AS I BELIEVE I have mentioned in a previous column, one of the things I like to do least as an ombudsman is to bring up a problem without offering a solution, a correction or, at minimum, some potential direction for change. With the current David Horowitz brouhaha, however, I find the more I consider the developing situation, the more bogged down I become, like struggling in quicksand.
As regular readers of this paper know, conservative columnist and pundit David Horowitz submitted an ad to The Cavalier Daily. The ad was racially provocative, and opposed the concept of reparations for slavery. The Cavalier Daily refused to run the ad, and defended their decision in a lead editorial. The editorial essentially argued that the ad was one which was "inappropriate," mentioning specifically its "gross generalizations" and "patently incendiary comments." This resulted in local - as well as national - criticism, and opened a debate regarding free speech, the "liberal bias" of the media and other related topics. Critics on campuses both pro- and anti-Horowitz acted in various ridiculous ways, with the anti-Horowitz crowd acting particularly poorly. Mr. Horowitz made numerous national media appearances, and a number of high-profile speaking engagements, in the resulting media circus. (For my position regarding The Cavalier Daily's decision, see "Finger pointers at fault in ad debate," March 26.)
Last week, an opinion piece by Mr. Horowitz ran in The Cavalier Daily, specifically a piece against reparations for slavery. What I can't figure out is why it ran. Mr. Horowitz's position is not, per se, newsworthy. First, it is largely a non-controversial position for, as Mr. Horowitz himself has noted, most Americans oppose reparations. Second, as a regular reader of Mr. Horowitz's column in Salon (www.salon.com), it is not one of his better written or argued columns. Third, it largely repeats the arguments of the ad that was rejected, along with some toned-down language and some gratuitous Jefferson quotes.
Typically, when The Cavalier Daily runs an opinion piece from outside the community, I would expect it to be either about a topic highly relevant to life at the University, or a particularly well-written piece from someone who is an authority or significant figure in the area about which they are writing. Mr. Horowitz's column, in my opinion, is neither.
I suppose, at least arguably, that The Cavalier Daily Managing Board might run a piece that meets neither of the criterion above, but represents a viewpoint which is being suppressed. Again, as Mr. Horowitz has now been able to elaborate on his opinion regarding reparations in a number of national media venues, it seems unlikely one could argue that his voice is being suppressed.
From my perspective as the ombudsman, what appears to have occurred is a reversal of an editorial decision, after the position of the paper had been explicitly stated in a lead editorial. As I mentioned in this column two weeks ago, many of those who wrote the paper attacked the editors as draconian oppressors of free speech. I pointed out then that this is often a tactic to pressure editors to reverse their decisions. The appearance, whether or not it is in fact true, that results from the running of Mr. Horowitz's opinion piece, is that this reversal has occurred.
Further confusing the picture as to The Cavalier Daily'sprior decision is the "Open Letter to Jack E. White" ad that ran later in the week. In the ad, Horowitz calls for White, a frequent Horowitz critic, to work with him in promoting programs which benefit and assist minority communities. Again, I found myself asking why this ad ran. Mr. White is unlikely to read The Cavalier Daily, I suspect. Typically, these "open letter" ads are part of a PR campaign to lay public pressure on the person or corporation to whom the letter is addressed. So, the position of the paper appears to be that while they won't be held hostage to every person with a checkbook, they will allow some individuals to conduct personal PR campaigns in their pages.
What is particularly hard to figure out is how these Managing Board decisions are made. Is each ad considered in a vacuum? The "Jack E. White" ad is not directly inflammatory, so you then ignore the larger context in which the ad is placed? Would Mr. Horowitz be allowed to run this ad if he were the head of the Ku Klux Klan, since the ad is not directly provocative? It seems unlikely that the paper would ignore the larger context in such a circumstance.
It appears that the paper, by wandering out onto the slippery slope of determining which ads to run and not run, might have slipped and fell. Their subsequent actions following the initial flap appear reactive to public pressure and controversy, rather than directed by stable and considered editorial policy. As in most matters of ethics, it is the appearance of a reversal which is damning in the public forum, whether or not it is true.
In addition, in failing to consider the larger context, The Cavalier Daily has become a participant in Mr. Horowitz's apparent media campaign, as well as a direct financial beneficiary. Mr. Horowitz attempted to generate a media-storm with his provocative ad, and he succeeded. His op-ed pieces extended his exposure, and his second ad addressing Jack E. White allowed him to attempt to mend fence and curry public opinion. Once The Cavalier Daily had decided, soundly, not to engage Mr. Horowitz in his opening salvo, they should have stayed consistent, and stayed out of the subsequent games. Mr. Horowitz is a brilliant media strategist and creator of political theater, who has made the editors of college papers dance like puppets on a string. Among the puppets, I now find I must include myself, as I have written two columns over this tempest-in-a-teapot, when I should have had to write none.
(Brent Garland can be reached at ombuds@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
