Students protest the DI
Adam Jadhav
The Daily Illini
Students marched to the Illini Media Company parking lot Friday to protest The Daily Illini's decision to publish a controversial advertisement against reparations for slavery.
The protesters, members of a largely black student group called The Initiative, said the advertisement is racist and that the DI promoted discrimination on campus by runnning the ad.
"The way that you all have handled this has been unprofessional and disrespectful and adverse to the initiatives and goals of the UIUC administration," said Clay Garrett, law student and member of The Initiative. "The University has strived to promote diversity and remove hostility from this campus, and the DI has gone and undone that."
The advertisement, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too," was written and paid for by David Horowitz, a right-wing political activist who was formerly associated with the Black Panthers and now believes reparations are racist. The ad suggested that reparations have already been paid and that blacks owe a debt to the United States.
Members of The Initiative gathered on the Quad midday Friday to rally before the march. The group then marched to 57 E. Green St., the parking lot of the Illini Media Company, the parent company of the DI. There, the group attempted to present its demands and speak to DI Editor in Chief Kat Schwartz. Among other things, The Initiative demanded a printed apology or retraction for the running of the Horowitz ad.
The decision to run the ad was made by Andrew Savikas, who ended his term as the DI's editor in chief in March. Savikas said he chose to run the ad because he believes in a marketplace of ideas and allowing all opinions to be heard.
"A lot of people have strong opinions on the contents of the ad — from all ends," he said. "I was not about to make a decision about whether or not students should be exposed to this, in what is the best forum on campus."
Since the ad ran, members of The Initiative have met with Daily Illini editors and placed an ad in the DI stating their opinion. Their ad, "The Top 10 Reasons Why Your Daily Illini Should Not Have Printed The Horowitz Ad," was printed Thursday; it said the Horowitz ad hurt the campus by increasing racist sentiments.
Schwartz addressed the assembled crowd of more than 50 students in the Illini Media Company parking lot and said she would not respond to the group. Thanking the protesters for expressing their concerns, she said she welcomed submissions to the paper.
Protesters shouted chants throughout the day that attacked the DI for printing the ad. "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the daily lies have got to go," and "Down with the DI" were heard as the group marched down Green Street. In addition, they carried signs and placards bearing slogans like "Our campus is broken — let's fix it" and "Free speech is not free for the DI — we had to pay for it."
In response to the demands of the group, Schwartz later said she felt the students' anger is misdirected and greater issues of racism exist on campus that need to be addressed. She said the newspaper will not issue an apology, despite the group's protests.
"I don't think there's anything to be gained," Schwartz said. "We always said we would stick to our guns."
The ad has raised much controversy around the nation. Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in Los Angeles, has used it as part of an ad campaign aimed at college newspapers around the country. So far, 73 newspapers have received the ad, and more than half have chosen not to print it. At least four have printed apologies or retractions after publishing the ad.
Horowitz called the protesters "intellectual terrorists" who are trying to stifle opinions they disagree with.
"What you have is a bunch of leftists who haven't got the brains to make a counter-argument," Horowitz said. "They're accusing people falsely of being modern-day witches, which is to say racists."
Horowitz said he published the ad to test "liberal college media." He said he wanted to prove a point about the fear associated with being labeled as racist.
"This battle is not about David Horowitz," Horowitz said. "This battle is about the freedom of the campus community of Illinois, and elsewhere, to discuss issues like this without being afraid of being called a racist."
Repeated attempts to contact national civil rights organizations were unsuccessful. Representatives of the NAACP at the University, county and regional level declined to comment. Representatives of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, another civil rights organization, could not be reached after several attempts.
Some professional newspapers and organizations are praising college editors who choose to print the ad. Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter praised the DI's decision to run the ad. Newsweek has said it would likely run the ad.
Alter also agreed with Schwartz about the protesters. He said in a telephone interview that The Initiative's anger would accomplish more if it were aimed at Horowitz and the content of his ad.
"For the demonstrators to direct their fury at the paper seems kind of misdirected to me," he said. "Instead, they should direct their fury at the content, they should be writing articles and letters about Horowitz."
While most of the protest attacked the DI's decision to run the ad, The Initiative spent some time at the protest refuting Horowitz's arguments. Members distributed a flier — written by Ernest Allen, an Afro-American Studies professor at the University of Massachusetts — which examines historical inaccuracies Allen believes the ad contains.
Controversy has been raised about the DI's fact-checking of advertising. Lindsey Dates, law student and Initiative member, said the DI has been inconsistent in its actions.
Dates said the Horowitz ad is full of errors, yet the newspaper printed it anyway. But the DI asked The Initiative to correct some errors in its ad, including specifics on advertising rates and circulation.
"They would not print (our) ad unless we changed a few mistakes," Dates said. "The Daily Illini must have agreed that Horowitz's claims were factually accurate."
Alter said the statements in Horowitz's ad are mostly opinion and subject to interpretation. He said the only reason to ask that an ad be changed would be "if an ad included demonstrable, factual falsehoods — falsehoods not of interpretation and tone, but of irrefutable fact."
However, others say the DI should have had more discretion with the content of the ad. Dianne Pinderhughes, professor at the University's Afro-American Studies and Research Program, said the DI should have questioned the truth of the ad.
"Any newspaper has a responsibility to deal with issues of accuracy," Pinderhughes said. "At some point, the DI editorial board should have said 'Hey, we can't publish something when there are questions about the facts of the argument.'"
However, Savikas said that while he didn't fact-check the arguments specifically, he did consider questions pertaining to the ad and its author. He decided that partly because of Horowitz's background, the ad should run.
"This is not an individual you can dismiss as racist," Savikas said. "I don't think anyone can claim that Horowitz doesn't have knowledge of the civil rights movement."
