An explanation of 'IDS' policy

Last week, the IDS ran an ad paid for by conservative activist David Horowitz titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations are Wrong -- and Racist Too." The ad listed Horowitz's reasons why the government should not pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. \nWhen we made the decision to accept the ad, we based it on two principles. First, the IDS is a forum for the expression of diverse viewpoints. Second, we agreed to make a decision that we would be able to stand behind. \nAfter the ad ran, another controversy arose around the question of IDS columnists writing about the ad. It has been long-standing IDS policy that columnists cannot write about IDS decisions, whether praising or condemning the newspaper. We've hired an independent ombudsman, graduate student Brian Hartz, whom we do not control, to comment on the newspaper's decisions. \nExercising that freedom this week, he criticized our policy that columnists cannot write about the IDS. \nOne columnist had approached the management staff wanting to write a piece agreeing with our decision to run Horowitz's ad. At this point, we reminded our opinion staff of the policy that columnists cannot write about the newspaper's internal decisions.\nFar from "muzzling" speech, we have encouraged columnists to write about slave reparations and the specific viewpoints Horowitz raised in his ad. It is only the internal decision that they cannot write about.\nColumnists then suggested the compromise that they would write about the national controversy surrounding the ad. But by taking a stance on what other newspapers have chosen to do, they would also be commenting on our decision to run the ad in the IDS. \nWe have welcomed discussion on the ad and continue to do so. Our ombudsman wrote his column this week on that topic. Thursday, we ran two full pages of letters from the community in response to the ad, and encourage and will run further feedback on the subject.