Statement of hypocrisy

This past Friday, a coalition of irate student groups at Brown University stole nearly 4,000 copies -- the entire daily press run -- of The Brown Daily Herald. The students were angry that the Herald had published an inflammatory advertisement submitted by conservative commentator David Horowitz, which argued against providing reparations to the families of former slaves. Without question, many of Horowitz's claims are outrageous and merit the outspoken response of the concerned parties. And furthermore, the Herald's decision to run such an advertisement fits into an entirely different debate -- the likes of which erupted last week at a number of other schools whose papers also chose to run the ad. But rather than engaging in that productive discussion --rather that opening up the topic to conversation with their fellow students and faculty members -- the aggrieved Brown students voiced their disgust in an unacceptable and unhealthy manner: they simply denied the Herald its voice. And that voice, ironically, could have acted as the students' best catalyst for discussion and change. In stealing the Herald's press run, the Brown students -- no matter how valid or invalid their concerns may be -- effectively cut off the avenue of free speech which gives them the right to take a stand on this issue. Maybe we feel so strongly about the Herald incident because it is one which in many ways reminds us of our own past. About eight years ago, a controversy of enormous proportions swept Penn. Students clashed with each other, with administrators and with the public in general over an allegeldly offensive remark made by then-College freshman Eden Jacobowitz. The "Water Buffalo" episode, as it came to be known, put Penn in an unfortunate national spotlight. And inevitably, the controversy -- which erupted over the extent to which a university should protect free speech -- tarred the reputations of University administrators and seriously undermined the progress of race relations at Penn. It also indirectly resulted in the theft of 14,000 Daily Pennsylvanians -- nearly our entire press run -- by an angry group of students protesting the ideas of a columnist. Sadly, it appears that the situation has unfolded yet again -- though now, the object of disagreement is an advertisement, and the venues for conflict are a handful of other universities. Back in 1993, the theft of newspapers was wrong. It was a crude way to make a statement; it was an action that effectively hypocricized the protesters' message of justice in expression. Today, it still is.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.