An Exceptional Case

The decision to ban Aramco advertisements, as outlined in yesterday's majority editorial, is a just and wise one. Aramco's hiring policies and the Saudi Arabian government's treatment of "undesirables" are offensive to Jews and non-Jews alike. But it is another thing to petulantly declare, as the majority statement did yesterday, that "financial necessities prevent us from even considering rejecting advertisements on a regular basis."

First, any advertisement similar to the Aramco ad should be withdrawn, no matter what the financial ramifications. You can't have your cake and eat it, too; either The Crimson stands on principle in every case like Aramco or it must abdicate its right to make moral judgements.

But there is another objection to the majority view: anyone critically examining the ads The Crimson has carried this past year would be hard-pressed to find anything remotely approaching the Aramco situation. It is not surprising. Only in the rarest cases should The Crimson withdraw an advertisement; we should give our advertisers the benefit of the doubt in questionable cases and trust to our reader's discernment.

To imply that ads currently running in The Crimson would be pulled on a regular basis, if The Crimson's bank account was larger, is absurd. What would go? Playboy for shocking sexism? The Coop for aiding and abetting corporate capitalism and imperialism?

Owning a newspaper is a trust, a trust that should not be abused by arbitrary and partisan decisions about advertising. All can join in supporting the majority's view that "The Crimson will continue to accept advertising from groups and individuals with views radically different from our own." And all can agree a line must be drawn. And once that line is drawn--and it is evident that The Crimson will rarely, if ever, be faced by morally objectionable ads--we must exclude any advertisements that cross that line, regardless of the economic consequences.