A paid advertisement titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too" appeared in the March 13 edition of the Brown Daily Herald. That ad and the removal March 16 of an entire press run from the Herald’s campus newspaper racks by students opposed to the ad have sparked debate about freedom of speech on college campuses.Among those engaged in the discussion are Brown faculty members. Kristen Cole sought comment from a random sampling of faculty. Their comments follow.
"It’s an offensive ad that I believe the BDH had every reason to run. I can’t believe student groups would like to be in the position of deciding which ad is appropriate and which is not. The ad is completely offensive and that’s what the First Amendment is all about — the First Amendment protects offensive speech.
"When we discussed it in my class someone raised the question: Would we be talking about the ad if [the removal of newspapers] had not happened? I think the conversations now are a good thing."
— Ross Cheit, associate professor of political science and public policy, who discussed the ad with students during his March 19 "Introduction to Public Policy" course
"As we attempt to resolve this crisis, we should begin to focus on our agreements rather than on our disagreements. I have no doubt that the Brown community supports both the principle of freedom of speech, and the cause of social and racial justice. Although I respect the Brown Daily Herald's decision to publish David Horowitz's advertisement and I don't condone the removal of the BDH by the coalition, I regret that attention is being diverted from the important debate over the lingering consequences of slavery in contemporary society and the need to redress racial injustice, which the publication of David Horowitz's controversial ad should have generated."
— Luiz F. Valente, associate professor of Portuguese and Brazilian studies and comparative literature
"I am very sympathetic with the decision to print unpopular political arguments in the Herald, whether of the left or the right. I am concerned, however, that the Herald did so in the case of the Horowitz ad under the guise of accepting paid advertising, because it suggests it will be under an obligation to accept ads for inflammatory political messages that it does not wish to publish. Suppose, for example, David Duke wishes to buy an ad to print a message from the KKK, or Louis Farrakhan or Jorg Haidar wishes to buy an ad to print an anti-Semitic message. Will the Herald then feel similarly obliged to publish their material because it published the Horowitz ad?
"If the board of the Herald feels obliged to support the Horowitz position, they would have been better advised to write an editorial saying so. This would preserve their freedom to choose their battles. Instead you have laid out a welcome mat for any village malcontent who wishes to pay $725 to advertise his sermon. At the very least the Herald should up the price…. I would add my outrage at any students that would steal copies of the Herald in an attempt to intimidate the editorial policy of the paper."
— George Borts, professor of economics
"I believe the editors of the BDH are guilty of insensitivity. The recent uproar at URI over the cartoon about affirmative action should have given them some idea how to address such an explosive ad. The BDH members have to accept the fact that deciding to run such an ad is not without consequence. On the other hand, I do not condone making information, no matter how offensive, unavailable to others simply because. How can a person be expected to know and understand the many sides of an issue without reading and knowing the many different perspectives and opinions about the issue? Then again, I am pleased to see that Brown University students are willing to take a stand about the ad. But, I hope we will not continue to give Horowitz the attention he so obviously hoped he would get. Let's now turn our attention to the racial issues that exist on this campus. We have a lot of work to do!"
— Fayneese Miller, associate professor of education and human development.
"What the Herald’s actions did show was that they, alone, apparently, among the student papers of the Ivy League, actually believe in one of the things that universities are supposed to stand for — that campuses should be fee and open marketplaces of ideas from which no opinion is excluded… For members of the ‘coalition,’ the answer is clear. Suppress, confiscate and stifle. There would be, if they had their way, no debate on this issue at Brown. There would be only silence."
— Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology, in a March 19 Brown Daily Herald commentary piece
"I believe that the Brown Daily Herald was wrong to publish the ad paid for and written by David Horowitz. The ideas it presents are racist and hurtful to members of the Brown campus community. In a year when racial profiling, massive voting rights abuses, hugely inequitable drug sentencing, and widespread instances of racially biased executions have made news, I find it hard to believe that any thinking person can claim that racism no longer exists. The publication of the advertisement was a calculated political act by the editors of the BDH and the response of the Brown students, who in various ways may have disrupted the newspaper's distribution, seems to me a measured political response to that act."
— Susan Smulyan, associate professor of American civilization
"It is very important for communications to remain open in a democracy, and even for unpopular ideas to be heard, so that they can be dealt with critically and peacefully. The University should be a special kind of place, where the expression of opposing ideas on controversial issues is safeguarded to the maximum, and where people may read and discuss issues without harassment."
— Lewis P. Lipsitt, professor emeritus of psychology, medical science, and human development
"I understand and sympathize with the students’ concerns about the Horowitz ad, but I believe the tactics of those who destroyed or stole the Brown Daily Herald issues were unwarranted, and in the end counterproductive to their aims. I would have hoped that this controversial event would generate a public forum or open discussion on the issues. It was a missed opportunity to generate an educational interchange. The protesters' actions paradoxically created greater public sympathy for Horowitz's controversial views."
— William Beeman, associate professor of anthropology