An Undeserved Honor

HARVARD IS once again honoring the undeserving. The principal graduation speaker this year--and almost certainly the recipient of an honorary degree--is a man who has spent much of his life apologizing for and defending the tarnished heritage of his Nazi war criminal father.

The speaker is Richard von Weizsacker, current president of the Federal Republic of Gernmany. His father, Ernst von Weizsacker, was Hitler's state Secretary in the Reich foreign ministry and a member of Himmler's personal staff. Most significantly, he was the man who informed Adolf Eichmann, the official in charge of Jewish extermination, that there were no objections on the part of the German foreign ministry to the deportation of thousands of French and stateless Jews to Aushwitz. He was also the man who rejected Sweden's offer to accept Norwegian Jews about to be sent to Nazi death camps, and he refused to intervene on behalf of Catholic priests who were sent to the camps. After the war, the Baron was deservedly convicted of being a Nazi war criminal and sent to prison.

But surely no son should be punished--or even refused an honor--for the sins of his father. So let us catalogue the sins of the son and compare them with his virtues. Richard von Weizsacker was certainly no conscientious objector to Nazi aggression. He was a soldier who participated in the brutal invasion of Poland which commenced both World War II and Hitler's genocidal program. After the war, he helped his father lie to the Neurenberg tribunal by denying that he knew what was going on at Auschwitz. He helped his father construct a perjurious and unsuccessful defense which included the outrageous claim that even the Jews had no "misgivings against Auschwitz." As recently as 1985, Richard von Weizsacker said, "I really believe that he [my father] did not know about the existence of the gas chambers and systematic man killing."

But the evidence is to the contrary. The prosecutor who brought charges against the father has pointed to letters to Eichmann and other documents which prove that he "works together with the butchers." The prosecutor said that it must have been horrible for the son "discovering all these signatures and letters to Eichmann." But still he persists in trying--according to a New York Times reporter who recently interviewed him--"to rehabilitate his family name."

RICHARD VON Weizsacker seems to suffer from a double standard when it comes to his criminal father. Those who support the Harvard honor point to a speech he gave in 1985 after President Reagan agreed to visit Bitburg. In that speech, he appeared to acknowledge his own guilt and that of his generation:

Who could remain unsuspecting after the burning of the synagogues...? Whoever opened his eyes and ears and sought information could not fail to notice that Jews were being deported...When the unspeakable truth of the Holocaust then became known at the end of the war all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything.

Yet while blaming others he persists on claiming that his own father--who was no ordinary citizen or even mere Nazi party member--did not know. Perhaps a son should not be condemned for blinding himself to his Nazi father's guilt, but nor should he be honored for his mendacity.

Richard von Weizsacker is not Kurt Waldheim. He should not be placed on any watch list. He should not be excluded from polite company. He should even be welcomed at Harvard, to lecture, to debate, to honor others. But should this apologist for his father's Nazi war crimes be among the two handfuls of distinguished people from around the globe honored by Harvard? Many survivers of the Holocaust and others who care deeply about justice do not believe so. They do not want the Harvard honor to be understood as helping Richard von Weizsacker "rehabilitate his family name," if that includes the deservedly disgraced name of his Nazi war criminal father.

Harvard has a long history of honoring the underserving, even the dishonorable. Those occupying prominent positions on Harvard's dishonor role include the Shah of Iran, Edwin Meese, and John McCloy (who will justifies the role he played in imprisoning 110,000 Japanese-Americans and in refusing to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz). Among those whom Harvard has neglected (at least thus far) have been Anatoly Shcharansky, Nelson Mandela, and Elie Wiesel. Fifty years ago Harvard honored actual Nazi leaders. Today we dishonor their victims by selecting an apologist for a Nazi war criminal to receive one of our highest honors. Confucious condemns "honors acquired by unrighteousness."

Acknowledging the genocide of his nation while denying the guilt of those closest to him is not righteousness enough to warrant the Harvard honor. Harvard's system of selecting and rejecting honoraries is so fatally flawed that there does not even appear to be a constructive way to change it. Every member of the Harvard community is ultimately dishonored by this most recent insensitivity. The system should be changed for the future. For the present Richard von Weizsacker must be shown dramatically and unforgettably that those who selected him for the honor do not speak for the Harvard faculty, student body, alumni or community. They speak only for themselves--and unless the system is changed they will soon be speaking mostly to themselves.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at the law school.