# Reparations good, freedom of speech bad??? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2001, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878 "2001-03-21T16:25:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![vix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a88e4f/32.png) [@vix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vix)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/1 "2001-03-21T16:25:49Z")
Interesting goings-on at my alma mater: Last week, the editor of Brown University’s newspaper, the Brown Daily Herald, decided to run an advertisement paid for by conservative author David Horowitz. The ad, which can be found [here](http://www.frontpagemag.com/horowitzsnotepad/2001/hn01-03-01.htm), lists ten reasons why reparations for slavery should not be paid to black Americans. Minority groups on campus protested the ad by “stealing” 4,000 copies of the free paper. They also demanded that the paper give them an equivalent amount of advertising space for free. The Herald refused the request and reprinted and redistrubuted the issue which had been stolen. This story has now made national news… it was on the front page of today’s [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/21/national/21BROW.html). The story is also getting quite a bit of press in Rhode Island. The Providence Journal, in an [editorial](http://projo.com/cgi-bin/story.pl/opinion/05148051.htm) praised the Herald’s defense of freedom of speech. [This story](http://projo.com/cgi-bin/story.pl/news/05157772.htm), also in the Providence paper, quotes many people who agree that the Herald did the right thing by printing the ad. (The Journal ran several other stories about the issue as well). ([Here](http://browndailyherald/) is a link the the Herald’s web site, which has been tough to load because it’s been getting so many hits.) I’m interested to know what you think about this issue. I find myself agreeing with a few of Horowitz’s points. (For example, should recent white immigrants (such as my family) have to pay reparations to black Americans?) Overall, though, I think his presentation is inflammatory, racist, and missing the point. If race relations were not such a big issue in this country, we, and the students at Brown and elsewhere, wouldn’t be having this debate. That will be a great day. (I can only view the SDMB in the morning so if I don’t respond, that’s why). Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/2 "2001-03-21T16:44:56Z")
If his statements are correct, I agree with all of them. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/3 "2001-03-21T17:15:40Z")
Horowits pints on reparations aside, I think that the actions of the Coalition of Concerned Students (CCS) shows the utter moral bankruptcy of leftists. Instead of debating the issues or submitting an article refuting Horowitz, the CCS turned to thuggery from the get-go, making extortionist threats to the Brown Daily Herald, and then stealing an entire press run when those demands were not met. The CCS seems to believe that because they oppose racism and therefore are, by definition, the good guys, they are therefore justified in any act they perform, no matter how illegal or how noxious to American concepts of free speech and a free press. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/4 "2001-03-21T17:34:34Z")
David Horowitz knew exactly what he was doing. Surely the former hippie-turned conservative activist had a pretty good idea what happens when one drops a match on a liberal college campus. I find his cynical conflict-mongering nearly as nauseating as students’ response. Guilty, guilty, all around. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/5 "2001-03-21T17:38:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by goboy \* > Horowits pints on reparations aside, I think that the actions of the Coalition of Concerned Students (CCS) shows the utter moral bankruptcy of leftists. **goboy** , take your moral superiority and your generalizations, and, oh wait, this is GD, not the Pit. 😃 Let me just respond by saying the when I was in (Catholic) college, an entire run of one of the school’s newspaper was similarly stolen because it ran an ad from Planned Parenthood. Do ya think it was the leftists who did that? Student activists, of all stripes, have a depressing tendency towards thuggishness. (BTW **vix** , the students who stole the paper didn’t infringe on Horowitz’ free speech rights - only government can do that. Instead they committed theft (even though the paper was free).) Anywho, as for Horowitz’ points: (full disclosure - I am against reparations): #2 was flat out offensive - the implication was that, because American blacks are now wealthier than Africans, slavery was a good thing for them; #6 is simply the wrong argument - the argument in favor of reparations is that the money would have been in the hands of the black families, through inheritance, had slaves been paid for their work. And as for the West Indies, what the hell has that got to do with the argument? Presumably, the descendants of West Indian slaves would have to go to Great Britain, France, Spain, etc., for reparations; #8 is wrong on the welfare point - welfare is equally open to blacks and whites. On the affirmative action point, the rationale for that has been the post-slavery economic discrimination against blacks; #9 is flat out offensive. When people who have been doing something bad realize this and change their behavior, the victims of their former bad acts haven’t received a “gift”. I generally agree with his other points, and I wish to god that anti-reparations peoples dump the crap noted above before they give their (and my) position a bad name. Sua ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/6 "2001-03-21T17:49:42Z")
