Ad argues with incorrect facts

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find that the IDS decided to run the controversial David Horowitz ad denouncing reparations. Horowitz certainly has a right to his opinion, and far be it from me to advocate any attempt to muzzle dissenting or unpopular voices. \nStill, I have a strong objection to giving space to Horowitz to vent his spleen. My disagreement is not so much with his expression of opposition to the granting of reparations to the descendants of black slaves; after all, I would venture to guess that African Americans are not of one mind on this issue. But what I do find particularly offensive, and what the editors of the IDS should have taken into account, are the distortions of historical fact and the lame justifications that are clearly meant to inflame, provoke, offend, divide and injure. \nI don't find it necessary to refute Horowitz point for point. Scholars more learned and expert than myself have ably demonstrated the spurious nature of his claims. But I think it would be nearly impossible for any thoughtful reader to miss the racist (yes, the "r" word) imagery he resorts to under the guise of complimenting the grit and industriousness of blacks who in his estimation have made it, and denigrating those who have not. This backhanded praise is meant to trivialize racism and oppression and shift the onus from a pernicious and exploitative system to the victims (yes, the "v" word) of that system. \nHorowitz focuses on individuals rather than institutions and systems on both ends. On one end, blacks as individuals are portrayed as ungrateful wretches who want to get into the pockets of innocent and blameless white individuals on the other end. He thereby frames the claim for reparations as a contest between individual blacks and individual whites, obscuring the historic and central role of the state in sanctioning slavery and the rigid and pervasive racial discrimination that continued long after bondage ended. \nIt is clearly a tactic aimed at exacerbating tensions and any hostility that whites (and other nonblack groups) may have for the idea of black reparations regardless of merit. The ad's goal is to close the debate and alter the discourse. Further, for those who take Horowitz seriously, and hopefully there are few, I would suspect that it would increase any lingering resentments that some may harbor for efforts to increase diversity in American life.\nAs to examples of racist pandering in the Horowitz ad, let me cite a few. For example, he argues in point six that black poverty is the result of failures of individual character, and in point seven suggests that blacks are simply looking for a handout (Do I hear welfare mentality?) because some can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity. \nIn point eight, he states that blacks have been amply paid for any wrongs they may have experienced in the form of welfare benefits. Welfare payments are not reparations, and since blacks make up a minority of the welfare rolls, and always have, I don't quite get his point. Are whites on welfare receiving redress for some injury? It's rather obvious that the constant coupling of blacks and welfare benefits is a not-so-subtle attempt to reinforce in the readers' minds one of the more unfortunate stereotypes of blacks and the poor as shiftless, undeserving and responsible for their own condition.\nParticularly offensive is the implication that blacks benefited from a system as horiffic as slavery (to wit, slavery created wealth for black Americans, including the descendants of slaves) and the repeated assertions that African Americans are the richest blacks on earth and should be grateful for their largesse. Black Americans rightly and sanely compare their material circumstances to other Americans, not to blacks living in the developing world. Just as poor whites, I imagine, look to middle-class Americans in viewing their standard of living, not poor Albanians, Bosnians or some other dispossessed European group. I could go on in pointing out the cruel, the ridiculous and the divisive in the Horowitz ad, but I believe these few examples suffice.\nMy final point is that it is most unfortunate that the IDS chose to run this ad and thus to fall victim to Horowitz's disingenuous manipulation, particularly considering IU's tarnished reputation as far as race relations and diversity are concerned.