Do school publications have to accept advertisements that some may find offensive?
This debate was played out on a national stage in 2001, when activist David Horowitz submitted a controversial advertisement, entitled “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea,” to college newspapers across the country. Although college newspaper editors are not bound by the same rules as middle or high school newspaper editors, the scenario raises an interesting question for any journalist: Is it better, in the interest of free expression, to accept and run an ad that is likely to be found offensive by a significant part of the community, or to refuse to accept it? The decisions of the college editors varied. In an article in the April 1, 2001, edition of The Washington Post, several editors discussed the choices they made.
This debate was played out on a national stage in 2001, when activist David Horowitz submitted a controversial advertisement, “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea,” to college newspapers across the country. Although college newspaper editors are not bound by the same rules as middle or high school newspaper editors, the scenario raises an interesting question: Is it better, in the interest of free expression, to accept and run an ad that is likely to be found offensive by a significant part of the community, or to refuse to accept it? The decisions of the college editors varied. In the April 1, 2001, edition of The Washington Post, several editors discussed the choices they made. Alexander Conant, the editor for the University of Wisconsin’s Badger Herald, ran the ad because, in his opinion, “A newspaper that refused the ad, or ran it followed by an apology, is censoring ideas and cannot possibly purport to be a forum for public discussion. Instead, it becomes a soapb