Where to begin? Form your first link, > [@](#): > > Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. Welfare benefits are a form of reparation?! I thought, in theory at least, that they were to provide temporary assistance to people in need, and that most recipients are not black. > [@](#): > > What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America? > > …there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans – created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end… If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America …would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those _gifts_? So America = white Christians? And black people did not work for their standard of living, it was benevolently given to them? I know i don’t make cogent arguments, but this is too infuriating. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/7 "2001-03-21T17:57:13Z")
It’s really shameful that the people who brand themselves as champions for what is right automatically resort to that sort of tactic. It’s typical of extremists, though. Rather than discuss why your view is right, it’s much easier to try to censor or bully anyone who holds an opposing view. Resorting to criminal tactics, no matter how right you feel yourself to be, makes you a criminal and no better than those you oppose. ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/8 "2001-03-21T17:59:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ethilrist \* > \*\*If his statements are correct, I agree with all of them. > \*\* This makes no sense to me. It’s like taking the statement “The invisible pink unicorn has blue eyes!” To which I respond “If this statement is correct, I agree with it.” In short: Huh? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/9 "2001-03-21T17:59:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Goboy, take your moral superiority and your generalizations, and, oh wait, this is GD, not the Pit. Let me just respond by saying the when I was in (Catholic) college, an entire run of one of the school’s newspaper was similarly stolen because it ran an ad from Planned Parenthood. Do ya think it was the leftists who did that? Student activists, of all stripes, have a depressing tendency towards thuggishness. What moral superiority? I point to leftists because they seem to be the ones shouting down speakers they oppose, attempting to ban articles they don’t like, and generally acting like thugs. When conservatives pull the same crap,I shall bust on them as well. In the meantime, consider me duly chastised. Regarding reparations, I think they are a bad idea, but the _debate_ over reparations should be welcomed as a way of airing some very dirty laundry and perhaps finally exorcising the ghosts of slavery, thereby reconciling black and white Americans. Then we can gang up on everyone else. 😃 I agree with **Suasponte** ’s analysis of Horowitz’s ad. The man is a racist. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/10 "2001-03-21T18:48:34Z")
I deplore the conduct of those students who stole teh papers. The preferred way to fight a bad idea is with a better idea. I do not agree with the implication that Horowitz’ advertisement was in any way designed to promote a reasoned debate, though. While he has some valid points, the overall tone and presentation seem determinedly inflamatory. An interesting question (to me, at least) is what is the ethical responsibility of the student paper itself. Many papers declined to publish the ad. Were they correct to do so? We seem to expect a more “open” standard from a university publication than we would from a private magazine. (We wouldn’t demand that a children’s magazine accept ads from a pedophilial advocacate, would we?) This seems reasonable, given the public support for institutions of higher learning. But how far does it go? Do we criticize the universities who refused to publish this ad as censors? If so, what other advertisements would we demand they publish? A White Power manifesto? Online porn sites? Instructions on constructing explosives? Advice on how to hack protected networks? Term paper cheating services? In this case, I think the best response would have been to publish the ad along with a detailed response to the content and tone. But while that works for an isolated case, it could be devastating if applied as a general