"Trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences–all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances."

"If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of all blacks in the world. Where is the acknowledgement of black America and its leaders for those gifts?"

These outlandish claims are not excerpted from a racist treatise of ages past. In fact, they are taken from a recent advertisement. The ad that has caused this uproar is an editorial advertisement submitted to fifty campus newspapers by former Marxist and Black Panther adviser turned conservative crusader David Horowitz. In this advertisement, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea – and Racist Too," he argues polemically that there is no justification for (who would have guessed?) reparations to descendants of slaves.

As soon as the ad was printed in UC-Berkeley’s main student newspaper, the Daily Californian, the controversy began. Protesters stormed the Daily Cal’s office, destroyed papers, and demanded the paper take drastic measures to atone for printing Horowitz’ article. The next day, on the front page of the Daily Cal was a formal apology. The uproar caught on and spread to other campuses like wildfire. Many papers turned Horowitz down outright, fearing backlash at and feeling offended by the inflammatory statement. Others chose to print the ad, and many produced their papers containing this ad. But on some campuses, this process was short-circuited, notably at Brown University. Both the Brown Daily Herald and the Daily Cal faced a firestorm of criticism from their peers. At Brown, papers were seized and destroyed before distribution by angry protesters.

The tactics used by protesters at other campuses—burning papers, storming offices, making physical threats—are a manifestation of a strong impulse that I am inclined to agree with, but a misguided reaction to that impulse. There is definitely something stinging and inflammatory in what Horowitz wrote. I, too, am angered that he would suggest that welfare payments, a service given to anyone of any race in economic troubles, are a form of reparations to a specific group for slavery. There is something about Horowitz’s argument that could be construed in a bad way and is deliberately inflammatory. But I am not sure to what extent I am offended by his statement, so I hesitate to call Horowitz’ argument racist.

The problem I have with calling something or someone "racist" is the ambiguity that surrounds the term. Racism is far too broadly defined by many liberals, but the definition proposed by some conservatives, that racism is only manifest when one racial group is identified as biologically inferior to another, is too narrow. There must be some middle ground that allows us to intelligently evaluate statements that seem offensive. Rather than intellectually countering potentially racist claims, there has been a tendency by some liberals and leftists to label any notion counter to their beliefs as "racist."

This creates a rigid binary between arguments that are "racist" and those that are not. When we think in this manner, we obscure the important issues at stake and the truly grave issues of racism to which we make comparisons to rally our cause. This distortion is harmful in its own right, because it impairs our ability to conceive of the true degree to which people can suffer from abject racism. If, instead, we think of racism as a phenomenon that has a substantial gray area (versus being simply a black and white issue), we can accurately discuss, identify, and combat inequality and its proponents.

Another troubling dimension of discussing someone as a "racist" is the discursive baggage that comes with it. Often in our society, to deem something racist is to place it outside of the realm of things that can be discussed. In fact, many on the political left, whether consciously or inadvertently, capitalize on this convention to shut down discourse and consideration of an issue they’d rather not discuss. In many cases, I feel that the Horowitz incident is a good example, the case of supposed "racism" should be a talking point that stimulates discourse and facilitates understanding through careful examination of ideas. Instead, those statements that fall into the gray area of racism often become springboards for some on the left to recycle dogma and inflame existing ideological enmities.

Conservatives are not exonerated for their participation in the binary wars, either. Their use of the term "political correctness" is just as damaging to discourse. The accusation "you’re just being PC" carries the same stigma and shuts down discussion just the same. The end to which this rhetorical device is used is very different from the way that "racism" is used, but the means it uses are not dissimilar. By dismissing critics as defenders of political correctness, conservatives deny that there is any merit behind the real offense someone might take at their position, equally foreclosing a productive dialogue. These situations require that we carefully dissect what’s really being said to understand and refute it, not just yell back things that could be construed as equally intolerant.

Another interesting aspect of the Horowitz controversy is the way that conservatives used the events to show how liberals are abridging their freedom of speech. In newspapers all over the country, conservative students and columnists decried the behavior of the incensed students and the papers who refused to print the Horowitz ad or issued an apology for doing so. Horowitz himself plays the role of the victim especially well. On the recent chain of events surrounding him, he commented in the Daily Princetonian, "The tactics of this hate campaign are as underhanded as any Joseph McCarthy ever used and if successful would silence not only me, but anyone attempting to express a viewpoint on racial matters that is at odds with the politically correct orthodoxy of the left." The irony of this whole predicament is that conservatives have adopted the role of the marginalized victim they criticize. While on one hand, they tell those who wish to obtain reparations to stop whining and focus on bettering themselves, they decry their own subordinated position and lament they way that they are treated given this position.

The events at Princeton surrounding precisely this phenomenon and Horowitz are almost amusing. The Daily Princetonian printed the ad, but ran it up against an editorial that denounced the ad as racist and promised to give the proceeds from the ad to a local group aimed at "promoting racial understanding." Horowitz used this action as a platform to take his victim act to a new level. In response, he refused to pay the Daily Princetonian for the advertisement. He wrote to this paper and demanded that they apologize for their actions.

While I am not totally comfortable with the ethics of blasting a paid advertiser–in the same issue, no less–it’s fitting that the Daily Princetonian give Horowitz a taste of his own medicine. Additionally, it showed his true colors. He does the same things he criticizes, and worse, he whines while doing it.

Another irony of this situation is that many conservatives ardently defend both the right to make blatantly offensive arguments in public discourse and claim that Horowitz’ argument was not offensive. This effort to cover their bases on two fronts seems to undercut itself. Why are they defending the fact that none of the points Horowitz puts forward are potentially hurtful? If one were, would they admit that it makes their speech less acceptable?

My purpose is not solely to expose the shortcomings of the conservative position, though. I am certainly not g
oing to defend the actions of those that stormed offices or destroyed papers. Conservatives and the people who agree with them in this case, of which there are many, are correct; storming offices and burning printed material are tactics more suited to a police state than a democratic forum such as a college.

The claim that newspapers have an obligation to print any and all editorial advertisements sent to them, though, is absurd. Freedom of speech means that the government cannot stop any individual from speaking his or her mind. A newspaper is not a governmental organization; it is a group of individuals voicing their opinion. The free speech of an individual is as much what he or she is free to not say as what he or she does say. If a newspaper were forced to include articles, or advertisements, for that matter, claiming that the Holocaust is a Zionist fabrication, in addition to all of the other things it was free to print, few would say that its speech was totally free. The ability of private groups to carefully select their speech gives liberals the ability to influence the official discourse that they decry when people like Horowitz make inflammatory statements By voicing their indignation through protest, be it financial or rallying in the streets, liberals can affect the "privileged" speech of media outlets without abridging anyone’s rights. If anything, refusal to print certain material is akin to keeping a controversial opinion to oneself in a potentially hostile conversation, which is a far cry from restricting the First Amendment rights of an individual uninvolved in the paper.

Simply throwing up stock ideological arguments does no one any good.

When the term "racist" is used to silence critics, intentionally or not, it causes and gives cause for conservatives to do the exact same thing with "PC" to justify their insensitive remarks. The ridiculous protests, an overreaction that is a manifestation of the tendency to cry "racism" and pigeonhole those who disagree, caused leftists to bring criticism upon themselves. They walked right into Horowitz’s trap and set him up to play the victim. The best strategy one can take in dealing with intolerant arguments is to think beyond the stark black and white that alienates so many.