There are many problems with the David Horowitz insert distributed with The Daily Cardinal Oct. 23. One, it adds to the negative climate faced by many students of color and anti-war students on this campus. Horowitz's insert, which the Cardinal chose to distribute, creates and perpetuates an unsafe, racist campus climate.
People in the United States are scared. They are looking for answers. Many will read what Horowitz has to say without the knowledge to be critical of his statements, many of which are blatantly false and the rest highly debatable.
Last week, UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley said there have been 15 \acts of hate and racism"" reported on this campus since the beginning of the school year, and almost all occurred after Sept. 11. Our campus climate is a serious problem. There are also hate crimes and harassment that have not been reported and students of color are trying to get these reported and support the victims. Our campus climate is a serious problem. These hate crimes toward students of color were committed because of ignorance and racism in our student body. Our campus climate is a serious problem. Recently, there was an editorial that recommended pro-war students go up to anti-war students in Library Mall and punch them in the face. Our campus climate is a serious problem. Now the Cardinal has distributed an opinion that not only adds fuel to the fire, but offers a whole new plethora of excuses for racism and violence.
I support freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are important rights to defend, especially now. Newspapers have the right to print whatever they want, but they also have the right to refuse to print something. My issue with the Horowitz insert is about power, not rights.
People who run student newspapers have the power to decide how their paper will affect campus climate. I expect those who run student papers and care about the safety of their fellow students to use their power to make campus climate safer, not more intolerant. I urge other students to hold their newspapers accountable for this, too.
I assume that there was no intention to be destructive or racist on the part of those who decided to distribute the Horowitz insert. Good intentions are valuable. However, there is a difference between intention and outcome, and we are all accountable for both. I wouldn't want to see well-intentioned people make the mistake of supporting racism and violence on this campus.
As for Horowitz, he accuses anti-war protesters of prolonging war by creating divisiveness in our nation. He then sets up criteria for determining who is un-American and who is American. In other words, he is guilty of the same divisiveness he accuses others of being and even more so.
There is a difference between labeling others as un-American and self-identifying as ""against the war."" The first is an attempt to repress free speech. The second is an act that exercises freedom of speech. While Horowitz partakes in immature name-calling and slander, anti-war protesters participate in a democratic dialogue with the country about how to respond to the attacks of Sept.11 in a way that prevents more innocent death at home and abroad. Evidently, this dialogue is threatening enough to Horowitz that he will sacrifice the American value of free speech for all, trying to do so in the guise of ""a true American."" Don't be duped by this shoddy logic.
How can the same people who say the terrorists hate us because of our freedom turn around and create conditions for the curtailment of that freedom? To any rational person, it doesn't add up.