principle. A flood of “objectionable” ads would force the paper to devote all of its space to rebutals. I am forced to conclude that either a blanket policy of refusal (censorship!, they cry) or an element of personal judgment must be applied to each case. Given that, I find myself unable to object too strongly to those editors who refused the ad, though I might wish they had chosen another path. Oh, and **goboy** > [@](#): > > I point to leftists because they seem to be the ones shouting down speakers they oppose, attempting to ban articles they don’t like, and generally acting like thugs. Ever heard of Operation Rescue? Your mistake was, and remains, unjustifiably generalizing the behavior of a few thugs to the large and diverse group “leftists”. If I were to criticize conservatives for the sloppy thinking demonstrated by Creation Science, then I would be commiting the same fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/11 "2001-03-21T19:11:36Z")
Allow me to be the first to be falsely branded a racist for failing to mince words and for saying that I agree with the 10 points. He doesn’t strike me as a racist, but as a guy who is not afraid of the consequences of speaking up with an unpopular opinion, and a guy who, like me, is tired of the “racist chic” that is popular. Yeah, it’s currently in vogue to feel guilty for being white, we’re all bad people, all the good guys are minorities, we owe the Indians, we owe the Blacks, we owe everybody something. Blacks (as a group. I know this is not universally true, but it is for a significant and vocal fraction) segregate themselves, both phsyically and philosophically, and black culture is pervaded with the attitude that white people are bad and oppressors, but it’s white people who are at fault. It’s ok for blacks to mock whites simply for being white, but just try doing the reverse. It’s ok to ask whether blacks are better athletes (in fact, people generally make that assumption), but if somebody implies that whites might be better at anything is flamed mercilessly. \*@&#$@^#@% to that! It’s very common to see somebody claim something to the effect that “…the desendants of whites that ‘owned’ Africans aren’t today directly responsible for the actions of their ‘demonic’ forebearers, yet they are the direct recipients of the vast wealth this horrible ‘crime against humanity’…” (a direct quote from the feedback page at the above link). Now if that’s so, where the hell is my part of the vast wealth? I’m not the direct recipient of anything I didn’t earn myself. I have not received a single benefit of being white, and by the same token, I doubt claims that all blacks are victims of the attitudes of slavery. The only attitudes that affect blacks are their own, and the conditions that hold anybody back are self-inflicted. I had nothing handed to me, yet didn’t turn to crime as my “right” because I had a hard life. Let’s face it, kids, the world is a sad and hard place, and blacks have no monopoly on hardship. Or on slavery, for that matter. The Jews have been the target of institutionalized racism and slavery probably more than any national or ethnic group in history, but I don’t see them demanding money from Egypt, Syria, or Iraq. Bottom line is that nobody is entitled to money any more than violence, job discrimination, or anything else based on race. 100 years is more than a reasonable amount of time for reparation claims to expire, because after that length of time, nobody directly benefitting from, and nobody directly affected by, the event is left alive. And for the record, my ancestors were busy driving the French out of Mexico when the US was busy fighting over slavery, so even they had no part in it. I find the whole idea offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/12 "2001-03-21T19:37:09Z")
Just wanted to make a couple of points. I hope I didn’t take anything out of it’s intended context. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\*An interesting question (to me, at least) is what is the ethical responsibility of the student paper itself. > \*\* It’s interesting to me too, based on the fundamental dichotomy of the news industry: As a private business, is it their right to set requirements that must be met before service is provided? I would say yes. As an outlet of information, is it ethical to refuse to print an advertisement based on inflammatory content? I would say no. A thorny issue. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \*\*\* > [W]hat other advertisements would we demand they publish? A White Power manifesto? Online porn sites? Instructions on constructing explosives? Advice on how to hack protected networks? Term paper cheating services? > \*\* Yes. And more. Otherwise, it’s not free press, but expression of the editors idea[l]s. If you choose to run a publication under the guise of free press, and charge (for example) $100 for a full page ad, then you must accept every offer for an advertisement without questioning it’s content, or your press is no longer free. Any censorship, including censorship by the editor, staff, etc, limits the freedom of the media. