Make Horowitz Squirm

Today, David L. Horowitz, author of several books addressing sociopolitical issues, founder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, basher of the Fifth Left and leader of the neoconservatism movement, will be speaking on campus as a guest of the Harvard Republican Club.

Horowitz is becoming a perennial spring presence at Harvard; last year around this time, he asked The Crimson to run a controversial advertisement, “10 Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea—And Racist Too,” to help publicize his book of the same title.

Whether or not one believes the ad should have run, or that people such as Horowitz should be allowed to use this powerful medium, is part of a broader issue. We must remember the ease with which minorities have been victims of America’s selective enforcement of two of its fundamental beliefs: equality of man and freedom of speech.

From its first days as a new nation, America ignored its declaration that “all men are created equal,” allowing plantation owners to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Eleven years later, all men were created equal except for blacks who were 3/5 a man for census purposes.

Abolitionists were denied their freedom of speech when they attempted to run articles in opposition to this abhorrent practice.

The system of Jim Crow was not a system of social injustice found under the Taliban or any other oppressive third world regime. No, it was here in America, under Uncle Sam.

America’s ideals often do not coincide with her practices. Horowitz displays similar bouts with selective memory and hypocrisy in his arguments.

In perhaps one of his most radical claims, Horowitz makes the assertion that blacks ought to be somewhat thankful to America, which he said “was a pioneer in the fight against slavery, and in establishing the first multiracial society in human history.” He seems to forget that it is America who unduly enslaved blacks in the first place and perpetuated that “peculiar institution” for 32 years after the British Empire outlawed it in 1833.

His argument, in its simplest form, is analogous to snatching a toy from a child and then taking umbrage when the child is not thankful upon return of the toy.

Horowitz’s counter-arguments to reparations are similarly ludicrous. Present- day companies, especially in the insurance industry, have admitted to being direct beneficiaries of “cotton money.” There are Americans who can trace their ancestry back to slave-owners, and some even take pride in this fact.

Institutional racism that has plagued blacks for centuries is a direct descendant of slavery practices. Though reparations may not be the answer, Horowitz is going to have to do a better job of explaining why it is not.

Present day racism is scarier than its predecessor. Implicit attitudes as opposed to blatant cross burning makes it extremely difficult to distinguish between friend and foe.

People such as Horowitz make the job a little easier.

Whether he should be brought to Harvard is no longer the issue; what we should do about his presence is. Students who disagree with his viewpoint must take a more active stance than participating in e-mail debates, quickly dismissing him as a “bigoted idiot” or protesting outside the Science Center wearing stern faces and black sweatshirts. These tactics are exactly what Horowitz expects and rightfully faulted his critics for in the past.

If he wants a challenge, then give it to him. Turn his podium into a hot seat. Show Horowitz that Harvard will not accept his irresponsible pseudo intellectualism.

Beat Horowitz at his own game—freedom of speech is your right too.

—OLAMIPE I. OKUNSEINDE