Jews manipulate America (Anti-Semitic opinion article published at the University of Illinois Paper)

I think the letter is a hoax or a pseudonym. The author's name produces nothing on the school's website, and google only seems to find the letter itself, and responses thereto.

Illinois ping, your tax $ at work.

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

Ya think Ariel Sinovsky is acquainted with Matthew Hale?

Your views are exactly the same as those of many in 1930's Germany.

This is true... Some influence is ok, but the extent is frightening!

You're an idiot.

What is truly frightening is I have better witing skills than this person. If he is a student he should be expelled for lack of ability as well as lack of friends.

Friends don't let friends write trash this bad much less publish it.

witing = writing lol

I got an Activist email alert from www.standwithus.com regarding this article.

This is not a hoax as the newspaper has sent back responses saying that he has a freedom of speech to do so.

DI Except from "Letter From the Editor" It is difficult to read what many feel is racist, hateful or immature speech. But there is also grave danger in silencing these views based on the opinion of the editor or editorial staff. What is hate speech to one member of a society is free speech to another. While we might not agree with the letter, we defend the speech's right to a place in our paper. We choose to set the bar as far from self-censorship as is possible.

The editor also explains that DI often posts letters from outside Illinois and from non-students (the author of the article's letter was "a resident of Seattle"). But one has to wonder why this letter was printed. It is poorly written, factually incorrect and illogical. This is edifying?

One can also wonder what would happen if a similarly poorly written letter, but highly critical of Muslim Arabs, were sent to DI. Would that letter be printed? Probably not, the editor's disdain for "self-censorship" might take a back seat to her fear of fatwas.

From what I've gleaned from the Daily Illini's site, the "article" is in fact a letter to the editor the paper received and for some reason, published. Maybe I'm wrong, but that certainly seems to be the size of it.

Snidely

I noticed he wasn't in the directory, which could mean a number of things. I hope he's not a student, I hate to be subsidizing his tuition. The letter isn’t a “hoax”, since he makes no claims as to who he is.

But really the issue is the judgment of the students who printed this and the supervising faculty.

Dear readers,

Many readers have voiced concerns regarding a letter printed in The Daily Illini on Wednesday titled "Jews manipulate America." Many of you have called the newsroom and e-mailed the staff questions regarding our editorial policy and our decision to run controversial letters.

The following are some of our guidelines and responses to many of these questions:

• The editors of The Daily Illini do reserve the right to determine what letters are published and edit those letters we decide to run. But we are committed to giving all people a voice in our publication — even those views we find vile, distasteful or simply ridiculous. Our commitment to this mission often means we print the opinions of others with whom we do not agree. This was the case Wednesday.

• We do not print anonymous letters, letters without contact information or letters that slander private figures. The author of every letter is called to confirm authorship; we do not require that authors be listed in telephone directories.

• As is stated on the Opinions pages, the voice of submitted letters reflects the view of the author, not the staff or editorial board.

• It is difficult to read what many feel is racist, hateful or immature speech. But there is also grave danger in silencing these views based on the opinion of the editor or editorial staff. What is hate speech to one member of a society is free speech to another. While we might not agree with the letter, we defend the speech's right to a place in our paper. We choose to set the bar as far from self-censorship as is possible.

• We do not require that authors of letters be part of the University community; many letters were submitted by authors from other states or countries. While The Daily Illini seeks to serve the University community, some of our reporting is done in other states and countries, we run coverage from other universities on a daily basis, students are attracted to the campus from across the United States and alumni live in all areas of the globe. We do not want to restrict editorial opinions to those in the C-U area.

• While The Daily Illini seeks to serve the University community, we are an independent company, independently funded. The University is not responsible for our editorial decisions.

• This voice has the right to speech in our community's paper. But your speech has the same right. Please send your opinions or feelings to letters@dailyillini.com. If you would like to discuss this letter or any other concerns with me or the editorial board, please feel free to call the newsroom at 333-7411 or e-mail us at news@dailyillini.com.

