OTHER VIEWS
The Publishing Of Hate Demands A Response
E
ow do we, as a body
politic, respond when the
nation's anti-Semites have
sufficient funds to period-
ically publish hate-filled Holocaust
denial ads in university student news-
papers throughout the country?
We respond with silence that is
deafening. Not only -that, but some
Jewish organizations even, inaccurately
and somewhat disingenuously, defend
the ads on the principle of freedom of
the press.
The issue has no constitutional rel-
evance whatsoever; media outlets have
a right to reject publication of any
material. Indeed, they make hundreds
of such decisions daily, involving
material ranging from ads to columns
to letters to the editor. Freedom of the
press includes the right not to publish,
and some papers, to their credit, have
rejected these ads.
The Jewish body politic was not
even sufficiently offended to speak out
publicly when the Justice, the student
newspaper at Brandeis University —
yes, Brandeis, a Jewish university —
published a Holocaust denial ad.
Berl Falbaum, a Farmington Hills
public relations executive and author,
teaches journalism part-time at Wayne
State University in Detroit.
INTERMARIAGE
from page 28
Unfortunately, our readers also
report that they had been unaware
that any parts of the Jewish communi-
ty welcomed them, and that they have
experienced rejection by Jews. This
message percolates from Jewish com-
mentators like Steven Cohen, who
describes intermarriage as "unfortu-
nate," or Jack Wertheimer, who, in his
recent Commentary article, pro-
nounced outreach efforts a "resound-
ing failure" (even though most inter-
married people are not even aware of
those efforts), or Elliot Abrams, who
opposes using "scarce resources" on
people "who have never done a single
thing to express interest in Judaism."
Thus, when the newly forming
group says that in-marriage is a "fun-
damental norm of Jewish life," I fear
that their simultaneous message, both
implicitly and explicitly, will be that
"intermarriage is a bad thing for the
Jewish people," that interfaith families
cannot live Jewishly, and that outreach
Efforts by
some political
activists to
encourage Jewish
organizations to
act by publicly
protesting, artic-
ulating their
anger and asking
advertisers to
BERL
boycott the
FALBAUM
papers
all have
Community Views
failed in the past.
The point that
other minority groups would raise hell
if they were the target of such folly
were ignored. The question — what
would blacks do if someone published
ads denying that the U.S. at one time
practiced slavery — was dismissed as
hypothetical. Well, it isn't anymore.
Political View Vs. Denial
David Horowitz, a conservative
writer, recently published ads in sev-
eral college newspapers arguing
against reparations for blacks. He did
not deny that slavery was practiced,
but maintained that reparations were
wrong.
He states in his ads, as the New
York Times reported on its front page,
that "because it was white Christians
who ended slavery, and that rather
than getting compensation, black
to the intermarried should be aban-
doned. This message will only exacer-
bate the rejecting experience and
unwelcome feeling that are obstacles
to affiliation by interfaith families.
Balanced Approach
It is possible to both promote in-mar-
riage and, at the same time, respond
positively to intermarrieds. That can't
be done, however, by expressing value
judgments implying that "in-marriage
is good or right," while intermarriage
is the bad and wrong. In-marriage can
be promoted on utilitarian and prag-
matic grounds, without burning
bridges to the many people who will
continue to intermarry no matter
what Jewish leaders do.
Parents know how to promote in-
marriage without alienating their chil-
dren who may intermarry: "We would
like to see you live Jewishly because
we have found doing so to be a source
of meaning and purpose in our own
lives, although we recognize that you
will have to decide for yourselves. If
Americans owe the country a debt for
the freedom and prosperity they
enjoy.
Campuses throughout the country
where the ad was published exploded
in protests — even though there is a
major distinction between Horowitz's
ad, which expresses a political point of
view, as insensitive and distasteful as it
may be — and the Holocaust deniers
who try to change history.
Frankly, a strong case can be made
that Horowitz has a right to a political
point of view, however hateful or
racist blacks and others may believe it
is. This case is starkly different from
Holocaust ads whose promoters, given
their bigotry, are attempting to rewrite
history.
There is a firestorm on the college
campuses where the ads were pub-
lished with blacks picketing, propos-
ing boycotts and demanding apolo-
gies.
And guess what? The papers are
responding.
The Daily Californian, the student
paper at the University of California-
Berkeley, the symbol of liberalism and
free thinking since the protests of the
1960s, apologized on its front page.
The New York Times reported that
the Daily Californian editor, Daniel
Hernandez, said he would play a
tougher role defining "what is tasteful,
appropriated, bigoted or detrimental."
Again, this is from Berkeley, not
some conservative right-wing think
tank or private, religiously oriented
university.
And there have been no sanctimo-
nious defenses of freedom of the press
in this case.
The protests are working and it is
safe to assume that none of the stu-
dent papers involved will ever publish
these ads again.
The distinction between the
Horowitz ad and Holocaust denials
notwithstnding, when bigotry and
hatred surface, it needs to be confront-
ed directly with all available resources.
A strong voice from Jewish organi-
zations can assure that Holocaust
deniers will not have access to student
newspapers or the general media in
the future.
When those who decide in the
name of profits to hide behind nonex-
istent constitutional protection to run
these ads, they should be made to pay
a price.
So, given this latest experience, will
we learn from it the next time the
Holocaust deniers dust off their poi-
soned-filled ads? Will we respond
loudly and forcefully, as we should?
The history of Jewish political
activism in this arena tells us we have
very little to hope for.
you want to have a Jewish family and
a Jewish life, your chances of doing so
are far greater if you marry someone
bad, but intermarried parents will tell
you that while it is possible, it isn't so
easy to have a Jewish family and to raise
Jewish children in an intermarriage.
"So, we hope you marry someone
who is Jewish — but if you don't,
we'll do everything we can to welcome
your partner and to support any effort
you make to live Jewishly and raise
Jewish children together."
The Jewish community should fol-
low the same approach: promoting in-
marriage on the grounds that it
increases the chances that people will
live Jewishly and raise Jewish children,
while simultaneously making a con-
certed, well-financed and well-publi-
cized effort to encourage, welcome
and include those people who, never-
theless, choose to intermarry. I believe
that this is what the Jewish public, the
respondents to the recent American
Jewish Committee survey that found
increasing acceptance of intermarriage,
wants. I also believe that their Jewish
leaders need to forcefully advocate for
that approach.
It isn't so easy to
have a Jewish
family and to
raise Jewish
children in an
intermarriage.
who is Jewish.
"You may see intermarried parents
who are living Jewishly and think that
that could happen to you too, but the
statistics show that, at this point, not
more than 30 percent of intermarried
parents raise their children as Jews.
We're not saying that intermarriage is
❑
❑
3/30
2001
29