Alyssa GregoryThe most controversial issue to hit Student Life came not from one of its editorials, or a breaking news story, but instead from the decision to run a full-page advertisement in February 1992. On the last page of the Feb. 18 issue, Student Life ran “The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate,” an ad written by Holocaust revisionist Bradley R. Smith. The ad essentially asserted that the Holocaust never occurred, and the result was a bitter debate which left Student Life on the receiving end of community-wide criticism.
Smith, a co-founder of the Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust, took on his most determined project in 1991 when the CODOH launched its Campus Project, in which college newspapers were approached semi-annually with advertisements declaring that the Holocaust never happened. While more than half of the approached schools, including Yale, Berkeley, and Harvard rejected the ad immediately, Student Life chose to accept.
The controversial call was made by a group of editors. “It was a difficult decision,” explained 1992 Editor in Chief Dean Stephens. “The staff really went back and forth. We had this executive committee that voted 7 for and 7 against.” As editor in chief, Stephens broke the tie. The ad would run.
On Feb. 17, Senior Opinion Editor Samuel Moyn published a letter explaining the staff’s decision. “The newspaper staff has confidence in its community and does not believe in shielding it from offensive ideas,” he wrote. “It believes that here, if nowhere else, individuals are capable of solving problems reasonably, without becoming absorbed in anger. Any controversy that results from the advertisement should center around Mr. Smith, not SL and certainly not any minority groups. If hatred wins out, our community will have failed.”
Despite Moyn’s request, backlash arose quickly and was often severe. “Rally speakers denounce Smith, most feel ‘SL’ erred by printing ad,” read one Student Life headline the following week. “SU condemns ‘Student Life'” read another four days later. Letters to the editor featured titles such as “‘SL’ editors have ‘warped values,'” and “‘SL’ made grave and inexcusable error.” Such reactions, as well as opposing ones, became a common sight in Student Life as the staff spent the next week devoting pages and pages to publishing the community’s responses to their decision.
Under sharp criticism, the Student Life staff was firm in its decision. “All of the editors stood by their original votes. But like most people, I has second thoughts and continuing doubts,” recalled Moyn. “I think it’s a hard choice. I’m uncertain that I would act in the same way.”
The decision made such waves that the Chicago Tribune and the Post-Dispatch published opinion-editorials concerning the controversy. “The ad is offensive, provocative, and wrong,” wrote the Post-Dispatch. “But the newspaper’s decision to print it strengthens the cause of freedom of speech.”
While the decision was not a popular one, Student Life had earned the respect of national newspapers. More importantly, it set a precedent that it proudly upholds more than 10 years later: respect for the First Amendment and an underlying belief that the WU community deserves a newspaper that encourages its readership to decide for itself.