the Emory Wheel cartoon and the excitement on campus over a demonstration about the West Bank fence/wall. For the Atlanta Journal Constitution coverage of the story see here.

There were those who assumed it was an antisemitic act. The police don't know if it is. The situation is complicated by the fact that at Kappa Alpha house this past Friday morning there was an incident of vandalism and one at the Sigma Chi house last Tuesday.

People should wait for the police investigation to be completed. Then they should look at it and decide if it is a fair and comprehensive effort rather than one that is designed to calm fears.

There is always time to yell, scream, and accuse. Now is the time to let professionals do their jobs.

Meeting with Emory's "Infamous" Cartoonist: A Learning Experience

Yesterday afternoon I met with Dylan Woodliff, the young man who drew the cartoon in the Emory Wheel comparing the wall/fence between the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel to the ghettos under the Nazis. For background on this see here.

After hearing from some of his teachers and his fellow students that he was a "good guy" who got into something way over his head. I had emailed him offering to meet him. He readily agreed.

My motivation for doing so was twofold. I felt, based on what I had been told and on his "explanation" which accompanied the cartoon, that he had gotten in way over his head. Maybe there was room to do what it is our job to do, educate. I wanted him to understand why what he did was so wrong.

Secondly, he had been subjected to a barrage of criticism, well deserved criticism but criticism nonetheless. Rarely does a single student do something that gets 46 professors to unequivocally condemn his actions. I was concerned about him. It's pretty heavy stuff for one person -- particularly a student -- to face. I wanted him to know that though I felt strongly about what he did but felt empathy for him as a person.

I found a contrite student who was worried that people thought he was an antisemite and that he had ruined his future. [In the age of Google these things don't go away.] I found a student who tried to make a point about the politics of the Middle East and did so in a thoughtless and ill informed fashion.

We did not talk that much about the cartoon itself because by this time he knew full well that he had really messed up and that he should never have made the analogy. In fact I told him about how, in the past, I had tried, on occasion, to make a point about something and, in the course of so doing, said something stupid, angry, or extreme. My point was lost because all anyone could focus on was the extreme way in which I had expressed myself.

I assured him that I had no doubt that he was not an antisemite. In fact, if I had thought otherwise I probably would not have bothered to meet him.

The previous evening I had also met with Sal Rizzo,the editor of the Wheel. I think he too realizes that he and his editorial board failed in their job of ensuring responsible journalism. I am not talking about censorship. Obviously they have the freedom to screw up... as they did royally. I talked about judgment.

Both students realized that by using this false and hurtful analogy they had ultimately shot themselves in the foot. No one had discussed Middle East policy. All people had discussed was the thoughtless analogy.

These two meetings reminded me that we do a lot of our educating in the classroom but sometimes we do our most important educating outside of it. I think they learned something... and so did I.

A Cartoon that Says it All, No Explanation Necessary

With thanks to Bruce's Mideast Soundbites for finding this cartoon.

The British boycott of Israeli Universities

Ken Stern, of the American Jewish Committee, has written a thoughtful piece on the proposed boycott of Israeli universities by British academics.

Israel as the N-word

A few years ago an American Indian friend phoned me, absolutely perplexed. He could not reconcile two stories in his morning paper – one in the news section, the other in sports. Both were about major Florida universities.

The first story reported universal outrage at and severe sanctions on a fraternity which had hosted an event where participants dressed in blackface. The leadership of the university spoke in strong language about not tolerating racism, the hurt of stereotypes, the psychological impact of dehumanization, and the incompatibility of such offensive behavior with the standards of a university.

The second noted, without comment, that the leadership of another Florida university (which had an Indian mascot) was encouraging students to show up at a major sporting event in red face.

“How can people get it when it comes to racism against African Americans,” he lamented, “but don’t have a clue when Indian people are victimized by the same outrageous nonsense?”

I had some theories, none of them completely satisfactory. But I recall thinking such a blatant double standard rarely appears regarding bigotry against other groups, including Jews.

