Duke University's student newspaper editor Greg Pessin knew what he was getting into when he decided to run a controversial advertisement opposing slavery reparations. Fiery debate over the ad had already erupted on campuses across the country, capturing prominent headlines in the national media and his own careful attention.
But, citing free speech principles, Pessin decided to pledge a full page of space in The Duke Chronicle to the paid ad. "We knew there was a good possibility there would be a backlash," he said. "But the free exchange of ideas should not be sacrificed for comfort."
What followed was a chain of events not unlike what unfolded at other campuses whose newspapers decided to print the ad. Student groups held protests attacking the Chronicle's decision; some launched a tame sit-in the daily's office, only to be broken up by police; and The Chronicle, faced with relentless scrutiny, suddenly had to explain its decision publicly.
The ad, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- and Racist Too," has been submitted to upwards of 50 campus newspapers by the conservative thinker David Horowitz. It argues that African-Americans owe the United States more than what the country owes them, and has so far cost about $10,000 in advertising fees.
On March 13, The Brown Daily Herald became the first Ivy League newspaper to run the ad -- which had been submitted to and rejected by every Ivy League daily that received it, including The Dartmouth.
But Duke's experience as a forum for fierce debate over the limits of free speech and the ideological sway of the university campus could soon repeat itself in Hanover.
The Dartmouth Review, the off-campus conservative paper, solicited the ad from Horowitz and plans to run it in its upcoming issue, according to both Horowitz's organization and editors at the Review.
"I'm not going to say that editorially we agree or disagree with the ad, but we find it to be very provocative," said Andrew Grossman '02, editor of the Review. "David Horowitz has a well argued message, and he's had difficulty getting his voice out on other college campuses."
In an interview from his office at the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in Los Angeles, Horowitz said he supports the Review's decision to run the ad. "I hope The Dartmouth Review prints the ad to get that viewpoint out there," he said
But another official said the Center would have preferred The Dartmouth give space to the ad instead. "The idea here is we wanted to reach the greatest number of students as possible," said administrative director Stephen Brooks.
Explaining the paper's reasons for rejecting the ad, President of The Dartmouth, Omer Ismail '02, said, "We chose not to run the ad because of its potentially inflamatory and offensive nature."
Grossman said he thinks the Review's publication of the ad will benefit Dartmouth. "Slavery reparations seems to be an issue little discussed at Dartmouth, so maybe there will be a debate, maybe there will be a discourse," he said.
But others on campus are not so sure that the ad will bring any positive results. "I think it would be a controversy we just don't need right now. I feel like we're not at a point where we can talk about this in a particularly non-emotional way," said Leah Threatte '01, president of the historically black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha.
"I thought the actual ad was poorly based. It was working on the assumption that racism and its effects are over, and I think it's pretty clear that isn't the case," she added.
"I believe in free speech, but student newspapers should be voices for students, not for private corporations and rich individuals."
At Brown, a coalition of students responded to the ad by seizing copies of the Herald from campus newsstands and attempted to remove remaining copies from the Herald's office. The Herald reprinted its March 13 edition -- with the ad -- several days later, as staffers stood watch over its distribution, armed with disposable cameras and the assistance of campus security.
The ad caused such a furor as to elicit two official press releases from Brown's interim president Sheila E. Blumenstein, who said she supports the Herald's free speech entitlement to run the ad.
Angry students, faculty, and administrators demanded that the Herald apologize for running the ad and provide free rebuttal space. So far, the Herald has stood by its decision, saying it will not censor advertisements, but has given voice to a flurry of opinion writers over the issue.
Meanwhile, those who have been on the side of the multi-cultural student coalition have faced obstacles of their own.
"I've received emails that are so offensive they can't be printed," said Lewis Gordon, Brown's director of Afro-American studies and a professor of religion.
"I think it shouldn't be reduced to a free speech issue. It's also a race issue, it's a class issue because poor people don't have the money to buy ads in newspapers across the country. It's also a hate speech issue," Gordon added.
But David Horowitz sees the controversy in the context of what he describes as a coercive political correctness. "I think that there are many campuses that are enveloped in a cloud of racial McCarthyism, whereby everybody feels they can't talk openly about race," he said.
Horowitz added: "The reparations crowd is asking Jose Martinez, who might have come to this country 10 years ago and is struggling to put bread on the table for his children, to pay reparations for Johnny Cochran and Jesse Jackson, who are both millionaires."
The Dartmouth Review has not yet published the advertisement.
