I AM NOT a supporter of the David Horowitz ad, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea - and Racist Too." I do not believe that the ad should appear in the pages of campus newspapers such as our own The Cavalier Daily. I also do not believe that this is indicative in any way of my disbelief in First Amendment rights; instead I believe that this is an exercise of good judgment and editorial choice.
Any advertisement appearing in a campus-wide distributed periodical, representative of an entire student body, should take into consideration the interests and feelings of its constituency, as The Cavalier Daily has done. I am not opposed to Mr. Horowitz expressing his beliefs, as is his right, but nevertheless, I believe that The Cavalier Daily is correct in its use of editorial choice refusing to run an ad that is harmful and one-sided in its claims and undoubtedly detrimental to the ideals of a welcoming college community.
Opposition may label my argument overly moralistic in its approach, but I am expressing ideals that should be present in this diverse and multicultural community we claim to have at the University. I do not think that The Cavalier Daily as a media outlet should print anything that could prove explicitly harmful to the student population. Mr. Horowitz's ad is one such harmful piece of propaganda unjustly singling out the black community for a supposed debt owed to America as if they are the only race indebted to America's ideals of freedom and prosperity.
Where is the supporting evidence for Mr. Horowitz's claim? Any scholarly claim should be supported with some form of reference to research. As presented, Mr. Horowitz's claims are unfounded. I would hope that a student newspaper would critically consider printing something that may in fact hold no true statistical relevance.
In addition, the claims are not only unsupported but appear to hold some serious flaws in their generality. A deeper understanding of the atrocities of slavery in the United States would reveal that the practice was so horrid and wretched that it cannot be compared to any other form of slavery in the history of the world.
Furthermore, the effects of the "peculiar institution" are much deeper than those evidenced in the ad and actually strike a deeper harm upon the psyche of black people. This is why I believe the running of the ad to be harmful. An ad such as the one in question would produce misconceptions and confusion among the general public.
Consider, if you will, the ad appears in The Cavalier Daily. Consider the number of students who browse the paper and may not realize that this ad printed by The Cavalier Daily in actuality is not the opinion of the staff at the newspaper. Think of the sentiments the student body would harbor against such an ad and consider the placement of blame for the ad upon our own student publication. Citing this as a student publication, one would be inclined to believe that the article represents the opinion of The Cavalier Daily staff and the general student body that the paper represents. I would hope that such a sentiment would be erroneous, and thus would deem Mr. Horowitz's claims inappropriate representations of the student body.
Furthermore, the style of the ad is extremely one-sided and inflammatory. The plight of blacks during slavery should receive the same compassion provided to other victims of horrendous historical tragedies.
Readers may criticize this argument on the grounds that Mr. Horowitz is simply expressing his opinions and he should be able to do so in any medium he chooses. I do agree, but at the same time, not everyone has to listen, and not everyone has to run his ad. Not running the ad does not infringe on his right to free speech because he is still speaking. He still writes articles on his Web site and in fact he has probably garnered a stronger voice following the public outcry. In this regard, Mr. Horowitz still possesses his right to free expression, but the flip side to that is the appropriate free right to filtration and editorial choice practiced by media outlets.
I would like to propose that expression of varying positions on any issue prevalent to society is helpful as it furthers discourse for everyone. I would propose that civil ways of discussing these issues without relegating blame onto one facet of the populations should be utilized. Mr. Horowitz essentially presents slavery as a favor to blacks, and the subsequent results as a debt black Americans owe America. This is ridiculous when one considers the enormous number of black lives lost during slavery and the irreconcilable damage done to the human resources of the continent of Africa. Running an ad like Mr. Horowitz's marginalizes these atrocities and thus, exercising editorial discretion proves to be the right way to deal with these harmful claims. The Cavalier Daily acted appropriately in their refusal to run Mr. Horowitz's ad.
(Michael Costa is president of the Black Student Alliance.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 3 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 4 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 4 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
