Testing the Limits

Debate and open discussion have long been the hallmarks of liberal educations at colleges and universities — most notably discussions in their campus newspapers. But a recent ad, discussing what the author claims are unnecessary reparations to African Americans, has sparked controversy across the country and caused many to reconsider the bounds of journalistic freedom.

Brown students stormed campus newspaper stands taking nearly 4,000 copies of the free Brown Daily Herald on March 16 after the newspaper ran the ad, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too," authored by conservative writer David Horowitz.

Protestors attempted to take the remaining copies of the paper from the offices of the Herald — the first Ivy League newspaper to run the ad — but were restrained by newspaper staff.

The newspaper issued a statement saying that it understood that the advertisement contained content that some would find "disconcerting . . . But we will not apologize for printing a legitimate advertisement that may offend some of our readership."

Horowitz, the head of the conservative Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, solicited space in 52 college newspapers across the country to run his advertisement, according to Frontpagemagazine.com, which is edited by Horowitz.

Most of the newspapers that received the ad have refused to print it. Of the 13 that did print it, four have been met with demonstrations or protests and three have printed an apology.

The Daily Princetonian was not solicited to run the ad.

Student response has transformed the ad from a statement on reparations — a topic of several new books such as Randall Robinson's "The Debt: What America Owes Blacks" — to a debate on the limits of speech, expression and journalistic process.

Articles from several national news sources have propelled Horowitz's statement into the limelight — and into lunchtable discussions in dining halls and faculty lounges.

"Horowitz enjoys being outrageous and playing the provocateur," said University politics professor Keith Wittington. "He's interested in pushing public discussion of these sorts of issues, but calling public attention to himself and his causes is part of the political process, as he understands it."

An organizer of the most recent protests for workers rights on campus, David Tannenbaum, also questioned the results of the student protests.

"Insofar as the act was one of civil disobedience, I think it was perfectly justified and admirable," Tannenbaum said of the Brown protests. "Insofar as it was a tactic to raise awareness of Horowitz's racism, I think it was ineffective. Now Horowitz can pit free speech against racial justice, instead of having to defend his racist views."

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Tannenbaum said he also believes newspaper editors should not necessarily feel obligated to run these types of ads.

"I think that on a college campus there is such an exceptionally large number of ways to express political views — such as flyers, table tents, lectures, and discussion forums — that college newspaper editors should not feel as heavy a free speech responsibility to print hateful tracts like David Horowitz's as the editor of a less localized newspaper might feel," Tannenbaum said. "I do not think one decision is significantly more or less wrong than the other."

Another newspaper that decided to run the advertisement — the Duke Chronicle — was met with about 200 student protesters last week. The newspaper's editor, Greg Pessin, has continued to stand by its reasons for printing the ad.

"We believe that a newspaper, a nation and especially a university should be committed to free and open debate," Pessin said. "We realize that this advertisement — like some of our content that appears daily — is offensive to our readers . . . It is important to remember the free exchange of ideas and open debate sometimes comes at the cost of comfort."

The debate, however, appears far from over. Yesterday, Horowitz released a second letter on his website that is intended to run as an editorial piece, not a paid advertisement. Horowitz hopes to challenge the statements made by the Harvard Crimson and the University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal, that they would have run the information in opinion form, according to Frontpagemagazine.com.