Prince' has no right to designate Horowitz as a racist
I read with interest your "To Our Readers" opinion referencing the publication of David Horowitz's controversial ad in Wednesday's 'Prince,' and was ready to commend you for your stance on free speech, so readily abdicated by the editorial boards of campus newspapers at prominent universities.
However, I must take issue with your thoughtless appraisal of Mr. Horowitz as a racist (to be exact, your statement that the 'Prince' will not "profit from Mr. Horowitz's racism."). This is a serious charge you have chosen to make, and you have done so at great peril to your credibility unless you are able to demonstrate that either the ad or Mr. Horowitz is racist.
I have read the ad, and while I agree that it is controversial, confrontational in tone and cannot possibly "tell the complete story" (who could purport to do so in 1,200 words?), I do not believe it to be racist. The notion that descendants of descendants of African slaves should receive compensation is, at best, open for debate. Recent polls by Fox News Channel and Time magazine indicate the American public is opposed to reparations by margins of greater than 4 to 1. Several prominent writers and politicians, including Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree and author Randall Robinson, have made the case for reparations. Others, including noted economist Thomas Sowell, University of California Regent Ward Connerly and Mr. Horowitz, make the case against them.
I think it is noble that you have chosen to donate the ad proceeds to the Urban League. This does not, however, give you the moral right to impugn Mr. Horowitz as racist without supporting such an accusation. Stephen M. Brooks '91
Printing Horowitz advertisement promotes racist message
The 'Prince' put forth an interesting editorial about Horowitz, but we still would not have printed his ad. And in fact, when asked to print an ad in 1990 denying the existence of the Holocaust, we did not. You do more damage to public debate by giving a little racist guy a voice (a voice which he would not have had otherwise), than you do to open inquiry by not printing his message.
Your editorial presupposes that newspapers are forums of unfettered expression, but of course they are not. The 'Prince' board makes editorial decisions every day about which letters to print, which articles to put on the front page and which stories to cover. By printing this ad, you have tacitly promoted a racist message when you could have squashed it. Moreover, we would argue that you have violated the primary mission of any newspaper — to provide your readers with the daily information you think they should possess. Why not reject the ad and explain the reasoning behind that decision? Shame on you. Alexandra Bradner '91 John Young '90 Former 'Prince' Chairmen
Apology for Horowitz advertisement showed cowardice
Regarding your decision to run David Horowitz's ad with the ridiculous commentary attached — are you guys completely spineless? Not only do you write a cowardly apology for running the ad — which is really what your editorial is — in an obvious attempt to insulate yourselves from criticism and tout your moral superiority, but you also give away the money? Perhaps y'all should go into social work rather than journalism. Gregory Cooper Brown University
'Prince' blocks free debate with apologetic commentary
It is interesting to me that the 'Prince' editorial board, like those of most other college newspapers, is so vociferous in its denouncement of David Horowitz's advertisement. Unquestionably, several of the arguments he raises are provocative. But his ultimate position on the issue of reparations is certainly within the realm of reasonable debate unless you are suggesting that opposition to reparations is ipso facto racist. One problem with discussions about race in America is that we seem to have lost the capacity to discuss matters affecting the black community without resorting to labels and invective. Horowitz's argument that reparations are only appropriate in circumstances where they are paid to those directly harmed by past conduct is part of a larger debate occurring throughout our society — and in our federal courts — over such issues as affirmative action and minority set asides. What consequences flowed from such past behavior, what opportunities remain impaired and how best to assure equal access are difficult issues that demand vigorous yet civil debate. The University community should be a part of that process. By contemptibly dismissing Horowitz's advertisement as "offensive" and "racist," however, you send the clear message to readers of the 'Prince' that, despite your homage to free discussion, your real aim in promoting an "open dialouge" is a simply to open up a forum in which to denounce David Horowitz. I would respectfully suggest that such transparent lip service to the free and open exchange of ideas devalues Princeton and marginalizes the 'Prince' from playing a serious role in one of the profound issues of our time. C. Thomas Williamson, III, Esq. Baltimore, MD
'Prince' responsibly covered Russell Crowe incident
Congratulations on handling the simple story of Russel Crowe's middle finger in a professional manner. Instead of focusing on the simple act of the actor casually expressing himself, you painted a great picture of what campus life is like with the shooting of the film. Meanwhile, other newspapers that claim to be professional do nothing but try to make Crowe out to be a bad guy and believe that that is a story. As the editor-in-chief of my school newspaper, it's great to see other college publications sticking to honorable journalism and not focusing on trashy gossip and meaningless stories. Kirk Cassels Skidmore College
Read More
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
We need to keep breaking the glass ceiling of the ivory tower
Maria Luisa Vieira Parada“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
Reactions: Guests respond to Eisgruber and Calhoun’s statements on protesting
Zeke DouglasRosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt BrowneGuests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
Guests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