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \*\*\* > I am forced to conclude that either a blanket policy of refusal (censorship!, they cry) or an element of personal judgment must be applied to each case. Given that, I find myself unable to object too strongly to those editors who refused the ad, though I might wish they had chosen another path._\* I am forced to conclude the opposite: A blanket policy of non-refusal must be applied. Otherwise the freedom has been restricted to the ideas “sanctioned” by the editors, the community, the university, the state, or whatever body determines the appropriateness of the ideas expressed by the advertiser. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/13 "2001-03-21T20:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beelzebubba \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \*\*\* > > [W]hat other advertisements would we demand they publish? A White Power manifesto? Online porn sites? Instructions on constructing explosives? Advice on how to hack protected networks? Term paper cheating services? > > \*\* > > Yes. And more. Otherwise, it’s not free press, but expression of the editors idea[l]s. If you choose to run a publication under the guise of free press, and charge (for example) $100 for a full page ad, then you must accept every offer for an advertisement without questioning it’s content, or your press is no longer free. Any censorship, including censorship by the editor, staff, etc, limits the freedom of the media. > > A blanket policy of non-refusal must be applied. Otherwise the freedom has been restricted to the ideas “sanctioned” by the editors, the community, the university, the state, or whatever body determines the appropriateness of the ideas expressed by the advertiser. WTF? Your position results in the death of a free press. It is well-recognized that the freedom of expression includes the freedom **not** to express. If you take away that, newspapers lose the right to express their own viewpoint. Newspapers have, and must have, the absolute and uncontested right to exercise their editorial judgment on what is printed. Your argument makes no sense. “Censorship” (more accurately, editorial discretion) by the media limits the freedom of the media?!! That’s an oxymoron. Further, no one’s freedom is limited by a newspaper saying “no” to an ad. The ad writer can always go to another newspaper, or start his/her own. Finally, even if the ad writer’s “freedom” was somehow impugned, so what? In this country, we are protected from government interference, not those of private actors. Sua ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/14 "2001-03-21T20:25:11Z")
I have to largely agree with Sua and others on this. I for one am not a fan of the reparations for slavery idea. However, Horowitz’s overall presentation and argument **is racist and offensive**. As for Joe Cool, if you agree with all 10 points despite several being false, then you are racist, whatever weaseling you may want aside. I rather hope that this is simply dunderheaded rhetoric on your part. Otherwise, I’ll just add a few comments: As Sua said > [@](#): > > #2 was flat out offensive - the implication was that, because American blacks are now wealthier than Africans, slavery was a good thing for them; As well as logically specious for if the same Africans had not been taken into slavery, their descendants (a) might not have suffered the very nasty slave system of the southern USA (b) the Jim Crow system © emmigrated at a later date to a more welcoming society. Ahistorical and I think racist in its assumptions. From gigi’s post > [@](#): > > If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America …would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts? In the light of the civil rights movement, Jim Crow, this is just plain offensive. Obviously they could have immigrated later and not had the present history of discrimination behind them. > [@](#): > > …there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans – created one. Which is historically \*\* FALSE \*\*. I assume the author could have easily verified this, so I have to attribute this to racism. Or stupidity. You take the pick. > [@](#): > > If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end… This is more than slightly specious. We might equally say if not for the efforts of the self- same ethnicity(ies) the transatlantic slave trade might not have flourished… (Not to ignore others roles of course) I feel no need for congratulation for my ancestors late realization the slave trade was wrong. This is just mind numbingly wrongheaded. One interesting issue, however, which touches on what I think might be a better case: Horowitz mentions West Indian descended blacks in the USA have incomes fairly close to White Americans and asks the question, offensively and stupidly stated so I’ll restate, why would slavery effect the two differently. The answer, which might be found for example in the Patterson book I cite to so frequently, is they were