Panel Confronts Issues of Free Speech and Responsible Journalism

Last night's panel discussion on "Free Speech & Responsible Journalism in the Academic Community" focused on the David Horowitz and "Invasian" controversies-and on The Crimson-as participants examined issues of media access, minority representation, protest and censorship.

David Horowitz drew national attention when he attempted to take out an advertisement, titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea-and Racist Too," in student papers at campuses around the country last month. Student papers at Brown and UC Berkeley, which accepted the advertisement, were met the following day with protests, calls for resignations and vandalism to their distribution system.

When approached by Horowitz, The Crimson along with 34 other undergraduate newspapers declined to publish the advertisement, although The Crimson later published the ad as a graphic accompanying an article. 14 papers ran the advertisement. Both decisions were met with debate and controversy.

Locally, an opinion piece about Harvard's Asian community by Juice Fong '03, titled "The Invasian," and printed last month in Fifteen Minutes, The Crimson's weekend magazine, caused a protest on the newspaper's front steps, and The Crimson eventually apologized for printing the piece.

Yesterday's panel was comprised of Professors Michael J. Sandel and Pedro Noguera, New York Times columnist J. Anthony Lewis `48, and representatives of the Black Students Association, Vietnamese Students Association, Chinese Students Association (CSA), The Salient and The Crimson.

"Let's begin by asking the students to set the tone for us," began moderator S. Allen Counter, director of the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations.

Horowitz, Fong and The Crimson were fresh on the students' minds.

"The first thing I thought about when I read the title of the panel was the 'free speech' part," said Matthew MacInnis `01, president of The Crimson. "Whether there's equal opportunity for voices on the right and left to express themselves on campus."

Ross G. Douthat `01, president of The Salient, a conservative campus magazine, said he agreed wholeheartedly.

"Debates on these issues tend to be debates within factions of the left," he said. "Certain kinds of [conservative] speech are out of bounds."

Lewis noted a historical shift in censorship since the 1920's and 1930's.

"The people being suppressed [back then] were always on the left," Lewis said. "They were the people being held in prison for speaking. I'm struck by the fact that the censorial mood [of today] is all on the other side."

Sandel took exception, however, to the notion of unlimited freedom of speech in an academic setting.

"I'd like to speak on behalf of the 'censorial mood,'" Sandel said. "It seems to me that The Crimson made a sensible judgment and the Brown paper made a poor judgment. The right to free speech was never involved."

"We should-especially as an academic community-attend more to the content of ideas," Sandel added.

The question of access to the media was at the heart of last night's debate-both in the case of Horowitz and minority groups.

"We're in a society where control of the media is steadily being consolidated by a small number of corporations," Noguera argued. He added that while the vandalism at Brown and Berkeley was unacceptable, "protest is a legitimate way to get an issue across in an environment where those issues are being brushed aside."

MacInnis agreed that protest is powerful.

Minority representation within the media was an issue as well, as conversation focused on The Crimson.

"I think your decision [on the advertisement] in this case was entirely appropriate," said Sam Sternin `01 of the VSA. "But in my four years here, there has not been a single year where something offensive hasn't appeared in The Crimson."

Sternin added that Crimson coverage should be "scrutinized," and that minority access to the press was a serious issue. "It's not enough to say, 'oh, they have Diversity & Distinction.'"

Sandel tried to put things in perspective, however, saying that things were worse outside the shelter of the universities, and more difficult to change.

"With all due respect, The Crimson is not a great power," he said. "If they do things you don't like, you can protest, you can boycott. You can take it over."