The Crimson and other college newspapers across and country last night debated whether to accept a full-page advertisement from a Holocaust revisionist group.

Titled "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus...The 'Human Soap' Holocaust Myth," the ad was sponsored by the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, which last November submitted similar advertisements questioning the occurrence of the Holocaust.

The ad claims to "demolish the repulsive propaganda accusation that during World War II Germans stewed the bodies of exterminated Jews to manufacture soap from them." It calls the assertion a hoax perpetuated by the U.S. and Soviet governments, the Nuremberg court and prominent Jewish groups.

The Committee which is based in Visalia, California, is partially funded by the American Nazi Party, according to the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League.

Committee Director Bradley R. Smith, contacted by The Crimson yesterday, was adamant that the ad should be published. "Why not? It deals with an issue that is constantly before the public," he said.

"The taboo against revealing what you really feel and really think about this...interests me," Smith said. "It really seems like there are many people who feel that the Holocaust should be closed to free inquiry."

Smith stressed the fact that the second ad is better documented than the first and discusses only one Holocaust issue, the widespread report that the Nazis manufactured soap from the bodies of Jews killed in concentration camps.

"No one...can look at this and say it's a pack of lies," he said. "We're hoping to accomplish debate."

The Crimson did not the run the first ad and decided yesterday not to run the second, according to Crimson President Julian E. Barnes '93.

The Yale Daily News also decided against running either ad, said News Editor-In-Chief Stephanie D. Plasse. "The same reasons [for the not running thefirst ad] still apply," she said.

"I've learned a lot about [Smith] since thefirst ad and about how disreputable his historicalsources seem to be so I didn't trust hisinformation as being historically valid," saidPlasse.

The Daily Princetonian received both ads butdecided not to run either according toEditor-in-Chief Marc Sole. "We see it a s lies andhatred not genuine academic debate," said sole."we don't see that we have any responsibility topublish it."

The Cornell Daily sun, which ran the firstHolocaust ad, decided not to run the second.Instead the paper will run an editorial discussingthe ad, according to Editor-in Chief Davidson G.Golden.

Sole said he believed the second ad's timingjust before Easter and Passover was deliberate.

"[It] was clearly designed to kindleanti-Semitic attitudes and disrupt the comitybetween religious groups this holiday season,"golden said.

The decision to run the first ad was made bythe previous executive board and the current boardis not bound by the earlier decision, said Golden.

But The Duke Chronicle, which also ran thefirst ad, said Editor-in Chief Ann M. Heinberger.

And The Vanderbilt Hustler which ran the firstad, has not yet received the second according toEditor-in-chief Laura F. Creekmore. "But the wegot [the first ad] three months after Duke gotit," she noted.

The Tartan News at Carnegie-Mellon Universityjust received the first ad, according to ArtEditor Daniel R. Frey. "It was cause for a lot ofdebate [but]...we're not running it," he said."We're running an article about in instead."

The Daily Pennsylvanian received the first ad,but did not run it. However executive editorMatthew B. Kline the said that the paper has notreceived the second.

The Tuffs Daily did not receive the first ad,but the did receive the second one recently saidthe Editor-in-Chief David A. Saltzman.

He said that the staff debated extensively buteventually decided not to run the ad because ofits "potential for causing offense. There's goingto be a news story written on it..[with] eitherexcerpts or a shrunken-down version of the ad,"Saltzman said.

The Stanford Daily and The Dartmouth receivedthe neither ad, but their editors have discussedthe issue. "If we receive the ad] we'll print iton the editorial page right next to a houseeditorial concerning the ad," said TigTillinghast, president of The Dartmouth.

"I think it's disgusting, but it would be worsenot to print it" Tillinghast said. "If we dosuppress opinions from coming out they can't beaddressed."

Harvard Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitzsaid yesterday that he find both advertisementsdeeply offensive even though the second onlydiscusses one aspect of the Holocaust.

"The fact that they killed the Jews matters notwhat happened to their bodies," said Dershowitz."It part and parcel of a whole argument ofHolocaust denial."

Dershowitz who was cited by a Committee flyer aas a supporter of the newspaper's running theoriginal ad, said that his remarks had been quotedin a misleading fashion