Denial Case Study Deborah Lipstadt is an American professor of Holocaust studies whose speaking engagement is disrupted by David Irving, a Nazi Germany scholar. He files a libel lawsuit in the United Kingdom against Lipstadt and her publisher for declaring him a Holocaust denier in her books. Since, in the UK, the burden of proof in a libel case lies with the accused, Lipstadt and her legal team led by solicitor Anthony Julius and barrister Richard Rampton must prove that Irving had lied about the Holocaust. To prepare their defense, Lipstadt and Rampton tour the Auschwitz death camp in Poland with a local scholar, while the research team subpoenas Irving's extensive personal diaries. Lipstadt is annoyed by Rampton's apparently disrespectful questions on the subject, and frustrated when the team minimizes her involvement in the case, arguing that she harms its chances of success. Members of the British Jewish community plead with her to settle out of court to avoid creating publicity for Irving. However, her team has a promising start when they persuade Irving, by appealing to his ego, to agree to a trial by judge instead of a jury, which he could have manipulated to his advantage. Irving conducts his own legal representation, facing Lipstadt's legal team. Irving endeavors to twist the presented evidence for the defense. Lipstadt is approached by a Holocaust survivor who pleads for the chance to testify, but Lipstadt's legal team insists on focusing the trial on Irving. Irving tries to discredit evidence for the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, claiming there were no holes on the roof for the Zyklon B gas crystals to be introduced. His soundbite "no holes, no holocaust" dominates the media coverage. Furious, Lipstadt demands that she and the Holocaust survivors take the stand. Julius angrily counters that Irving would only humiliate and exploit a survivor on cross-examination, as he has in the past. Rampton visits Lipstadt at her home to explain his approach and earns her trust. In court, he subjects Irving to skillful cross-examination and exposes his claims as absurd, while expert testimony exposes the distortions in Irving's writings. As the trial concludes, the judge, Charles Gray, worries the defense by suggesting that if Irving honestly believes his own claims, then he cannot be lying as Lipstadt asserted. Gray rules for the defense, convinced of the truth of Lipstadt's portrayal of Irving as deceitful. Lipstadt is hailed for her dignified demeanor, while her legal team reminds her that despite her silence during the trial, it was her writing that countered Irving's lies and provided the basis for the victory. At a press conference, Lipstadt praises her lawyers for their strategy. Exam Instructions Describe examples from the case study relating to the Diversity Principles, must have at least two examples, one negative and one positive. Use the Diversity Management Principles to solve each negative example. Descr ...

1. Denial Case Study
Deborah Lipstadt is an American professor of Holocaust studies
whose speaking engagement is disrupted by David Irving, a
Nazi Germany scholar. He files a libel lawsuit in the United
Kingdom against Lipstadt and her publisher for declaring him a
Holocaust denier in her books. Since, in the UK, the burden of
proof in a libel case lies with the accused, Lipstadt and her
legal team led by solicitor Anthony Julius and barrister Richard
Rampton must prove that Irving had lied about the Holocaust.
To prepare their defense, Lipstadt and Rampton tour the
Auschwitz death camp in Poland with a local scholar, while the
research team subpoenas Irving's extensive personal diaries.
Lipstadt is annoyed by Rampton's apparently disrespectful
questions on the subject, and frustrated when the team
minimizes her involvement in the case, arguing that she harms
its chances of success. Members of the British Jewish
community plead with her to settle out of court to avoid
creating publicity for Irving. However, her team has a
promising start when they persuade Irving, by appealing to his
ego, to agree to a trial by judge instead of a jury, which he
could have manipulated to his advantage.
Irving conducts his own legal representation, facing Lipstadt's
legal team. Irving endeavors to twist the presented evidence for
the defense. Lipstadt is approached by a Holocaust survivor who
pleads for the chance to testify, but Lipstadt's legal team insists
on focusing the trial on Irving.
Irving tries to discredit evidence for the existence of gas

2. chambers at Auschwitz, claiming there were no holes on the
roof for the Zyklon B gas crystals to be introduced. His
soundbite "no holes, no holocaust" dominates the media
coverage. Furious, Lipstadt demands that she and the Holocaust
survivors take the stand. Julius angrily counters that Irving
would only humiliate and exploit a survivor on cross-
examination, as he has in the past. Rampton visits Lipstadt at
her home to explain his approach and earns her trust. In court,
he subjects Irving to skillful cross-examination and exposes his
claims as absurd, while expert testimony exposes the distortions
in Irving's writings.
As the trial concludes, the judge, Charles Gray, worries the
defense by suggesting that if Irving honestly believes his own
claims, then he cannot be lying as Lipstadt asserted. Gray rules
for the defense, convinced of the truth of Lipstadt's portrayal of
Irving as deceitful. Lipstadt is hailed for her dignified
demeanor, while her legal team reminds her that despite her
silence during the trial, it was her writing that countered
Irving's lies and provided the basis for the victory. At a press
conference, Lipstadt praises her lawyers for their strategy.
Exam Instructions
Describe examples from the case study relating to the Diversity
Principles, must have at least two examples, one negative and
one positive.
Use the Diversity Management Principles to solve each negative
example.

3. Describe negative example, i.e. tolerance principle, determine
the cause.
Describe solution, and why (hint, solution is the positive usage
of the principle)
Add the Diversity Management Principles as Appendix A to this
document.
Principles and Definitions