Running Horowitz Column Gave Legitimacy to His Views

Most of you are familiar by now with David Horowitz, the once-leftist thinker turned conservative blow-hard who ran an ad in college newspapers around the country listing 10 reasons why paying reparations to blacks for the crimes of slavery is a bad idea.

According to his Web site, frontpagemag.com, Horowitz has sent the ad to 71 campus newspapers. So far, 39 have rejected the ad, 22 have run it, and 10 have not acted. Of the 22 that ran the ad, some apologized amid protests.

Seeking to avoid such fallout or as Dees describes it, "knee-jerk responses" to the ad, the DTH rejected the ad. As they should have. The DTH has every right to reject the advertisements, and opinions, of anyone for any reason.

Rather than rejecting the ad as the controversial, inaccurate and racially polarizing musings of one man, as many other newspapers did, the DTH thought it important to provide a forum for his ideas. The DTH devoted an entire page to him titled "The David Horowitz Controversy," not the "Reparations Controversy." Horowitz's column was atop the page. Below was a column from black students Tyra Moore and Doug Taylor.

Columns by Dees and Chancellor James Moeser also ran.

Dees cannot understand why his decision upset blacks. "I must say that I feel slightly betrayed by Tyra Moore and company," Dees wrote in his column. "I thought that by giving them the opportunity to refute Horowitz's claims the day they ran, a privilege given by no other college newspaper -- to my knowledge -- they would respect our decision to run his views in the name of free speech and open discussion."

Note how it was Dees who felt "betrayed." Dees should have spelled out the facts that made him feel betrayed. Instead, he came off as patronizing. And his tone set up a dangerous position: "us" vs. "them."

(Dees felt betrayed because Moore told the Duke Chronicle before the columns ran that Dees' plan was a "much more effective way of creating dialogue, by giving all sides of an issue." Moore told me her answer was diplomatic -- she didn't wish to upset the DTH before her column ran.)

Dees felt his decision to open the editorial page to opposing points of view was in the best interests of all.

"Let truth and falsehood clash," John Milton said. I will advocate that idea until I die. But part of my responsibility as the readers' advocate (and in a grander sense, everyone's responsibility) is ensuring that the best voices are heard. The strongest voices are not necessarily the loudest. The strongest voices are the most enlightened ones, regardless of volume. Horowitz is simply a loud voice: a bully.

And so, consider the ideas on our "David Horowitz" page. Imagine a boxing ring with the word "Horowitz" smeared across the center where the word "Budweiser" usually appears.

Our Goliath is a conservative author and columnist who, get this, has a new book to sell. What a hustler.

On the other side of the debate are two UNC students, Moore and Taylor. Not to dismiss their voices, because they fought Horowitz as well as they could, but they were on the defense before the fight even started.

If Dees is really interested in a public debate on reparations, which is not limited to the voices from the campus community, why not seek out the opinion of a reparations advocate like Randall Robinson? Or a noted African-American scholar? Or even Chuck Stone, founder of the National Association of Black Journalists.

The basic problem: black reparations was not an issue before Horowitz submitted the ad. Not to most blacks, and certainly not to whites. Why does a white man feel it necessary to determine what is best for blacks?

Horowitz tosses a lot of shit at the wall to see what sticks. Horowitz plays with history and offers little hard, accurate historical and sociological evidence. One solid refutation of his ad can be found at: www.disinfo.com/

pages/article/id960.

Dees agreed with many of Horowitz's points and discounted several of Moore and Taylor's points. Dees also called Moore and Taylor "close-minded" for calling the DTH and Horowitz racist. He even went so far as to say, "Shame on them."

Had someone submitted an ad calling for all Mexicans to be sent back to Mexico, would Dees give him editorial space and then assail the critics who call him racist?

So what separates Horowitz? Certainly not his scholarly credentials. The fact that he has enough money to submit ads around the country and cause a national stir? (One wonders where his money comes from.) If newsworthiness is the issue, didn't our several news stories on him suffice?

Dees promotes an unfair fight and then stands with Horowitz after Moore and Taylor are down. He even criticizes the two bloodied fighters for taking issue with his event.

Shame on Dees.

Moeser may have made the best point on the entire page, "In the case of Mr. Horowitz's ad, I consider it despicable and shameful, diminishing the cost of slavery and damaging the self-respect of an entire race." Exactly.

The scene was a far cry from an enlightened debate on reparations.

Rather, the debate was about David Horowitz. He accomplished his mission as a bully.

The Daily Tar Heel now has a black eye. (As do other campus newspapers.)

Horowitz has become a presence on the playground. And he's not even a worthy adversary --