Thank you,

Angie Leventis
Editor in chief

If he's not affiliated with the school in any capacity, why is he writing to them? And why would the editors broadcast his views?

I'm sure there are folks who agree with the "letter", but there's something fishy about it.

Could be his pseudonym. Lots of time to write letters from jail.

What brought tears of disgust to my eyes was the assumption of what President Lincoln would say about the Jews if he were still alive!

Students protest the DI

Adam Jadhav
The Daily Illini

Photo (read caption below)
Katy Mull The Daily Illini

Kat Schwartz, editor in chief of The Daily Illini, speaks to members of The Initiative and community members who marched to the Illini Media Company's office, 57 E. Green St., Champaign, on Friday afternoon. The group protested what it feels is a racist newspaper for its decision to run a controversial advertisement written by David Horowitz.

Students marched to the Illini Media Company parking lot Friday to protest The Daily Illini's decision to publish a controversial advertisement against reparations for slavery.

The protesters, members of a largely black student group called The Initiative, said the advertisement is racist and that the DI promoted discrimination on campus by runnning the ad.

"The way that you all have handled this has been unprofessional and disrespectful and adverse to the initiatives and goals of the UIUC administration," said Clay Garrett, law student and member of The Initiative. "The University has strived to promote diversity and remove hostility from this campus, and the DI has gone and undone that."

The advertisement, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too," was written and paid for by David Horowitz, a right-wing political activist who was formerly associated with the Black Panthers and now believes reparations are racist. The ad suggested that reparations have already been paid and that blacks owe a debt to the United States.

Members of The Initiative gathered on the Quad midday Friday to rally before the march. The group then marched to 57 E. Green St., the parking lot of the Illini Media Company, the parent company of the DI. There, the group attempted to present its demands and speak to DI Editor in Chief Kat Schwartz. Among other things, The Initiative demanded a printed apology or retraction for the running of the Horowitz ad.

The decision to run the ad was made by Andrew Savikas, who ended his term as the DI's editor in chief in March. Savikas said he chose to run the ad because he believes in a marketplace of ideas and allowing all opinions to be heard.

"A lot of people have strong opinions on the contents of the ad — from all ends," he said. "I was not about to make a decision about whether or not students should be exposed to this, in what is the best forum on campus."

Since the ad ran, members of The Initiative have met with Daily Illini editors and placed an ad in the DI stating their opinion. Their ad, "The Top 10 Reasons Why Your Daily Illini Should Not Have Printed The Horowitz Ad," was printed Thursday; it said the Horowitz ad hurt the campus by increasing racist sentiments.

Schwartz addressed the assembled crowd of more than 50 students in the Illini Media Company parking lot and said she would not respond to the group. Thanking the protesters for expressing their concerns, she said she welcomed submissions to the paper.

Protesters shouted chants throughout the day that attacked the DI for printing the ad. "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the daily lies have got to go," and "Down with the DI" were heard as the group marched down Green Street. In addition, they carried signs and placards bearing slogans like "Our campus is broken — let's fix it" and "Free speech is not free for the DI — we had to pay for it."

In response to the demands of the group, Schwartz later said she felt the students' anger is misdirected and greater issues of racism exist on campus that need to be addressed. She said the newspaper will not issue an apology, despite the group's protests.

"I don't think there's anything to be gained," Schwartz said. "We always said we would stick to our guns."

The ad has raised much controversy around the nation. Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in Los Angeles, has used it as part of an ad campaign aimed at college newspapers around the country. So far, 73 newspapers have received the ad, and more than half have chosen not to print it. At least four have printed apologies or retractions after publishing the ad.

Horowitz called the protesters "intellectual terrorists" who are trying to stifle opinions they disagree with.

"What you have is a bunch of leftists who haven't got the brains to make a counter-argument," Horowitz said. "They're accusing people falsely of being modern-day witches, which is to say racists."

Horowitz said he published the ad to test "liberal college media." He said he wanted to prove a point about the fear associated with being labeled as racist.

