Protests over The Chronicle's decision to run an advertisement opposing slavery reparations continued over the weekend with a rally and plans for further action today. The University will host a panel discussion tonight addressing the issue.
About 75 students attended a demonstration Friday afternoon, following The Chronicle's rejection of four demands-including a public apology for running the ad. The protesters marched around the main residential and academic quadrangles, chanting and waving signs.
With intense anger and volume, the students began shouting "We are students, too! Respect us, too!" and moved on to phrases such as "Don't read The Chronicle! It's all lies!" and "I am not three-fifths of a student!"
The event, which lasted an hour-and-a-half, drew out a few students and administrators. Interim Vice President for Student Affairs Jim Clack, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education William Chafe, Dean of Student Development Barbara Baker and Senior Vice President for Public Affairs John Burness all looked on as the protesters made it clear that they would continue their fight.
The ad, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea-and Racist," was has sparked nationwide controversy. Conservative author David Horowitz has sent the ad to more than 50 college newspapers. There were no formal speeches at the rally, and lead organizer Troy Clair, a sophomore, declined to make a statement to The Chronicle. Clair is also a photographer for The Chronicle.
Chronicle Editor Greg Pessin stood by the paper's initial decision to run the ad. "We continue to be sorry that this ad was hurtful or offensive to people but remain steadfast in our belief that free exchange of ideas sometimes comes at the expense of comfort," Pessin said. "Any society that truly values free speech and the free exchange of ideas recognizes that even offensive or insensitive views should be aired."
President Nan Keohane has not criticized The Chronicle's decision to run the ad, but she said it could have been better explained. "I wish [The Chronicle] had accompanied the ad at the outset with a statement in the same edition of the paper," Keohane wrote in an e-mail yesterday, "explaining [its] policy on accepting ads, making clear that publishing it didn't necessarily mean endorsing its views and recognizing that it could be painful to... fellow students."
Last Thursday, she agreed to students' demand that she compile a progress report on demands made by black students in 1969, 1975 and 1997.
Meanwhile, e-mails have circulated among members of the Duke community.
One suggested that people steal issues of The Chronicle from the distribution bins. Pessin said such action is illegal. Another proposed a boycott of The Chronicle.
"We realize that the only way to harm this corporation is to greatly diminish their readership, thus affecting the power and reach of the advertisements whose revenue they value so much more than the community that they serve," reads the e-mail, sent by senior Carliss Chatman. The students also asked that people wear black today as a sign of solidarity and that individual departments stop advertising in the paper.
Clack said that although he does not know if the paper made the wrong decision, he will participate in the boycott. "The ad is racist, and I do support what students are saying and doing," Clack said. "In the best of all worlds, this would lead to a discourse [between] people of all races. You usually can't start those conversations with the outlandish rhetoric Horowitz used."
Chronicle advertising precedent has also sparked debate, in e-mails and at protest meetings. Many students cited The Chronicle's refusal to print ads questioning the existence of the Holocaust. In 1991, the paper did run such an ad amidst widespread controversy, but it declined other Holocaust revisionist ads last year and this year. Pessin explained that in each case, the ad was rejected for reasons other than its opinions.
In October 1996, The Chronicle made local news when it declined a pro-choice ad submitted by Students for Choice and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League of North Carolina picturing a coat hanger. The paper asked that another ad with pro-choice rhetoric be altered. "The impetus... stemmed from the newspaper's desire to encourage such debate to play itself out on the editorial pages of the newspaper, rather than in advertisements," then-editor Brian Harris wrote in a column. "If we do not take responsibility for what goes in our newspaper, no one will-which could result in the publishing of material undeniably offensive to our readers. It's our job to cut it before you have to see it."
This year, The Chronicle has run many ads containing opinions, including a four-part anti-abortion advertising campaign. Pessin denounced Harris' decision and explained that the paper's administration changes each year and thus its practices are subject to change. He added that The Chronicle has turned away few, if any, ads each year.
"This is part of the successful system of checks and balances of The Chronicle," Pessin said. "Each year, a new editor is elected. Each year, new staff members come on board and others leave." He said that for most of the last 10 years, the paper has been firmly committed to free press.
Pessin will speak at a panel discussion scheduled for tonight at 5:30 p.m. tonight at the Sanford Institute of Public Policy. Several professors and a protesting student will also be on the panel.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.