Stand for Free Speech

To the editors:

The Brown Daily Herald printed David Horowitz's provocative advertisement arguing against reparations for slavery and then stood up against the fools who tried to punish it for doing so. We noted with surprise that you rejected the ad (News, "Ad Kindles Outrage," March 7): surprise because we thought The Crimson stood for freedom of the press and courage in exercising that right.

We understand that a newspaper is not compelled to print all advertising submitted. It is entitled to its own judgment on the suitability of the ad for its audience. But in this case the judgment appears to have been that the audience was too tender to deal with what to many would have been an offensive political argument. We think that notion is false to the ideals of The Crimson and of free speech. If Harvard students cannot stand hearing an unpopular political argument, we are in a bad way. But we are utterly confident that they are capable of doing so.

You missed an opportunity--an easy opportunity--to show what freedom of speech is all about. And Horowitz would not have got off unscathed. We suppose you might have run an editorial explaining why you printed a provocative ad by someone whose intention it was to provoke. As it is, Horowitz is using the rejection of his ad by The Crimson and other college newspapers to argue, as he put it in a letter to The Wall Street Journal, that "moral and physical intimidation" by "the political left that is fully in control of the campus public square is able to censor views that it finds objectionable."

Anthony Lewis '48

David Halberstam '55

March 20, 2001

The writers are former managing editors of The Crimson.

•

Crimson Chose Well

To the editors:

I read with awe how The Crimson

handled the request by David Horowitz to run his reparations advertisement.

Readers will recall that Horowitz submitted the ad; The Crimson turned down the ad but suggested Horowitz re-do the piece as an op-ed and submit it in that form, whereupon The Crimson would consider accepting it under its normal op-ed standards. Horowitz refused, writing that since "your editors have censored my ad, why would I have any reason to believe that they would accept anything I wrote on this subject for publication."

In that very same article, however, you ran a photograph of the full text of the ad as an illustration to the story. In so doing, you made clear that you were not afraid to publish his views and were sincere in objecting only to the form of its presentation. After all, in the end, you published his entire text, and did so for free!

This is just another example of why freedom and tolerance are preferable to censorship and narrow-minded refusal to consider all sides of an important controversy such as reparations for slavery.

Congratulations for a principled stand, but also for your brilliant strategy in upholding the dignity and professionalism of The Crimson. Horowitz has embarassed a number of campus papers that were afraid to publish his controversial views or that capitulated to mob rule by apologizing for having run the ad. The Crimson should be proud of its decision.

Harvey A. Silverglate

Boston, Mass.

March 21, 2001

Don't Apologize For Fong

To the editors:

Regardless of whether or not Justin G. Fong's "The Invasian" (Magazine, March 15) was seen as offensive, your organization's failure to stand by the publishing of an individual's opinion undermines your reputation ("To Our Readers," March 20). Since the article was a personal account, it in no way reflected your official views, and while Fong's statements may have been offensive, that does not by any means deem them inappropriate for publication.

By bowing to the pressure of those who were offended by the article, you have cheapened The Crimson's reputation and credibility for reporting issues whether or not they are controversial. While I in no way condone Fong's sentiments, I believe that they have a right to be heard. Any publication that attempts to fully serve a community should not shy away from controversial issues.

Nicholas B. Hobbs '02

March 20, 2001

•

Apology Was Correct

To the editors:

I commend the Crimson for its apology in regard to Justin G. Fong's article. "The Invasian" was not responsible journalism, but The Crimson has shown itself to be a responsible institution in apologizing. The Crimson did not apologize for offending readers. Instead, it apologized for publishing a piece that did not adhere to its standards.

"We stand by our story" is the same explanation the Chinese government gives in denying the Tiananmen Square massacre. Insisting a false story is right does not make it quality journalism. The Crimson's apology today was the correct and responsible action; taking responsibility for mistakes ensures that The Crimson will maintain its high standards.

Solomon Liou '02

March 20, 2001