"This battle is not about David Horowitz," Horowitz said. "This battle is about the freedom of the campus community of Illinois, and elsewhere, to discuss issues like this without being afraid of being called a racist."

Repeated attempts to contact national civil rights organizations were unsuccessful. Representatives of the NAACP at the University, county and regional level declined to comment. Representatives of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, another civil rights organization, could not be reached after several attempts.

Some professional newspapers and organizations are praising college editors who choose to print the ad. Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter praised the DI's decision to run the ad. Newsweek has said it would likely run the ad.

Alter also agreed with Schwartz about the protesters. He said in a telephone interview that The Initiative's anger would accomplish more if it were aimed at Horowitz and the content of his ad.

"For the demonstrators to direct their fury at the paper seems kind of misdirected to me," he said. "Instead, they should direct their fury at the content, they should be writing articles and letters about Horowitz."

While most of the protest attacked the DI's decision to run the ad, The Initiative spent some time at the protest refuting Horowitz's arguments. Members distributed a flier — written by Ernest Allen, an Afro-American Studies professor at the University of Massachusetts — which examines historical inaccuracies Allen believes the ad contains.

Controversy has been raised about the DI's fact-checking of advertising. Lindsey Dates, law student and Initiative member, said the DI has been inconsistent in its actions.

Dates said the Horowitz ad is full of errors, yet the newspaper printed it anyway. But the DI asked The Initiative to correct some errors in its ad, including specifics on advertising rates and circulation.

"They would not print (our) ad unless we changed a few mistakes," Dates said. "The Daily Illini must have agreed that Horowitz's claims were factually accurate."

Alter said the statements in Horowitz's ad are mostly opinion and subject to interpretation. He said the only reason to ask that an ad be changed would be "if an ad included demonstrable, factual falsehoods — falsehoods not of interpretation and tone, but of irrefutable fact."

However, others say the DI should have had more discretion with the content of the ad. Dianne Pinderhughes, professor at the University's Afro-American Studies and Research Program, said the DI should have questioned the truth of the ad.

"Any newspaper has a responsibility to deal with issues of accuracy," Pinderhughes said. "At some point, the DI editorial board should have said 'Hey, we can't publish something when there are questions about the facts of the argument.'"

However, Savikas said that while he didn't fact-check the arguments specifically, he did consider questions pertaining to the ad and its author. He decided that partly because of Horowitz's background, the ad should run.

"This is not an individual you can dismiss as racist," Savikas said. "I don't think anyone can claim that Horowitz doesn't have knowledge of the civil rights movement."

Online Photo Gallery Click for larger version

They - crackpots - send these things to college newspapers for one very good reason. They know that on the editorial boards of those papers, a misguided debate about the First Amendment will ensue, and some of those boards will (wrongly) decide that they have some sort of responsibility to print such trash. As here:

• It is difficult to read what many feel is racist, hateful or immature speech. But there is also grave danger in silencing these views based on the opinion of the editor or editorial staff. What is hate speech to one member of a society is free speech to another. While we might not agree with the letter, we defend the speech's right to a place in our paper. We choose to set the bar as far from self-censorship as is possible.

But, of course, that more or less denies the very function and purpose of an editor, whose job is to make editorial decisions about what material is and is not fit to print. The editors of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Review, et cetera, do not have such debates amongst themselves, and they do not print this sort of letter - instead, they throw such letters directly in the trash, because they are obviously pieces of sh*t.

I did not mean to imply you were a part of any attempt to troll, BTW. You did the right thing in posting this.

Current news from England tells us about discovery of a home stile lab producing potent ricine[sic] poison. Since this poison can be manufactured in every home, it constitutes the most serious threat ever. The President should act immediately to deal with this threat. First, separate Jews from all government advisory positions and give them one year fully paid sabbatical.

Yes, yes, separate all those Jewish government advisors who are potential riacin cooks - oh wait, those were Algerian Muslims in Britain and the riacin recipe is printed in al-Queda cookbooks.......nevermind.