TO THE EDITOR:
I've been following Horowitz's exploits for a while and was wondering when he would ruffle the feathers of UNC students with his pointless ad. As a black student at UNC, I was ready to take a stab at Horowitz's argument and dissect it piece by piece, but I was saddened when I actually saw the ad for the first time.
I was saddened because the ad had no content and so could not promote a rebuttal to Horowitz's argument. I do not agree that running the article gave legitimacy to Horowitz's views in any way, shape or form. All I know about Horowitz is that he does not believe in reparations for blacks, and he has insulted all who have read his ad by making up, or tampering with, facts.
As Readers' Advocate Brian Frederick stated; "Horowitz tosses a lot of shit at the wall to see what sticks" and "plays with history and offers little hard, accurate historical and sociological evidence."
The so-called "shit" that he throws at the walls was obviously meant to be inflammatory and did not really make a point other than the fact that anyone with an idea and a good deal of money can get his or her ideas spread like wildfire.
As a result, I don't know exactly whether Editor Matt Dees' decision to run the ad rode on the fact that he wanted to inspire debate, that he's a staunch defender of the First Amendment or did not have anything good to print that day. I do know that the Horowitz ad never truly sparked much debate about reparations, but it did spark debate about The Daily Tar Heel's integrity. My trouble with the entire affair spawns from fact that the DTH printed something that was unintelligible and had absolutely no substance. This is a trend that should not continue.
I would hope that the students here would be given more credit in the future by what has been called a prestigious college paper in the past.
If a debate is to be initiated, I plead with the DTH staff to choose wisely and to respect the student body's intelligence. Bad arguments cannot lead to good responses.