Following a controversial decision not to publish David Horowitz’s full-page advertisement against reparations for slavery (News, “To Print or Not To Print”, March 7), Crimson president C. Matthew MacInnis ’02 stated, “We don’t believe it is ethical to allow individuals to purchase advertisements as a means by which to circumvent the editorial process.”

Less than a month later, however, The Crimson reported that the organizers of the Veritas Forum had purchased a full-page advertisement in the April 11 issue to relate the religious experience of Tina A.A. Ayeni ’01 (News, “Harvard Christians ‘Agree With Tina,’” April 12). One wonders whether The Crimson’s “editorial process” has changed as of late.

Ayeni’s advertisement functioned as a tool of Christian proselytizing. The pages of a newspaper, whether they consist of advertisements or articles, are no place for such activities. The Crimson’s decision to publish this advertisement clearly violates the ethical standards established by the leadership of the newspaper.

In light of The Crimson’s decision to publish this advertisement, a revisiting of the Horowitz decision is certainly warranted. In no way does the Ayeni advertisement justify the printing of Horowitz’s advertisement, but it does invalidate the ethical stance used to reject it. To give meaning to any ethical standards, they must be applied consistently.

Benjamin J. Hoffman ’04

April 12, 2000