Hillel: The Invidious Reader

I never took journalism (or “communications,” as it’s now known in many places), but I’d caution you, the Campus Editor, to beware the Invidious Reader. Of course, Readers, in and of themselves, are each by default a “good thing.” So much for default.

There are, as might be taught in some journalism course, different types of Readers. All, by definition, have some interest in your headline. If you have, in fact, published something of actual interest (there’s not much space for that, these days), you are rewarded with one of four reactions: agreement with what your publication asserts; disagreement with what you’ve published; and then the extensions of both, Affirmative Agreement and Invidious Disagreement.

Affirmative Agreement, in which the reader not only agrees, but is pleased to see your/his opinion published in a prominent and persuasive way that might convince other readers, or at least render their position respectable, can get you paid, promoted, and more-avidly read, unless too many other readers spot what you’re doing and dismiss it as pandering to influential opinion.

Invidious Disagreement, on the other hand, is something to watch out for, for reasons ranging from professional acceptance and success all the way to the retention of your life and limbs. Invidious Disagreement implies outrage on the part of the reader that your viewpoint is even seeing the light of day, and fear that others might be persuaded by its presentation, or merely develop the unconscious assumption that such views may be presented by people who remain free to walk about in public identifiable to all in the clear light of day.

Censors, of course, both official and otherwise, do the bidding of powerful interests motivated by Invidious Disagreement, and they operate day and night, in every language known to man, in every medium, and every place.

Including your campus.

Yes, your publication is being watched and, if it’s any comfort to you, from right on campus, over at Hillel House (where, of course, you might be a member yourself, but nonetheless possibly unaware of what I have to tell you about). Worse still, what you’re being watched for is not just something you might write, or one of your editors or columnists. It’s about advertisements—specifically, a paid advertisement from the dreaded Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH).

OK, so what is it we’re advertising, anyway? Thoughtcrime?

In a word, yes, at least if you take the word of Hillel and their Big Brother, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). It’s all laid out in a Manual for Action that is distributed to every chapter of Hillel (and, of course, to prospective donors, to garner that most-profitable-of-all-kinds of Affirmative Agreement, donations). Read all about it at www.adl.org/education/fightingholocaust-denial-on-campus.pdf. It’s a lesson in journalism that you won’t get in the classroom.

Admittedly, your publication won’t get rich (much less, you) carrying the miniscule ads we usually order (and get turned down for). But you might get into hot water— real quick, and real hot! The early end, you might well fear, of a promising career in journalism—or communication.

Before you decide against offering up your nascent career in— whatever—on the altar of Freedom of the Press for Advertisers, Too, how about dropping by our Web site (the one we advertise) at www.codoh.com? If you do so, attentively, at least you’ll know what you’re censoring while obeying the dictates of Hillel/ADL and following the path of least resistance to a secure livelihood as a tool of the media industry.

But if you visit us with an open, as well as attentive, mind, maybe you’ll see our point(s), after all. And if you still choose to turn us down, we’ll understand. At least you won’t yourself be a victim of the censorship you perform at the behest of this Invidious (and powerful) Reader.

L’chaim, as they might say. Your health!

Sincerely,

Jett Rucker
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)

NOTE: This letter is sent to the editor of a newspaper that has rejected a CODOH ad without what we consider due cause, and copied to readers of the paper on that campus.