Reparations
and Campus Political Correctness
by
Larry Elder
Reparations
for slavery? To David Horowitz, the president of the Center for the
Study of Popular Culture, the movement represents the Super Bowl of
all shakedowns. He took action.
Horowitz sent a copy of an ad, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery
is a Bad Idea--and Racist Too,"to thirty-five college newspapers around
the country. Most refused to print the ad, even though Horowitz accompanied
a check with each submission. But a handful of student publications
did print the ad.
The fit hit the shan. At UC-Berkeley's "Daily Californian,"students
stormed the paper's offices, some crying, some tearing up copies of
the paper. The next day the newspaper, in full retreat, ran an editorial,
apologizing for the "offensive"ad: "The full-page ad...was not condoned
by the Senior Editorial Board, but we realize that the ad allowed
the 'Daily Cal' to become an inadvertent vehicle for bigotry. The
board regrets that the ad was published, and that the standard approval
or rejection process was not carried through."
But black senior Jacquelyn Lindsey insisted that the apology did not
go far enough, "I was extremely upset and disappointed that the so-called
apology seemed more like a list of excuses and procedures that should
have been followed instead of an apology."
At the University of California-Davis, the campus newspaper the "Aggie"also
carried the ad. A shocked black sophomore, Charmayne Young, said,
"The advertisement was intended to inflame a certain group of people.
This just re-emphasizes an opinion that I and the other students don't
belong here."In a next-day editorial, the paper apologized, blaming
a procedural breakdown. "It came as a total surprise to me when I
opened up the paper,"said Editor-in-Chief Eleeza V. Agopian. "That
ad completely violated our ad policy. Had we seen this ad beforehand,
we never would have published it....It's really unfortunate that it
happened on the last day of Black History Month. This hinders any
sort of effort to create an open environment, and we're working very
hard to build back the trust that we lost today."
Is the Horowitz ad racist? He sets forth 10 reasons for opposing reparations:
| 1. |
There
is no single group clearly responsible for the crime of slavery.
|
| 2. |
There
is no one group that benefited exclusively from its fruits.
|
| 3. |
Only
a tiny minority of white Americans ever owned slaves, and
others gave their lives to free them. |
| 4. |
America
today is a multi-ethnic nation and most Americans have no
connection (direct or indirect) to slavery.
|
| 5. |
The
historical precedents used to justify the reparations claim
do not apply, and the claim itself is based on race not injury. |
| 6. |
The
reparations argument is based on the unfounded claim that
all African-American descendants of slaves suffer from the
economic consequences of slavery and discrimination.
|
| 7. |
The
reparations claim is one more attempt to turn African-Americans
into victims. It sends a damaging message to the African-American
community. |
| 8. |
Reparations
to African-Americans have already been paid.
|
| 9. |
What
about the debt blacks owe to America? |
The reparations claim is a separatist idea that sets African-Americans
against the nation that gave them freedom. In its apology, UC Davis
"Aggie"editor Agopian said the ad "in no way reflects the feelings
or climate of our staff."
I interviewed Ms. Agopian, questioning the necessity of her paper's
apology.
Larry Elder: "How do you know how the rest of your staff feels? Have
you polled them on how they feel?"
Editor: "I couldn't exactly give you a straight answer on the way
that the staff feels because from what I've heard from numerous discussions
with our entire staff is there's about 100 different opinions."
Larry: "Then how do you say 'It in no way reflects the feelings or
climate of my staff?"
Editor: "Because that one statement does not reflect the exact sentiment
of over 100 people who work for a newspaper. How could it? I ask you,
how could it? How could those statements reflect one staff?"
Larry: "I thought you just told me your staff had divergent points
of view?"
Editor: "Yes, there are divergent points of view, so how can one point
of view reflect 100 people?"
Larry: "In other words, the students reading your paper are so stupid
as to think that if there's an advertisement, it reflects the views
of you and your staff and, therefore, you have to let them know it
doesn't?"
Editor: "No, I didn't say that. I think that we wanted to reinforce
to our campus community that advertisements don't represent the views
of the 'Aggie,' just as any other newspaper would enforce that in
their own newspapers' advertising policy."
advertising policy." Whew. Glad we got that straightened out. Well,
did Mr. Horowitz at least get a refund?