Decision malicious

I was recently appalled by a malicious decision on the part of the IDS to present what amounts to hate speech in the student newspaper. The fact that it is an advertisement only leads me to the assumption that you endorse this type of ideology even if this is not the case. \nI believe that if David Horowitz had sent an article to the newspaper on the issue of reparations, you would not have even taken him seriously. The lucrative venture of a full-page advertisement and the potential controversy that would increase readership were contributing factors which might not have come into play originally but seem to be damaging repercussions of an irresponsible decision. \nThis advertisement, which was not presented by any student organization on this campus, does not foster open dialogue but rather leaves a targeted group of the student body to deal with the emotional toll of reading an advertisement in their student newspaper that distorts their past and attacks the fabric of their heritage. The decision of the IDS constitutes an attack on the student body which seems to be irrevocable as long as the IDS refuses to admit that maybe the open attack of the black student body on this campus is not a "dialogue" they would like to foster.\nI have a real problem with allowing this type of dialogue to transpire in the form of an advertisement as opposed to an editorial. At least as an editorial we can have an open dialogue and debate the issues but with Horowitz long gone and the aftermath of the advertisement still here one can only speculate as to the type of dialogue the IDS had in mind in the first place.