Ad simply intended to spark debate

The debate over the running of David Horowitz's ad has brought much controversy to this campus. I am a senior here at IU, and also a conservative Republican, but I am not sure that running the Horowitz ad in the IDS was prudent judgment. While I strongly agree with the ad, I don't know that the placement in the IDS is the proper forum for it.\nI have witnessed an almost militant attempt to get the ad into college papers by conservatives due to e-mails that I have received from a fellow College Republican. I will no doubt take some flack from conservatives on campus, but I feel the truth must be brought to light concerning this matter. Those who wanted this ad to run need to ask themselves why exactly they are doing it. Is it to spread the conservative message, or is it to provoke heated debate? From what I have seen, I believe that it may be the latter. \nFreedom of speech is a necessity in a democracy, but is it worth it if the end result will no doubt be hostilities among those who disagree? I am, of course, not saying that Mr. Horowitz's ad should be censored, for to do so would be a violation of the First Amendment. What I am saying, though, is there are other forums such as non-collegiate newspapers where placing the ad would be more appropriate. In my opinion, the ad has become more of a vehicle to exact revenge on the ideologies of liberal institutions of higher learning than to simply convey difference of belief. \nLiberals already have the misplaced view of conservatives as being insensitive to the opinions and ideas of others, and the tactics of pressure used to force college newspapers to place the ad only adds fuel to the fire. Is this how conservatives want to be perceived, as insensitive? I think not. Contrary to Descartes' notion that the "end justifies the means," the end never justifies the means. If it is known that actions will cause a hostile division within a group of people, college students in this case, we have an obligation of basic human courtesy to see that this division does not occur. In the end, when all the dust has settled, is it really worth risking civility in order to have one's views heard? A logical assessment of the situation would say no, which is the reason I don't believe that this is a cause worth fighting for. As I said before, censorship is never the answer, but when it is known after initial printings of the ad the effects it contains, we have a duty, as civil human beings, to prevent riots, hostilities and the like. \nNow I say this is a cause not worth fighting for because I don't believe that the slave reparations movement will come to fruition. I cannot, of course, tell the future, but those who militantly advocate placing the ad behave as if there were a consensus among American citizens and politicians that reparations should be paid, and that it will pass in Congress shortly. There is no indication out of Washington, or from the American people, that this will occur, so for conservatives to hit the panic button now is unnecessary and inherently reckless.\nToeing the party line is never worth more than doing what is right, which, I believe, is to back off from this fight. Choosing what battles to fight is the most important thing that one can do when trying to convey one's beliefs. If this is not done, the divide between dissenting views will only widen, and nothing will be accomplished.