By: Maurice Collada
Thirty-two years ago in Skokie, Illinois a small Jewish community was threatened with the horror of being reminded of the atrocities committed upon them and their relatives in the Holocaust when a neo-Nazi organization planned to march through their town. After the town’s Counsel attempted to place administrative blocks to prevent this affront, a battle ensued in court over the neo-Nazis’ freedom of assembly as protected by the First Amendment. Eventually, the Supreme Court determined that Illinois could not prevent the neo-Nazis from marching. Despite the obvious intention to inflict psychological trauma upon the Skokie Jewish community, the Supreme Court was able to come to a conclusion that was constitutionally sound.
The following was the crux of their holding: “If a state seeks to impose a[n injunction in violation of First Amendment rights], it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. Absent such review, [a stay must be granted].”
Over thirty years ago our legal system continued the tradition stripping all moral considerations from the issue at hand. Nowhere in their holding did the Supreme Court mention the offensive nature of the free speech they were protecting. They failed to mention that not only was this community targeted because of their Jewish affiliation, but because they were a known community of Holocaust survivors. While the march never actually materialized, the outcome of the case provided another clear example of our legal system’s inability to realize that sometimes the morally right decision requires legal creativity, and if that doesn’t work then legal revision.
The Village of Skokie case did not produce total disappointment however. The failure of the Court to incorporate the bigger, moral picture caused the Skokie Jewish community leaders to realize that they could not rely on our justice system to sufficiently protect or even voice their side of the story. In their holding, the Court told the world that the government would not take sides on a story regardless of which one was obviously morally reprehensible and which one was necessary to protect to effect moral justice. The justice system’s commitment to being a bystander clearly communicated that if the Jews of Skokie were to have their story be told, then they would have to do it themselves. So they did.
This weekend the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center opened. Thirty years after the “Supreme Court of the Land” failed them, and $45 million in fundraising later, the Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois made sure that their story would be told, the atrocities they endured would not go forgotten, and the spiritual and moral strength that got them through it all would be memorialized for future generations.
Their message: “We can rise and be up-standers,” in the telling of our story – we do not need to be bystanders. While our justice system may fail us in this regard, we will not sit by and be silenced by those who speak with more aggression, and hatred filled fervor.
This message, I think, is important for us to remember when we try to reconcile our justice system’s legal limitations with humanity’s moral imperatives. It is not the scope of this entry to explore the philosophical debate over granting any particular institution the power to determine the stories to be told and the ones to be restricted. The dangers of that type of system are self-evident. It is my hope that this story, thirty years in the making, reminds us all that while we may be disappointed, discouraged, and even at times distraught by our “justice” system’s moral failures, we have the power to do something about it. The Jewish people of Skokie reminded us this weekend that we can tell our own story if need be: we need not stand by and wait for the justice system, we can stand up and do it ourselves.
This is so helpful! Thanks.