Recently I opened the New York Times and saw two articles. One reported that a union of academics in the United Kingdom (The University and College Union) voted to support the principle of a boycott against Israeli academics.

The other noted the plight of an Iranian-American academic from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars who was being imprisoned by the repressive regime in Iran. I was tempted to call my Indian friend and ask him, how could it be that academics want to demonize their Israeli colleagues simply because they are Israelis, but are absolutely silent when a repressive regime in the same region is actually imprisoning scholars?

[....]

It is bad enough that repressive regimes in the Arab and Muslim world (many of which are theocratic and autocratic) demonize Israel and promote dehumanizing views of Jews through their media and religious and education institutions.

[....] But now many in intellectual circles, especially in Europe, are also demonizing Israel with such regularity and glee as to resemble sport.

There is an historic parallel here which, while not applicable in every particular, is becoming increasing apt: the way leading Southern institutions treated blacks fifty years ago. Israel has in effect become the ni**er among the family of states or in the terms of anti-Semitic slur, “the ‘kike’ among the nations.”

[....]

Kenneth S. Stern

Columbia's Prez Bolinger condemns British boycott of Israeli univerisites

Columbia President Lee Bolinger has issued a scathing critique of the proposed British academic boycott of Israeli universities. I hope other University presidents join him.

University of Leeds [UK] Cancels Speech Critical of Islam: Self-Censorship run amuck

The University of Leeds cancelled a speech by Dr. Matthias Kuentzel of Germany.The speech, entitled ‘Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East’ was cancelled on the day Dr. Kuentzel arrived in Leeds without any explanation to him or apology. In addition to his speech, his two seminars were also cancelled.

The Secretary of the University admitted that the University “received no threats, and only a handful of complaints”. Apparently the university received some E-mails by Muslim students who asked for the "cancelling the lecture all together” and to “apologize to the Muslim Community as a whole, for suggesting such a topic.”

For more information on this controversy see the website of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East [SPME]. For those interested, Kuentzel's paper may be dowloaded.

I have written the following letter to the Secretary of the University: Dear University Secretary Gair:

I am writing you to express my outrage at the cancellation of the talk by Dr. Matthew Küntzel. Dr. Küntzel is an academic and someone whose views would be of interest to the academic community at the University of Leeds.

I understand that one of the reasons the lecture was cancelled was on "safety grounds. to protect the safety of participants in the event" as your press release indicates. First of all, this indicates that your university can easily be silenced by threats. More importantly, it suggests that a few protestors can silence anyone they don't like. I am given to understand that his lecture had been well publicized for weeks. This suggests that the university had enough time to put proper security in place.

It appears that your university has practiced self-censorship of the first order. Your behavior is an embarrassment to an institution which claims to engage in higher education or, truth be told, education of any form.

For your information,I recently received an inquiry from some students at your university inquiring whether I would be willing to come to Leeds at some point to discuss Holocaust denial and the growing antisemitism and anti-Israelism on many university campuses. I would also discuss my defense in Irving v. Lipstadt, the libel trial which resulted from David Irving's charge against me of libel. I predict that there will be those who will try to do to me exactly what a number of Muslim students have successfully managed to get you to do to Dr. Küntzel. If my schedule permits me to accept the students' invitation, I shall watch with interest whether once again you show the same commitment to academic freedom and free speech that you have shown in this case.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ph.D.
Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies
Director, Institute for Jewish Studies
Emory University

National Alliance News Reports on Xavier talk

The National Alliance News, which bills itself as news for "white people by white people," reports on the tremendous event which took place at Xavier University in Cincinnati. The article closes with a vote of

Thanks to all White nationalists who took part in this event.

That speaks for itself.

By the way, this is the group that David Irving addressed a number of times during his visits to the US. For details go to www.hdot.org

Neo-Nazi Clowns try to dusrupt my lecture

I spoke last night at Xavier University in Cincinnati [where they were still mourning their loss to OSU in overtime] and my lecture was disrupted by some nut who began to scream about Ilya Ehrenburg and how Jews cause antisemitism. He was ushered out -- but not before some older man almost engaged him in a fist fight.

