Horowitz ad prompts 'IDS' blunders

The opinion page of the Indiana Daily Student is no longer a legitimate forum for social and political discourse.\nIn Friday's edition, the IDS published David Horowitz's controversial advertisement that outlined his arguments against paying reparations for slavery, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- and Racist Too."\nTo its credit, the IDS editors made the right decision in printing the ad. They thought about it long and hard; in the end, they had very good reasons for the choice they made.\nBut in the aftermath of the ad's publication, the IDS editors issued orders that forbade the newspaper's columnists from writing about the Horowitz ad controversy.\n"The columnists are not allowed to write about the ad because it affects the IDS," said Brooke Ruivivar, IDS editor in chief. "Even if they don't mention the IDS, it still reflects on the decision we made. The only person whose job it is to critique internal decisions is the ombudsman." \nIn effect, the IDS columnists have been muzzled, forbidden to write a single word about the Horowitz ad -- a legitimate topic of public debate if there was one. They are even forbidden to write about the ad as a national issue, totally outside the context of the IDS and IU.\nDave Adams, the IDS publisher, said he disagrees with this decision but respects the right of the IDS editors to keep the debate about the Horowitz ad confined to the issue of slavery reparations and not the IDS. "Normally, I believe the editorial page should operate as independently from the editor as possible," he said. "But the paper didn't write the ad. The paper is part of fostering debate on this campus."\nPublishing an ad such as Horowitz's for the sake of facilitating public debate is admirable; taking away columnists' voices is detrimental to such discourse. \n"The opinion page should debate this issue," Adams said. "I would like to see the opinion page be as robust as it can be, but many newspapers would have a real problem with their own columnists critiquing the actions of the newspaper."\nBerate or praise them as you will, but the IDS columnists serve the IU community in a very useful way by sparking debate on current events and issues. In forcing their silence on an important political issue that's also extremely relevant to higher education, the IDS is, essentially, trampling on and disrespecting the First Amendment. Although the IDS editors had the right to make such a decision, the damage done to free speech as a result is significant.\nThe seeds of this sad chapter in the history of the IDS were sown two weeks ago, when Jim Stinson, a graduate student and IDS columnist, wanted to write about the Horowitz ad and the controversy it had stirred up at universities such as Brown and the University of California at Berkeley.\nStinson saw the relevance and importance of Horowitz's ad to free speech issues. But the IDS management, which was struggling at the time with the decision of whether to publish the ad, didn't allow him to write about it because they said it concerned the IDS.\nStinson was, to put it mildly, upset with this decision. But what he didn't bargain for was the IDS management's decision to stifle discussion of the Horowitz ad even after its publication in Friday's edition. He was under the impression that the topic would be fair game after the IDS reached a decision regarding the ad. \nThis was not so; Stinson, frustrated, resigned from his position as a biweekly IDS columnist Monday afternoon.\n"I am at a loss to explain what motivates (the IDS editors) besides fear of criticism," Stinson wrote in his letter of resignation. "The Horowitz ad is worthy of commentary and debate, and it has affected other campuses, if not the nation as a whole."\nIndeed, discussion of Horowitz and his ad could easily and effectively be done outside the context of the IDS and its decision-making process. The IDS certainly seems to think so. In its Tuesday's edition, it published the first of four guest editorials on the subject of the Horowitz controversy. But it won't allow its own columnists to even broach the subject. This is hypocritical and wrong.\nAt least the IDS didn't make the mistake of printing an apology for the ad. It set forth its reasons for publishing the Horowitz ad in a memo, posted at www.idsnews.com/charter, which cites policy from the publication's charter.\nHere are some relevant excerpts from that memo:\n"The 'Reparations' ad is political speech and the opinion of Mr. Horowitz… Campus publications and the campus press are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on campus… The Indiana Daily Student is a newspaper dedicated to serve as a forum of opinion for the exchange of ideas from all its constituent groups."\nThe first part of that excerpt from the memo seems plausible. The last sentence was true until last Friday, when the IDS muzzled its columnists.\nBut that second sentence, ouch! When applied to the IDS, it's patently false. The only thing to which this student newspaper is a valuable aid is the future of complacent, corporate journalism. \nWorking for newspaper conglomerates such as Knight-Ridder and Gannett Co., young, idealistic journalists quickly learn a hard truth about the news business: put up or shut up; you just can't write about certain subjects, no matter their importance to public debate and discourse. Anything that gets in the way of business or annoys management is taboo. And that's final.\nCongratulations, IDS, you're one step ahead of your corporate brethren. \nIDS columnists: Welcome to the world of self-censorship. Enjoy your stay. You'll probably make a lot of money, but be sure to check your ideals at the door.