That's an open question in the wake of a controversial newspaper ad opposing reparations for the descendants of slaves.
During the past month, the ad has touched off First Amendment brush fires on numerous college campuses. Placed by David Horowitz, an author who has moved from the left to the right of the political spectrum over the past 30 years, the ad was headlined "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- And Racist Too."
Horowitz points out that no single group was responsible for slavery and that "most living Americans have no connection (direct or indirect) to slavery." Horowitz's more controversial points include the assertion that black people have benefited economically from slavery: "If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves."
If Horowitz's goal was to raise his visibility, he has succeeded. If his goal was to demonstrate that college campuses are not exactly havens for free speech, he has succeeded many times over.
According to Horowitz's Web page, he has attempted to place the ad in 71 college newspapers. To date, 22 have published the ad. A total of 39 have rejected the ad. And three campus papers have published the ad and then apologized after feeling heat from student organizations.
That heat has been widespread. Students have marched into newspaper offices and demanded any fees paid by Horowitz be turned over to campus groups. At Brown University, a coalition of student groups stole almost 4,000 copies of The Brown Daily Herald in retaliation for publication of the ad.
To be sure, college newspapers have no obligation to run any ad. It's their First Amendment right to decide whether a commercial message will be published. During my years as a newspaper editor, I saw the advertising department reject many potentially controversial ads, including, most notably, anti-abortion ads containing graphic images of dead fetuses.
What makes the current ad controversy particularly unsettling, however, is the number of student groups -- particularly groups concerned about racism -- that want to punish both Horowitz and campus newspapers for exercising their free-speech rights.
I don't question the passion of their beliefs or their sense of injury. I do wonder, though, how they've lost sight of the role free speech has played in righting wrongs.
