Arthur Butz' "Holocaust Denial" Web Site

Topic area	Freedom of speech
Target audience	General undergraduate
Activity type	Reading assignment, worksheet, group discussion and debate
Time required	At least 15 minutes of the class prior to the assignment, and then all of a 50 minute class (or a good part of a 75 minute class) on the day of the debate. Students will need an hour or so outside of class, perhaps more depending on the depth of reflection.
Attachments	Worksheet
Additional materials	Article "Defending Your Lies", New York Times, Feb. 2, 1997, Section 6, Page l9. Editorial "The Holocaust and the Internet", Tampa Tribune, Jan. l 3, l997, Nation/World Section, Page 6. Letter "Northwestern should pull the plug on Butz", Tampa Tribune, Jan 26, 1997, Commentary Section, Page 3.
Background needed to complete the assignment	Students need copies of the three articles or references to them (all can be found on Lexis/Nexis by typing the key words "Arthur Butz"). In addition, some discussion of the First Amendment and simple cases where it may not apply (e.g., libel) is advisable.
References	See Materials above. Arthur Butz's homepage is at http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~abutz
Last modified	August 1998

Abstract:
Three newspaper articles (one report, one commentary, and one opinion letter) discuss the case of Northwestern University professor Arthur Butz, a leading Holocaust revisionist, who publishes his theories on the Internet via computers owned and operated by the university. At issue: Should the university allow Butz to use their equipment to publish his theories? There is also a "subplot" involving Sheldon Epstein, an adjunct professor at the university, who was fired two days after putting the topic of the Holocaust on the syllabus of his engineering class in protest to Butz's use of university facilities. At issue: Should Epstein have been fired?

Goals for the activity:
Especially in the United States, students tend to accept "freedom of speech" as a static, immutable principle. The Arthur Butz situation and the decision which Northwestern University faces with respect to him should force students to see "the other side of the story." In ending the activity with a student debate, both sides of the issue should become clear to the class, together with the realization that, in cases like this, there are no easy answers.

Knowledge / skills / attitudes to be developed (behavioral objectives):
Students should develop a good sense of the complexities which can surround issues of freedom of speech.

Procedure:
Following some discussion of general freedom of speech issues (First Amendment, exceptions such as libel, other cases), the students are assigned to read the three articles and to fill out the worksheet as homework (so that they can have time to reflect on the issues). On this sheet, students must make brief arguments on both sides of the issues: 1. Should or should not Butz be unplugged by Northwestern? 2. Should or should not Epstein have been fired?

Each student should make a photocopy of his/her filled-in worksheet, which is collected at the beginning of the subsequent class. At that class, the instructor randomly assigns half the class to Group A, which should argue that Butz should remain plugged and Epstein should not be fired ("pro freedom of speech") and Group B, which should argue that Butz should be unplugged and Epstein fired ("anti freedom of speech"). Each group works on its arguments for 10-15 minutes and each selects a main debater and a rebutter. A debate ensues, lasting, say, 20 minutes total (5 minutes each person). The topic ends with a general class discussion. (Note: This format assumes a class size of not much more than 30 students. Instructors of larger classes should modify as needed.)

Assessing outcomes:
Students should not receive any kind of specific grade for this activity. The worksheet is collected primarily to ensure that each student comes to the debate class with concrete thoughts about the issues. Students who do not hand in a worksheet should be downgraded in "class participation."

Additional remarks:
The general topic of "cyber-hate" is at once fascinating yet troubling, perhaps even painful. It must be approached with some care, and the instructor should not be surprised to find some students very upset (one way or the other) about the topic. The instructor may consider lengthening discussion of this topic to include, for example, the excellent 20 minute video entitled "The Internet: Cyber-Hate and Freedom of Speech", produced in 1995 by New Dimension Media (84803 Lorane Highway, Eugene, OR 97405, phone 541-484-7125), which does not mention Butz specifically, but does discuss these issues quite dramatically. One could easily build activities similar to those suggested here around the video rather than the readings on Butz, but the readings have the advantage that they limit the scope of the free speech debate somewhat to: "What is the correct action for an institution of higher learning?" The more general question of "Should such material be 'allowed' (whatever that might mean) on the Internet at all?" is quite a bit more difficult to bring into focus.

Author contact information:
Gove Effinger
Associate Professor
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Phone: (518) 580-5287
E-mail: effinger@skidmore.edu

Page maintained by: kwb@csee.usf.edu