Horowitz controversy hits 'Daily Princetonian'

The editors of Princeton's undergraduate newspaper refused to play David Horowitz's game. And now he is refusing to pay up.

COURTESY 'THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN'

On Wed., Apr. 4, the Daily Princetonian (better known as the Prince) ran a controversial advertisement placed by Horowitz, a conservative social critic, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea—and Racist Too." In the ad, Horowitz argues that the United States should not offer monetary reparations to the descendants of slaves and poses the question, "What about the debt blacks owe to America—to white Americans—for liberating them from slavery?...If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have ended."

COURTESY 'THE BROWN DAILY HERALD'

In the same issue, however, the Prince ran an editorial denouncing Horowitz's message as racist. "Horowitz plays a clever game," the editors wrote. "When [he] submits an ad to a college paper, he hopes that one of two things will happen: either the paper refuses to print the ad, so he can tell the world that conservative ideas are being censored by the liberal college press, or the paper prints the ad and campus activists protest. Both ways, Horowitz gets what he wants—his name in the news and his message in the national media."

Declaring they were unwilling "to play [Horowitz's] game," the editors went on to state, "In no way do we support Horowitz's argument," and offered the entire fee for the ad, $1,700.50, to the Trenton, NJ chapter of the National Urban League, a non-profit organization that works for civil rights and racial harmony.

An incensed Horowitz issued a statement calling the Prince's decision "intellectually dishonest and psychologically sick." He also wrote to the Prince, saying, "I urge the editors of the Prince to withdraw their unsubstantiated and indefensible slander. I urge members of the Princeton community to support not only my right to express these views, but to express them without being subjected to character assassination and abuse. This is the only way to protect the free speech rights of every member of this community." Horowitz's spokesman told reporters "We are...withholding our check for the ad until the slanders are withdrawn and a public apology is made to David Horowitz and the Princeton community."

Daniel Stephens, the Prince's editor, refused to comment on Horowitz's decision to withhold payment. But judging from the controversy other college newspapers have faced, he seems to have handled the situation well. Other newspapers ran the ad without taking a firm editorial position and have faced angry student protests. The Brown Daily Herald ran Horowitz's ad without comment alongside an editorial denouncing Brown's new smoking policy. Three days later, a coalition of student groups stole nearly the entire press run of the paper—some 4,000 copies. Protestors replaced the stolen papers with a flier. "We are using this action as an opportunity to show our community at Brown that our newspaper is not accountable to its supposed constituents," the flier read. "It is a newspaper run by Brown student-opportunists and careerists who are completely unaccountable to the University's aims and its student body."

The editors of the Daily Herald were forced to barricade themselves in their office to fend off protestors attempting to destroy the few remaining papers. Later that same day, the editors issued a statement defending their stance. "We cannot condone the actions our critics have taken against us," the statement read. "The recent theft of thousands of copies of the Herald from Brown's campus was an unacceptable attempt to silence our voice." The following Monday, the Daily Herald reprinted the stolen issues and distributed them under guard.

Although many Brown students have now written to the Daily Herald to offer their opinions on Horowitz's ad, the issue remains a contentious one on campus. On Wednesday, angry faculty members wrote an open letter to Brown Interim President Sheila Blumstein, criticizing her handling of the entire affair. The same day, in its final meeting of the year, Brown's Undergraduate Council of Students passed a resolution calling on the university not to punish students who stole the papers. Some claim Brown is unfairly targeting a select group of minority students to intimidate campus minorities as a whole.

Princeton has avoided such controversy, however. "I'm personally very pleased with the way [the Prince] handled [Horowitz's ad]," Salih Omar Eissa, president of Princeton's Black Student Union, said. "They really exposed his ignorance and hopefully, if they get their money, they'll be able to do good with it, like they want."

As for Horowitz, Eissa dismissed him as a sore loser. "I think it's a testament to his lack of sophistication," she said. "I think he's angry now because he played a dirty game and he still lost."

Graphics courtesy the Daily Princetonian and the Brown Daily Herald.

Back to News...