fairly different slave systems. Further, post-emancipation histories are different. In the West Indies one can largely (warning gross generalizations follow, I know I am sacrificing some accuracy here) say that (a) the slave descendants ruled themselves — with caveats in re mixed and planter class hold ons (b) the society was majority black, no Jim Crow system per se © schools were pretty darned good (d) fairly different work ethic based in my analysis on the absence of the (e) often violently anti-black and discriminatory segregationist society/social ethic. All in all, a picture of a much healthier society for the wounds of slavery. Not perfect and a close look at the history I am sure turns up many nasty aspects, but \*\* comparatively \*\* a healthier environment. Certainly before I knew anything of the history and so forth, living in NYC I always remarked on the healthier social attitudes, work ethic, superior education of the West Indians. Cultural issues clearly. Insofar as there might be a case for reparations, I should think that it would be found in the realm of post-emancipation discrimination and denial of civil rights. The world that produced lynching, the “legal” barring of blacks from all but the most menial jobs in most cases, etc. Not only is the picture historically clearer, one could base a more cogent case. Now, whether it would in the end be (a) worthwhile (b) fully supportable is another matter, but as an intellectual exercise I see a better case. (In re the payment of reps, I don’t see the issue of immigration as legally relevant assuming that the legal case is directed against the government. German citizens who were not part of Nazi Germany still pay taxes which have gone to payment of German reparation.) ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/15 "2001-03-21T20:25:11Z")
As noted in this [Washington Post article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32815-2001Mar20.html) on the subject, it hasn’t just been an issue at Brown: > [@](#): > > Of 51 schools to which Horowitz sent the ad, 21 rejected it and nine accepted it. Brown’s is the only Ivy League college newspaper that has run the ad. Three other colleges, including the University of California at Berkeley, subsequently apologized for printing it. But at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where 100 protesters stormed its office, the student newspaper refused to apologize, saying it would hinder free speech. I don’t find Horowitz’s list particularly hate-filled or racist. It peters out at the end - his last three points aren’t nearly as strong as his first seven. I agree with gigi - the idea that welfare and other payments are a slavery reparation is dumb. Slave reparations are ludicrous on their face. The idea isn’t getting any serious discussion in Washington D.C. or anywhere else that I’m aware of. Which does tend to call Horowitz’s motivation into question. I’m sure it was to point out “intellectual fascism” on highly liberal college campuses. To a certain extent, I’d say he succeeded. (The California papers _apologizing_ for printing the ad? What was there to apologize for? Offending certain sensibilities? The idea of paying slave reparations is highly offensive to my sensibilities.) Challenge Horowitz’s ideas. Counter his ideas. Debate his ideas. But a college campus is the last place where they should be silenced. Isn’t the whole idea of a university to offer students a myriad of perspectives? Ideally, maybe, but I don’t think that’s what is happening out there. I saw a piece on FoxNews on this yesterday, where Horowitz was to speak at some college campus, since this ad flap occurred. The students in the audience shouted him down. He never got to complete a sentence. I don’t see that as a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/16 "2001-03-21T20:29:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\*David Horowitz knew exactly what he was doing…I find his cynical conflict-mongering nearly as nauseating as students’ response. > > Guilty, guilty, all around. > > \*\* IMHO Horowitz was intentionally provocative. So was Harriet Beecher Stowe, when she wrote “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” One could describe that book as nauseating, cynical conflict-mongering, except that it helped end slavery. The point is, Horowitz’s provocations served the cause of free speech by dramatically demonstrating problems on many campuses. Supporters of civil liberties, whether on the left or on the right, should all be grateful to him. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/17 "2001-03-21T20:30:39Z")
