Turnstile

by Akil Houston

This letter is in response to The Post's decision to run David Horowitz's advertisement "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea - and Racist Too." The bone of contention is not why The Post chose to run the ad but why the only explanation offered is a typical plea for the free-speech bandwagon. As an independent, student-run newspaper in Athens, Ohio, the paper reserves the right to publish advertisements as the advisory board sees fit, provided the advertisement meets all regulatory standards.

However, The Post either was duped or is attempting to dupe its reading public by passing the free-speech buck and not addressing the real issue at hand. In a March 15 panel at the University of California - Berkeley, Horowitz conceded that his paid advertisement did not constitute a free speech issue. Therefore, any attempt to legitimize this article based on the above disclaimer is a moot point.

Furthermore, as professor Lewis Gordon of Brown University, where this same ad appeared in campus newspapers, illustrates "the sale and purchase of advertising space is not a matter of free speech, however, but involves an exchange of commodities." As one critically studies Horowitz's ad it becomes clear it is NOT a reasoned position in the debate of reparations. It is clear it is a racist polemic against African descendants and all oppressed people.

Perhaps this would be the portion of the letter in which I list the numerous factual sources to disprove Horowitz's unfounded claims. However, that would suggest his frail argument is worth acknowledging. Nevertheless, in the interest of balancing out the distortions I would recommend "The Interest in Slavery of the Southern Non-slaveholder" by James D. DeBows, "The Debt America Owes to Blacks" by Randall Robinson, "Before the Mayflower" by Lerone Bennett Jr., or "They Came before Columbus" by Ivan Van Sertima to name a few.

Further, historian John Hope Franklin, in a recent rebuttal to Horowitz's claim, maintains: "All whites and no slaves benefited from American slavery. All blacks had no rights that they could claim as their own. All whites, including the vast majority who had no slaves, were not only encouraged but authorized to exercise dominion over all slaves, thereby adding strength to the system of control."

The questions here are why out of 50 college newspapers reportedly receiving solicitation for the ad only 14 agreed to do it. Why is Horowitz specifically targeting college newspapers? Furthermore, if The Post found nothing wrong with posting the ad why was there no choice made to run an editorial opposite the ad? The Daily Princetonian (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com) of Princeton University on April 4 considered the feelings of all of its readers. In addition to running the ad, the paper explained its commitment to open dialogue and concluded that they would donate the proceeds from the ad to the Trenton Chapter of the National Urban League, a non profit, non-partisan group that works for civil rights and racial understanding.

For many of us the problem is The Post's failure to create a climate where all voices are valued and supported. It seems from the position explained in the April 9 Letter from the Editor, more value is placed on advertising dollars then inclusion of all Ohio University students, faculty and staff, and the Athens community who read The Post.

Such instances continue to perpetuate an environment in which students of color feel obligated to defend their right to be here or continually to teach about the legacy of the African Holocaust that affects everybody in the United States. It seems to be a diametric contradiction for a news source on a campus that prides itself on diversity and multicultural inclusion to ignore the other side of such a sensitive issue. Is it only important to include diversity of thought during the International Street Fair or during Black History Month or other politically "appropriate" times? The crime here is the crime of omission.

In conclusion, what have we learned as collective? In an academic setting such as we find ourselves in, it is imperative to be solution oriented. Too many times irresponsible acts such as this rouse heated public interest for a brief time then dies out. Some possible solutions are to create an atmosphere where all voices are heard and encouraged to be heard.

Lastly the position The Post took, as articulated in the Letter from the Editor clearly indicates the need for further dialogue. By accepting payment for the advertisement the argument could be made The Post is profiting by what some have labeled hate speech. Therefore, duplicity makes those responsible for accepting the ad at The Post accomplices in the message of Horowitz.

Houston is president of Black Graduate Council.