Then a group of skinheads marched in and stood at the back of the auditorium in two different groups. I would say there were about 20 of them.

By this time the auditorium was crawling with university security.

They wore black or red t-shirst with swastikas and other symbols. They were pretty far away but one seemed to have "White Power" on his shirt. Their leader assumed a Mussolini pose [I had to control myself from telling him that he was emulaing the wrong fascist]: arms crossed on his chest and his chest thrust forward.

Periodically he would march up and down the line and say something to the others. To me it was pretty comical. Most of the audience did not know they were there. I think some of the people who have been very disturbed had they known.

During the Q&A one audience member asked about what David Irving is doing now. I said he spends most of his time talking to skinhead lowlife characters. I looked directly at them when I said it, grinned a bit, and squelched my inclination to "just like the folks in the back."

At the very end of the Q&A session I said: "We have a number of visitors in the back. They have come to disrupt and to make a fuss. The worst thing you can do to them is ignore them. I ask, therefore, that you don't engage them in debate and conversation. They deserve one thing and one thing only: to be ignored."

Thankfully the audience complied.

As I was driving home I realized that these must be the people who attend David Irving's "Real History" conference every August. They deserve each other.

What a bunch of clowns. And what a way to spend your birthday.

Holocaust denial manages to make itself felt in certain university classrooms. Such was the case in Boulder last year. Check out the article in The Denver Post

While I am told that David Irving did not talk about the Holocaust in the class, it is quite interesting that a man who has been declared to be a liar, denier, espouser of racism and antisemitism, and falsifier of history would be invited to speak in a university class.

Lipstadt at University of Colorado, Wednesday 2/28: Students fear disruptions

I will be speaking at the University of Colorado on Wednesday, February 28th, in the Glenn Miller Auditorium at 7:00 [double check the time]. According to the student newspaper, this appearance has caused some concern at the university because of a faculty member who seems rather sympathetic to Holocaust deniers and whose essay won in 2004 from the white supremacist group Stormfront, an organization whose website proclaims that it is for "pro-White activists and anyone else interested in White survival."

While some students on the campus have expressed fear that he will disrupt the lecture, I have posted a comment on the student newspaper:

From my perspective, Mr. McNair is welcome to attend my lecture. He might actually learn something about David Irving, a man who was declared by Judge Charles Gray of the Royal High Court, to be a liar, Holocaust denier, a man with racist and antisemitic views, whose claims about history are a "travesty."

See Judge Gray's evaluation of Irving at www.hdot.org [click on Verdict and go to Part XIII].

See you this week.

Deborah Lipstadt, Ph.D.

Neturei Karta at MIT: MIT's Jewish Community responds strategically

MIT's Jewish Community has responded in what seems to me, an observor from afar, a strategically well-fashioned style to the appearance of the Neturei Karta so-called rabbi, David Weiss, at MIT. They make a number of important points, two of which jump out at me.

* This was advertised as a "Jewish view" on "Foreign Policy and Social Justice." To describe a view that has been condemned from everyone from the left end of the spectrum to Satmar on the right as a "Jewish view" is ridiculous. These people represent a couple of thousand Neturei Karta, people known for their intense hatred of most other Jews who don't share their views.

* There are groups on the MIT campus who have been actively involved in interfaith dialogue. To invite this guy is a slap in the face at those who have dedicated themselves to constructive dialogue.

Boston Jewish Advocate on visit of Neturei Karta rabbi to MIT

Here's the Jewish Advocate story on the visit of this so-called rabbi to MIT.

MIT to host Neturei Karta rabbi who was at Holocaust denial conference in Iran

According to the MIT calendar, tonight at 7 p.m. so-called Rabbi David Weiss of Neturei Karta will be speaking at MIT. So you can rush from hearing Jimmy Carter up to Cambridge to hear another convoluted [you could use a stronger term] version of history.

