The closing of Brian's Rumors Daily and protests in California over a controversial ad denouncing slavery reparations show that college students still cannot balance their right to free speech and their responsibility to use that freedom wisely.
The free exchange of ideas defines the university environment. Differing opinions - including those that may be controversial - are the lifeblood of the higher learning experience. In recent years, however, colleges have become institutions where conversation can only take place in private rooms so as to avoid public excoriation.
At UC Berkley, an ad was recently published in the student newspaper, The Daily Californian, which drew widespread criticism. The advertisement, titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea - and Racist Too," was sent to more than 35 University papers by David Horowitz, who authored the spread to promote his "neo-conservative" book. Whether he's correct or not, Horowitz brings up a legitimate topic for academic debate.
No reasonable person would deny that discussion on subjects such as affirmative action and slavery reparations are without value. These issues are commonly debated on talk shows, and in the pages of political magazines. College campuses, where students are supposed to learn from one another, should be no less welcoming of this dialogue.
Instead of intelligent op-ed pieces and letters-to-the-editor, however, the paper's editor, Daniel Hernandez, was inundated with insults and threats. Students protested outside the newspaper office and demanded an apology from the editors. Calling Hernandez and the paper "racist," opponents of a free press and the free exchange of ideas demanded an apology.
Shockingly, the paper quickly acquiesced, issuing a statement that said, among other things, that the editors wished to "formally apologize for printing a paid advertisement in yesterday's edition.... [The ad] allowed The Daily Cal to become an inadvertent vehicle for bigotry."
Do the editors honestly believe that printing an ad that asserts that reparations will not solve racial problems makes the paper a "vehicle for bigotry" - or even that advocating against reparations is bigotry in and of itself? Certainly Horowitz has controversial opinions - not all of which are well thought out or correct - but the topics he discusses are well within the realm of acceptable academic dialogue.
Newspapers, furthermore, should serve as a venue for debate on controversial topics. By censoring an ad against reparations - as the thought police at UC Berkely demanded - editors abandoned the objectivity demanded of their positions. Considering the offence to journalism, a Fox News editor was generous when he told Hernandez that he should never go into the field.
All student complaints should have been published as letters arguing against Horowitz, not The Daily Cal. To suggest that the paper should not have printed the ad is abhorrent to the freedoms students have fought for in the past 30 years. Thankfully, many of the school papers that did run the ad did not later apologize, though certainly there were students and editors on those campuses that disagree with Horowitz's message.
Two years ago at Tufts, the Daily printed a pro-life insert, and not surprisingly came under the same type of pressure. Pro-choice students attacked the Daily, instead of the issue. Unfortunately, as cases like these become more common on college campuses, the argument against free speech is being strengthened by people who don't act responsibly with their right to express themselves.
At Tufts, the recently shutdown Rumors page originally served a healthy purpose and was a legitimate competitor for the campus media, often beating print publications in breaking stories. But with the opening of the forum came comments tough for even the most ardent First Amendment defender to swallow. When the discussion board began, a small group of people acted immaturely, writing racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks. In the last few months, that small group turned into a dominant faction.
Anonymous forums will always be suspect, as there is nothing more cowardly than an author with something controversial to say, who refuses to put his name on the statement. On the Rumors site, people abused the privilege that anonymity afforded them. As a result, one of the few breaths of fresh air in Tufts' hypersensitive college atmosphere had to be shut down. Censorship, a step Finklestein seemed to loathe, was never a viable option, as it would have subverted his original intention and taken away from the novelty of his site. But immaturity prevailed and Tufts lost a valuable discussion forum.
Twenty years ago, students fought to have a free press so they could express their ideas without worrying about administrative castigation. But today, students have forgotten the importance of that privilege. The UC example is an extreme case, but similar stories have become commonplace. That students feel empowered to express their opinions is a positive sign for American academia. More important, however, is for students to feel empowered to listen to conflicting opinions, thanking the media for the opportunity to debate issues. Otherwise, students risk returning to a time when a censorship system allowed for little, if any, real discussion of controversial topics.
