A recently-released ad by conservative promoter David Horowitz has stirred up much controversy on college campuses, pushing the envelope on media censorship. And although the ad hasn’t run in DeKalb, that doesn’t mean the community doesn’t have opinions on the matter.

Titled “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too,” the ad was sent to 20 college newspapers nationwide. It states the reasons Horowitz opposes whites paying slavery reparations to blacks — he says not all blacks have suffered because of slavery, no single group is responsible for slavery and welfare benefits and racial preferences are forms of reparations for blacks.

Only a few of the 20 papers printed the ad, and three offered immediate regret, apologizing in the following day’s edition. NIU didn’t receive the ad, but Northern Star editor in chief Melissa Westphal said if the paper did, the ad would most likely be printed.

“Ruling on the side of free speech, we definitely would not dismiss the possibility of running the ad if we had received it,” she said. “We would have presented the ad with opposing viewpoints also, as these types of questionable ads are always intricately reviewed by more than one person.”

The University of California-Berkeley’s student paper The Daily Cal ran a formal apology and said they had run “incorrect and blatantly inflammatory content,” after many angry black protesters stole papers from the racks and gathered outside the newspaper’s building.

Although the same types of vandalism occurred at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Badger Herald, editor in chief Julie Bosman defended the paper’s commitment to free speech, and condoned the angry activists in the Wall Street Journal soon after the ad ran.

Van Anthony Amos, program coordinator for the NIU Center for Black Studies, says the ad infringes on racial sensitivity, and Horowitz should have a more open mind.

“Horowitz used to be a prolific liberal scholar, but now his callus opinion fails to consider that his ancestors did not suffer for 200 years the way blacks’ did,” Amos said. “The Star sure would have the right to print the ad, but their editors would receive a strongly-opposed editorial from me soon afterwards.”

Many who oppose the ad say it is hate speech, which shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment. David Atkinson, an NIU journalism professor, disagrees, saying there are valid reasons for running it.

“To some degree there are grounds to run the ad because, although it is hate speech, it still can be seen as free speech also,” he said. “It gets into sensitive areas and I do not find it acceptable, but it does not threaten to harm anyone.”

NIU journalism professor Avi Bass said it is still protected under the First Amendment, even in Illinois where hate speech is strictly regulated.

“The reason this ad does not infringe on the hate speech laws of Illinois is because it does not call a group of people into action to go against another group. It simply states Mr. Horowitz’s opinion,” he said.

With excessive negative feedback and protests, the ad has attracted attention, and many of the nation’s major magazines and daily newspapers have reported on it.

“In my opinion, Horowitz’s views are unacceptable, but he was very clever in attracting publicity and getting his opinion heard,” Bass said. “I am guilty myself with these comments for enhancing his publicity.”