Actually, I would suggest that people refrain from going and that they certainly NOT demonstrate against Weiss. This is what he wants, media attention. He reminds me, as I have said on this blog before, of what my lawyer Anthony Julius said to me about fighting David Irving, "he is like the dirt [use a different term here as well] you step in on the street. It has no intrinsic importance unless you fail to clean it off your feet."

Go to an Israeli movie, read a book by David Grossman, read Ha'aretz or any one of a myriad other positive and affirmative things about Israel. Ignore this piece of....

Lipstadt discusses free speech on campus

At a recent Hillel sponsored Washington conference on "The University and the Jewish Community", Prof. Lipstadt was among the speakers who addressed the subject of free speech on campus. Inside Higher Ed has a report on the conference; here is an excerpt:

People of the Book (and the University)

[...]

Not all of the talk at the meeting was about broad issues of faith — much of it focused on the specifics of campus politics.

Deborah E. Lipstadt, director of the Tam Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University, led a discussion about how colleges should respond to incidents of “hate speech” against Jewish students. Lipstadt, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts on Holocaust deniers, noted that she is a strong supporter of unrestricted speech and that she opposes laws in some countries that limit the ability to argue or publish Holocaust-denying materials. “We have history on our side,” she said, and bans on Holocaust deniers turn them into “martyrs.” For similar reasons, she said she was very skeptical of attempts to regulate campus speech.

In some sense, everyone on the panel agreed, with all endorsing free speech. But some focused on other issues.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor known for his fierce defense of the First Amendment and his equally fierce devotion to Jewish causes, said in a video presentation that he is pretty close to being an “absolutist” on free speech issues on campuses. He said that he applauded the idea that campuses needed to have a “circle of civility” for discussion of tough issues. But he said that there needed to be “ism equity” when talking about which kinds of criticism would be tolerated in what way.

Dershowitz said that on many campuses, criticism of Arabs would be labeled harassment while equal criticism of Jews or of Israel would be considered protected free speech. He said that this “double standard” was wrong — and that campuses needed to treat all groups the same way. “You can’t have affirmative action on free speech.”

[...]

Northwestern's Butz loses his University website... and so does everyone else at NWU

Northwestern University announced that it was shutting down all faculty and student personal websites in the near future.

Officially the reason was because there was little use of this service and there are now many places where people can post personal materials.

Unofficially, this offers Northwestern a way out of one aspect of their Butz problem. He was using his personal website to deny the Holocaust. The university could not shut him down without shutting lots of other people down. Therefore -- until now -- it did nothing.

In the article in the Daily Northwestern one student expressed his dismay at this development. The Northwestern site, he said, provided "credibility" that other sites did not have because they were not university sites.

This may have been precisely the reason the sites will soon be history. As often as the university stated that it did not - in any manner, shape or form -- endorse what was on Butz's site, people still associated his denial with the university itself.

Ciao to the websites.

Northwestern University: An update

Apparently the editors at the Daily Northwestern told the Hillel leadership that they would be publishing my column -- or some other column -- reacting to Butz.

Instead they published their delusional editorial commending themselves for starting an "educated debate" about Butz's ideas [aka among discerning folks as "distortions and lies"].

These folks may be living in la-la land. That's their prerogative. But to have such dribble published as an editorial in the newspaper of one of America's leading universities, is an embarrassment.

O'Reilly Factor on Northwestern's Butz

I made a brief appearance last night on the O'Reilly Factor regarding Arthur Butz, the Northwestern professor who is a great fan of the Iranian President.

O'Reilly, recognizing that since Butz has tenure he can't be fired, asked what could be done. I suggested that even though Butz does not mention the Holocaust in his electrical engineering classes, he should not be allowed to teach.

O'Reilly asked if this would be a violation of his academic freedom. I said no, he still can say whatever he wants to say but he just won't be allowed in the courtroom which is a form of endorsement [possibly passive but endorsement nonetheless] by the university.

O'Reilly liked the idea [?!!] and said he would take it up with the Northwestern president.

Never a dull moment.