Kelley Walker wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Instead of running off with the papers, why not hold a public reading of
> >Horowitz's ad, and publically demolish each point in turn?
I can't read the intentions of the students before they acted, but after the fact one can see that the main difference between their action and the one suggested here is that had they made the latter choice the LBO discussion would never have taken place, there would have been no BLC press release -- no one, that is, outside of a very small sprinkling of indifferent Brown students would ever have heard of them. As a result of the choice they did make the topic of Reparations is now a topic of discussion. (Many people who never had heard of reparations are now vigorously against them and expressing that opinion loudly, and widespread attacks are vital to the flourishing of left perspectives, since the primary counter to left views is their burial in silence.
Moreover, Kelley assumes that the purpose of the action was or ought to have been a refutation of Horowitz's 'arguments.' That is, she assumes that the ad was an argument, that it would be read as an argument, and that those reading it would be interested in the confirmation or refutation of the arguments made. But clearly the ad was not an argument, and it was aimed _only_ at two groups: (1) those who already agreed wholeheartedly with its premise, namely that tbe interests of black people are illegitimate interests, and (2) at black people, not of, course to persuade them but to remind them of their proper place in the great scheme of things.
Refuting Horowitz's ideas was beside beside the point. Rather, the _action_ had to be rebuffed -- it, had to be asserted _in action_ that black students at Brown and, potentially, the entire Black Community would not sanctiom this trivalization of their interests. [I assert "potentially" in the preceding sentence as a point of departure for other posts on a collateral matter of great importance.] As an analogue consider the introduction some years ago of the slogan, "We're Queer, We're Here! Get Used to It!" Consider also Lenin's insistence that in order to wage war it was first necessary to declare war. All hail the Brown Students!
I think these observations also constitute a reply to Chris Kromm's recent post.
Chris Kromm wrote:
>
> Why all the focus on the Brown students? Many other campuses have dealt with
> this issue -- and dealt with it much better, I might add. Duke is a shining
> example -- a clear statement saying the paper had the right to print the ad,
> but that they were going to oppose what the ad said by any means necessary.
>
[clip]
I presume the Duke students acted according to their best assessment of what the context for their action was and what options were open to them, and I am in no position to assess that action.
But as a general principle, it simply was not true that the paper was right to publish the ad. A paper has a right to publish a very tiny selection of that day's news. (All the news for one day could not be covered by a newspaper equal in size two the total annual output of the NYT.) Hence the paper's decision, in its news columns as well as its ads, to publish _this_ rather than _that_ can be _very_ wrong indeed. Would it be "right" for the New York Times two publish a fullpage ad announcing the availability of of child prostitutes (perhaps including color photos of clients receiving satisfaction)? I asked this question before and so far as I know no one responded. But it is a serious question. Unless you answer with a firm "Yes" you have no right to affirm as a general principle that a paper should print all ads submitted to it. And then you cannot affirm that either the question of the free press or of free speech is involved here. Either your thinking is very slovenly or you are illustrating King's point about white moderates: they are more a barrier to black freedom than are Citizens Councils or the KKK.
And in part Chris's question answers itself. We are focusing on the Brown rather than the Duke episode because the political importance of the latter is trivial, while the latter raises the whole question of the relationship of white radicals to the black liberation struggle.
And to repeat, since the Horowitz ad did not even make a good pretence of being a serious argument, to respond to it as if it were would be simply to acknowlege the legitimacy of racial harassment and the illegitimacy of blacks responding effectively to such harassment.
Carrol