As noted in this [Washington Post article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32815-2001Mar20.html) on the subject, it hasn’t just been an issue at Brown: > [@](#): > > Of 51 schools to which Horowitz sent the ad, 21 rejected it and nine accepted it. Brown’s is the only Ivy League college newspaper that has run the ad. Three other colleges, including the University of California at Berkeley, subsequently apologized for printing it. But at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where 100 protesters stormed its office, the student newspaper refused to apologize, saying it would hinder free speech. I don’t find Horowitz’s list particularly hate-filled or racist. It peters out at the end - his last three points aren’t nearly as strong as his first seven. I agree with gigi - the idea that welfare and other payments are a slavery reparation is dumb. Slave reparations are ludicrous on their face. The idea isn’t getting any serious discussion in Washington D.C. or anywhere else that I’m aware of. Which does tend to call Horowitz’s motivation into question. I’m sure it was to point out “intellectual fascism” on highly liberal college campuses. To a certain extent, I’d say he succeeded. (The California papers _apologizing_ for printing the ad? What was there to apologize for? Offending certain sensibilities? The idea of paying slave reparations is highly offensive to my sensibilities.) Challenge Horowitz’s ideas. Counter his ideas. Debate his ideas. But a college campus is the last place where they should be silenced. Isn’t the whole idea of a university to offer students a myriad of perspectives? Ideally, maybe, but I don’t think that’s what is happening out there. I saw a piece on FoxNews on this yesterday, where Horowitz was to speak at some college campus, since this ad flap occurred. The students in the audience shouted him down. He never got to complete a sentence. I don’t see that as a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/18 "2001-03-21T22:17:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*However, Horowitz’s overall presentation and argument **is racist and offensive**. \*\* I appreciate Coll’s calling H’s _presentation and argument_ “racist,” rather than applying that term to the man himself. Having read several of his book, I know that H has worked mightily for the cause of civil rights. Based on actions, he is demonstrably less racist than most of us posters. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/19 "2001-03-21T22:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > …there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans – created one. Is this one even true? I’m pretty sure slavery was illegal in Mexico before it was in the U.S. - in fact, that’s why (IIRC) the Texans fought to be independent of them; they wanted to own slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2001, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878/20 "2001-03-21T22:46:40Z")
We hoed a lot of these beans already on **beagledave** ’s March 3 thread [Daily Cal a vehicle for bigotry?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=61926) Now that the hubbub has shifted to my home campus, I still say what I said then: > [@](#): > > Though I think the protestors’ cause would be better served by not attempting to quash Horowitz’s ad or demanding apologies for it, I can see why they would find his biased and disingenuous arguments annoying. There are numerous valid arguments against slavery reparations, but Horowitz seems willing to use just about any otherargument he can think of too. From a [longer version](http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2000/05/30/reparations/index.html) of his “Ten Reasons”: > > \*1. Assuming there is actually a debt, it is not at all clear who owes it. \* > > Disingenuous. Reparations advocates are quite clear about saying that the debt is owed by the U.S. government for its complicity in and promotion of slavery, just as it was decided that the U.S. owed a debt to Japanese-Americans whom it put in internment camps. If there are to be reparations, they’ll come from public monies, just as the Japanese-American reparations did. > > \*2. The idea that only whites benefited from slavery is factually wrong and attitudinally racist. \* > > Disingenuous. Reparations advocates are not saying that “only whites benefited from slavery”. On the whole, of course, the benefits of slavery went to whites and the burdens went to blacks, but there need be no racial calculus involved in saying that the U.S. government did something wrong and so the U.S. government should pay. > > \*3. In terms of lineal responsibility for slavery, only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. \* > > Irrelevant. Only a tiny minority of Americans ever got any direct benefit out of having Japanese-Americans carted off to internment camps, either. Nonetheless, the government did wrong and the government had to pay. > > \*4. Most Americans living today (white and otherwise) are the descendants of post-Civil War immigrants, who have no lineal connection to slavery at all. \* > > Irrelevant to the question of whether the government should pay for the wrong it did. When post-Civil War immigrants became citizens of this country, they accepted a share in the burdens of its institutional history just as they accepted a share in the burden of its national debt. I don’t hear any advocates for this year’s immigrants defending their right to be released from the part of their tax burden