On Thursday morning, over 100 angry protesters marched around West Campus in a chain of bodies, blocking students on their way to class from passing through. The protesters demanded an apology from The Chronicle for printing David Horowitz's anti-reparations for slavery ad.
The protesters offered no rational, factual arguments against Horowitz. The flyer they passed out accused Horowitz of making claims that were not factual, and then provided no examples of false claims that he made. The flyer accused Horowitz of "attack[ing] who African Americans are by birth, not any specific ideologies or choices," even though the ad does nothing of the sort. The letters to the editor opposing the ad have contained arbitrary accusations of falsity and deliberate misstatements of Horowitz's position.
The protest was clearly not about rational debate on the reparations issue, but about airing unjustified feelings. Why was the ad outrageous, why was it disgusting and why should people be offended? No answer has been given.
The message of the protesters was clear-it is not necessary to refute Horowitz's arguments or attempt to defend reparations for slavery. Instead, it is only necessary to take offense to his arguments. Once one feels offended, he has sufficiently answered Horowitz and justified banning him from the pages of The Chronicle.
But a feeling is not an argument, and the protesters' offense at Horowitz's ad does not change the validity of anything he wrote.
Alex Epstein
Trinity '02
The writer is a former columnist for The Chronicle.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.