Should the United States pay reparations to African Americans to redress the economic gains of slavery? Conservative activist David Horowitz does not think so. On March 14, Horowitz placed an advertisement in The Brown Herald titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too." Whether for or against reparations, intelligent audiences will recognize some of Horowitz’s arguments as credible and compelling, and will reject others as factually questionable and rhetorically unsound, and perhaps even offensive.

In an ideal world, Horowitz’s arguments would provoke thought about reparations and stir and advance the public debate on the issue. Such was the effect of Horowitz’s advertisement at Brown University. In the days after it ran in The Brown Herald, the campus came alive with debate over the issue of reparations. The dialogue that followed surely improved campus awareness and knowledge about the issue of reparations and the underlying arguments that attempt to justify and vilify reparations respectively.

Unfortunately, the actions of a small coalition of Brown students necessitated a debate not only about reparations, but also about freedom of speech and justified civil disobedience. Freedom of speech entered the picture when over 4,000 copies of The Herald containing the Horowitz advertisement were stolen by the coalition from distribution points campus wide.

The theft of The Herald is problematic for several reasons. Foremost it is problematic because a robust and all-inclusive dialogue is essential to the process of divining truth. In any free community there must be a forum in which varying viewpoints can be heard. Without such a forum "truth" is little more than whatever opinion is most popular at any given moment, no matter how objectively right or wrong. Truth cannot be reached by accepting the viewpoint of whatever group best succeeds at silencing divergent opinions. Might does not make right. Truth can only be reached by considering every opinion, by applying reason to every argument that is advanced, and by drawing conclusions consistent with that process of reason.

More specifically, the theft of The Herald is problematic as a response to David Horowitz. The most appropriate (and most effective) response for those who disagree with Horowitz is a well-written opinions piece or letter to the editor that summarizes the factual inaccuracies and rhetorical shortcomings of Horowitz’s argument. Members of the coalition made no such effort at a substantive response; for that reason, none exists in the Brown community.

The theft of The Herald is also problematic in that it implies a tacit consent to every other piece of content that runs in The Herald. If stealing a newspaper is appropriate whenever it presents objectionable content, can we assume that the coalition of Brown students tacitly supports everything printed in issues of The Herald that were not stolen? It is doubtful that the coalition would think such an assumption desirable.

The coalition does make an attempt to justify its theft under the banner of justified civil disobedience. Such a claim is laughable. Civil disobedience is justified when one’s arrest demonstrates the fundamental unfairness of what one is protesting against. It is justified as a last resort, after other legal channels for responding to an injustice have been exhausted to no avail. In the case of The Herald’s theft, the channel of a reasoned refutation of Horowitz’s argument was not exhausted. The coalition stole the newspaper and fled, demonstrating that arrest was not a consequence that they were willing to accept. Finally, there is no fundamental unfairness involved in publishing someone’s opinion as their opinion in a newspaper. As troubling as the coalition’s theft of the paper is, the subsequent presentation of demands to the newspaper is equally troubling. The coalition demanded that The Herald donate the $725 cost of a full-page ad to the Third World community, and that The Herald give the coalition a free full-page ad in response to "the false propaganda printed by David Horowitz." They stated that if the paper did not meet these demands, it would face continued disruptions. In sum, the actions of the coalition amount to unjustified theft, attempted censorship, and attempted extortion. As The Herald staff noted in a statement to the Brown community, "We cannot condone the actions our critics have taken against us. The recent theft of thousands of copies of The Herald from Brown’s campus was an unacceptable attempt to silence our voice."

The University rightly responded with a statement supporting the newspaper. It reads in part that: "Consistent with its commitment to the free exchange of ideas the University recognizes and supports The Herald’s right to publish any material it chooses, even if that material is objectionable to members of the campus community."

The Herald is debating whether or not to pursue criminal charges against the coalition. It absolutely should. The coalition deprived The Herald of ad revenue and an issue that no doubt took much time and work to put together. It deprived Brown students of a day’s newspaper, and more importantly, of the chance to evaluate and debate information for themselves. Finally, the coalition had the gall to threaten The Herald with continued action unless their extortionist demands are met.

One effect of the coalition’s actions is to give ammunition to conservative activists like Horowitz when they claim that those who support reparations are irrational liberals who are governed by feelings and passions, not reason or truth. In attempting to stifle the debate surrounding reparations, the coalition set back the very cause they care about. The coalition also gives credence to critics of left-leaning college communities that charge that such communities preach tolerance, but only tolerate those with like-minded views. The coalition’s actions are certainly evidence of such a phenomenon.

Fortunately, the majority of students at Brown and the Brown administration still support the free exchange of ideas. But the events at Brown convey a number of truths that all college communities, not least of all Pomona’s, should keep in mind. Foremost, stifling any voice that attempts to contribute to a relevant dialogue is unequivocally wrong. That means that the same openness that makes SMAC and V week possible needs to extend to protect opinions that a majority of our community find less agreeable. A perfect example is the unjustified trashing of many issues of TSL in a past semester when it printed a pro-life advertisement. Further, we need to recognize the importance of discussing all relevant issues with an opened and reasoned approach, even if in the process some suffer from discomfort or hurt feelings. Discomfort and hurt feelings are fleeting; the problems stemming from a community that is misinformed for lack of open discussion endure.