that funds debt interest payments on the grounds that they “have no lineal connection” to the WWII and post-WWII ballooning of the debt. > > \*5. The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim – that Jews and Japanese-Americans received reparations from Germany and the United States, respectively – are spurious. \* > > This, I think, has some validity. I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that it invalidates the concept of slavery reparations, but there is definitely a difference between paying reparations to those who were direct victims of an injury and paying their descendants (and others who aren’t their descendants) who suffered from various difficult-to-quantify consequences of that injury. One for five so far, Mr. Horowitz. > > \*6. Behind the reparations arguments lies the unfounded claim that all blacks in America suffer economically from the consequences of slavery and discrimination. \* > > Also a reasonable point, IMHO. > > \*7. The renewed sense of grievance – which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create – is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities. \* > > Not entirely without merit, but weak. If reparations **are** a matter of justice—and I’m not convinced that they are, but there are some strong arguments in favor of them—then it’s a little bit lame to respond to a demand for justice by moaning “Oh, but your whining about oppression just sounds so **tacky!** It would make **such** a better impression if you just put up with this historical injustice in a quiet and dignified manner!” Sorry, Mr. Horowitz: no justice, no peace. > > \*8. This raises a point that has previously remained off the radar screen, but will surely be part of the debate to come: What about the “reparations” to blacks that have already been paid? \* > > This is the “but we’ve already given you trillions of dollars in welfare” argument, and it’s disingenuous. If welfare assistance to blacks counts as “reparations”, then what do we call the welfare assistance that’s been given to whites, who have been the majority of welfare recipients? If we call racial preferences for blacks “reparations”, what do we call the racial preferences that have been given to non-blacks? I think Horowitz is on very shaky ground here in claiming that welfare or racial preferences count as “slavery reparations”, but only when the recipients are black. > > \*9. And this raises another question that black leaders might do well to reflect on: What about the debt blacks owe to America – to white Americans – for liberating them from slavery? \* > > Yeah, **right!** “So okay, I kidnapped and abused you, but eventually I let you go, so you should be grateful to me!” I can’t understand how anyone could think that the benefit of being released from slavery somehow makes up for the wrong of having been enslaved in the first place. In any case, the heroism of individual abolitionist whites is not relevant to the question of whether the U.S. government should be held financially liable for the wrongs of legalized slavery. It also ignores, as other posters have pointed out, the significant role played by American blacks in liberating themselves. > > \*10. The final and summary reason for rejecting any reparations claim is recognition of the enormous privileges black Americans enjoy as Americans, and therefore of their own stake in America’s history, slavery and all. \* > > Horowitz has two arguments here: the first is that blacks in America are actually very well off compared to blacks in Africa (which ignores the question of how much of Africa’s current troubles are due to its history of colonial exploitation by whites, btw), and the second is that blacks should not reject America as a mere exploiter and oppressor instead of taking their rightful place in its multicultural heritage. The first point is, again, irrelevant to the question of whether justice demands that the U.S. make reparation for its acts. The second is well worth bearing in mind, but I don’t think it automatically excludes the possibility of reparations. It’s perfectly possible to treasure your rightful place in your country’s multicultural heritage while at the same time feeling that your government owes you something; in fact, there’s probably not an American taxpayer in existence who hasn’t felt that way. > > So I kind of sympathize with the people who found the ad so intolerably irritating, although I personally would not have demanded its withdrawal. If I were still a hotheaded college student and read something in the campus paper as asininely, patronizingly distorted as Horowitz’s Point #9, I’d probably be storming the editorial office too. (Note: Since that last sentence bothered **beagledave** somewhat, I should probably add the caveat that it was mostly in jest. And I **definitely** don’t approve of Thought Police of whatever ideological stripe stealing newspapers to prevent others from reading things that they deem offensive.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-good-freedom-of-speech-bad/58878.md?page=2)