Horowitz decision legal but unethical

Those who try to support the Horowitz advertisement on a political level have obviously missed the entire point of the protests against this advertisement. The supposed political statement in the ad is not the basis for the majority of the protests. The problem with the advertisement lies in its blatant use racism and un-factual historical references to make its arguments. Horowitz continuously makes comments concerning the African-American community as a separate "nation," and implies that the true American nation is composed of only whites. He insinuates that all blacks benefit from constant welfare payments and "handouts." According to his assessment, the only reason I am at IU right now, as well as the only reason I was accepted to every other university I applied to, is because of my race. \nDo journalists have an obligation to the public that supercedes those legal rights? If I wished to publish an advertisement featuring a portrait of Hitler and the words "He was right," the IDS would have the legal right to publish it. The question is, is it ethically right for them to publish such an advertisement? What if Benjamin Smith had approached the IDS and asked them to publish an advertisement about his "church?" Once again, the IDS would have the legal right to publish such an advertisement, but the morality of the issue comes into question. \nThe most depressing part of this advertisement is that the IDS only ran it to spark controversy and increase its readership. In effect, the IDS sold its soul to racism for $800 and the chance for some new readers. If they had presented legitimate arguments concerning reparations in a point-counterpoint format, or even in an opinion article, I would not have had a problem with such a discussion. But they published a highly controversial and blatantly racist advertisement in order to increase the controversy surrounding the paper with the idea that "any publicity is good publicity." \nThey have limited the ability to respond to the ad inside the IDS. In short, if you are unable to see the true problems with an advertisement like this, I am sorry for you. This is the type of advertisement student newspapers were fighting against in the 1960s and 1970s. It saddens me to think that we, as a country, have come full-circle. The argument against this advertisement is not, and should not, be a political one. It is an ethical, moral and social argument. The question is not whether reparations are justified; the question is whether the Bloomington campus, as a community, will tolerate such racism.