Thursday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
University community
responds to controversial ad
Guest Commentary
Ad glosses over history
In response to Tuesday’s ad in
the Emerald by David Horowitz
regarding reparations, the Sur
vival Center would like to say a
few things. First of all, the Sur
vival Center is dedicated to end
ing all forms of oppression,
whether it be racism, sexism,
heterosexism, ableism, slavery,
etc., and as such, opposes
Horowitz’s beliefs.
Whereas slavery is among the
cruelest injustices ever perpe
trated by anyone upon another,
and;
Whereas the industrial base in
the United States was created
through slave labor, and where
as African-Americans have re
ceived little or no benefit from
this industry, ahd;
Whereas this industry is re
sponsible in whole or in part for
the relative economic prosperity
of the United States, and;
Whereas slavery in the United
States, as an institution, was
made possible by the policies of
the U.S. government and the
consent of those benefiting from
it, and;
Whereas the U.S. government
still systematically discrimi
nates against African-Americans
through racial profiling by po
lice and disproportionate im
prisonment, and;
Whereas racism in the United
States against African-Ameri
cans still exists, in no small part
due to the ideas fostered about
African-Americans by those in
power, who profited from their
subjugation and wished to cre
ate a social mechanism to main
tain that subjugation, and;
Whereas the African-Ameri
can community should be given
the freedom to decide its own
destiny, and it should have the
resources to make those deci
sions that would better their
community — resources that
their forebears worked hard to
produce under the most ex
ploitative of conditions, and;
Whereas a disproportionate
amount of African-Americans
live in poverty and are denied
many opportunities for advance
ment as a result of the vicious
cycle poverty creates, which
could in many cases be traced
back to times of slavery;
Be it resolved that the Sur
vival Center opposes the ideas
presented in Horowitz’s ad.
There can be no equality in this
country while any segment of its
population is demonized and
oppressed. While a mere mone
tary allocation cannot summari
ly end racism in U.S. society, the
issue is best dealt with through a
true dialogue. The ideology
Horowitz puts forth serves only
to gloss over history in a way
that demonizes those who de
mand accountability.
Randy Newnham is a senior anthropol
ogy and linguistics major, and this
opinion is representative of the Sur
vival Center staff.
Guest Commentary
Nathan
Sutton
........
Ten reasons why running Horowitz’s ad was
a bad idea — and racist too
I. The fact that many different groups of people
throughout history have practiced slavery does not
excuse Colonial European and American involve
ment in slavery. It’s not OK just because “everyone
was doing it.”
II. The social detriment that American slaves
suffered outweighs any economic “benefit” that
might have been the result of slavery. Slavery
shouldn’t have been financially good for anyone.
III. The act of enslavement was less significant
than the ethics behind slavery in Colonial Ameri
ca. Very few Colonial Americans, wealthy enough
to own slaves or not, transcended the racist mind
set that allowed the enslavement of an entire race
of people.
IV. The progress of racial tolerance that has oc
curred in this country does not erase the past. We
all need to be conscious of how far we’ve come by
remembering the struggle of American Colonial
slaves.
V. The argument that “many blacks” were free
or owned slaves themselves during the era of slav
ery is a poor excuse for the many more black peo
ple who suffered enslavement during that time.
VI. If Horowitz thinks that discrimination does
not still exist, he needs to take a look around. We
have a long way to go as a country concerning dis
crimination based on race, gender, sexual orienta
tion and many other factors.
VII. African-Americans don’t need David
Horowitz to say when they’re being victimized. No
reparations messages can be more “damaging” to
the African-American community than an imma
ture and ignorant argument such as that of
Horowitz.
VIII. The damage done during slavery has not
been and cannot be repaired. Money and laws do
not make up for an entirely inhuman practice that
lasted more than 300 years. The best we can do is
to make sure we don’t make similar mistakes in the
future.
IX. No few white “Anglo-Saxon Christians” de
serve all the credit for ending slavery. The Ameri
can value that “all men are created equal” owes it
self to the effort of all different races and types of
people working over the course of many, many
years to come to an understanding based on toler
ance and mutual respect. Black people owe no
“debt” to America. They had to work as hard or
harder than anyone else to gain that respect.
X. Horowitz is in no position to judge how an
entire race will react to any kind of reparations.
“The nations that gave [black people] freedom”
(only after having enslaved them) should have less
ignorant representation than the media voice of
Horowitz.
I am not an expert on the reparations claims that
Horowitz addresses, nor am I an expert on slavery.
I do know, however, that Horowitz’s advertise
ment, no matter how complicated, nonetheless ex
emplifies the kind of ignorance and racism that
continues to trouble this country. Furthermore, I’m
convinced that Horowitz is trying to anger people
for the sole purpose of causing harm. There is no
beneficial motive behind Horowitz’s advertise
ment. I am surprised and disappointed by the pub
lication of his work in a seemingly open-minded
and tolerant newspaper such as the Emerald.
Nathan Sutton is a freshman English major.
CONTACT US!
The Oregon Daily Emerald-welcomes and will attempt to print all letters on topics of interest to the University
community. Letters are limited to 250 words. The Emerald may edit any letter for length, clarity, grammar, style
and libel. Letters may be mailed, dropped off at EMU Suite 300, or e-mailed to the addresses at the top of the
page, Also, please feel free to give your feedback to any individual story or column directly at our Web site. Feed
back comments may appear in print at our discretion. Keep in touch!
Guest Commentary
Horowitz reminds us to examine
information sources
I am writing this letter to add an
other voice to the debate around the
David Horowitz advertisement. First,
let me state that I support the Oregon
Daily Emerald in printing the ad for
two reasons.
The first reason is the freedom of
speech argument. It is the same argu
ment we hear over and over again; if
we censor one way of thought, what
keeps the powers from censoring any
unpopular thought? History has shown
us too many times the consequences of
censorship.
A second reason why I support the
advertisement is that this is a campus
of higher education, and this environ
ment should challenge us in a variety
of ways. We, as a community, should
embrace, celebrate and debate different
thoughts and opinions. This ad has
sparked conversation across the entire
campus, and that is a positive thing.
Many of us might disagree with the au
thor’s opinion, but it is good to see stu
dents, faculty, staff, administrators and
community members discussing the is
sue openly.
I also think this advertisement can
teach us a very important lesson in
where we get our information. That is
one of the skills higher education has
given to me — the knowledge and
awareness to question the information
presented. One of my initial reactions
to the advertisement was that people of
this community might read this and
not question where the data and re
search came from. And that scares me.
The ad was well produced; it has
half-truths mixed in with stereotypes
and misinterpreted data. And for that
reason it can appear that it has been
well researched and the information is
valid. One thing everyone that read the
advertisement should consider is how
it appeared in the paper. Did it require
any validated research or editorial
scrutiny? I think all it took was $750.
I remember an experience matricu
lating through my undergraduate years
at a historically black institution. Once
we had a guest lecturer give a speech
on African-American history. Through
out his entire lecture he continually
stated that we must educate ourselves,
and that we as a society cannot afford
to allow mainstream media, textbooks
and society tell us what is right and
wrong. It was our responsibility to re
search and question the information.
That is what I hope this ad does for
everyone. I hope this ad inspires every
one to do more research and question
the information given to us. Today the
information is about slavery; tomorrow
the information may be something you
hold dear to your heart (the environ
ment, health care, politics, education,
art, music, athletics, etc.). Regardless, I
hope everyone has done the necessary
research to make an informed decision.
Mark Tracy is an assistant dean in the Office of
Student Life.