Reviewed by Alan M. Dershowitz
Ó2002
David Horowitz - - whose provocative ad against “reparations” for slavery generated a firestorm on college campuses during the spring of 2001 - - assures the readers of this self-serving account that “its subject is not me, nor is it the advertisement that provoked such a reaction” ” (page 4). He claims that the subject of his book is an idea - - the “dubious idea of reparations” and, in a larger sense, “the intellectual vulgarities of American universities in an age of ‘political correctness.’” (p. 5)
This is a misleading characterization of “Uncivil Wars”, which is, in fact, all about David Horowitz and his “in your face” brand of confrontation. His ad, which targeted an important symbol of black solidarity on college campuses, was calculated to stir raw emotions. He knew that if the ad was accepted for publication it would create a backlash against the editors who agreed to publish it. He also knew that if it was rejected for publication it would allow him to cry “censorship.” An editor at the Daily Princetonian got it exactly right:
Horowitz plays a clever game. He played it with several of our peer college papers in the past few weeks. And he won. When Horowitz submits an ad to a college paper, he hopes that one of two things will happen: Either the paper refused to print the ad, so he can tell the world that conservative ideas are being censored by the liberal college press, or the paper prints the ad and campus activists protest. Both ways, Horowitz gets what he wants....” (p.88)
Although Horowitz disputes the accuracy of this description, he acknowledges that he relished “the opportunity to bait the tiger in its lair” when he was invited to Princeton. Baiting is exactly the right word to describe Horowitz’s style. He devotes many pages of his book to proving that he is not a racist. Some of his best friends and fellow critics of reparations are blacks - - as he tells us over and over again. In fact, he is not a racist. His animus is not directed toward people based on the color of their skin; it is directed at people based on their attitudes regarding race. He enjoys tweaking the noses of blacks and whites alike who advocate certain positions on racial matters. In this sense he is a race-issue-baiter. There is an important distinction between being a racist and being a person who baits those who disagree with him on racial issues, but it is a distinction likely to be blurred in the emotionally charged atmosphere of the sort of racially divisive confrontation Horowitz enjoys provoking.
Horowitz’s repeated claims that his ad was not “intentionally inflammatory” are unconvincing. He fails to tell his readers that his tactic was not original with him. Several years earlier a man named Bradley Smith submitted a Holocaust denial ad to college newspapers around the country. At that time I wrote the following about this tactic:
For Smith, this tactic entails no risks; it is a no-lose proposition. If the ad is accepted, he gets his message across. If it is rejected, he screams censorship and gets his message across that way….”
By submitting these ads to college newspapers around the country, Smith has been able to generate two debates, one [about the Holocaust; the other about censorship].
Perhaps the reason Horowitz omits this relevant history from his account is that he does not want to be associated with Holocaust denial. This is understandable, since there is a considerable difference between what Horowitz has written, which is largely a matter of opinion, and what Bradley Smith wrote, which was demonstrably false. But their tactics are similar, and Horowitz never tells us whether he thinks college newspapers should have accepted or rejected the Holocaust denial ad.
Horowitz is a master in the art of overstatement. He described Prof. Charles Ogletree as exhibiting “hostility to America generally and to white Americans in particular.” (page 97). Now, I may lack some objectivity with regard to this accusation, because Ogletree is my colleague at Harvard Law School, but in all the years I have known Ogletree, both as a student and colleague, I have never heard him express anti-American or anti-white sentiments. Nor does Horowitz quote or cite a single word uttered by Ogletree, beyond his support for reparations, that would justify such a defamatory characterization.
His overstatements are not limited to his descriptions of individuals. They extend as well to the central thesis of his book, namely, that there is a pervasive censorship of ideas in colleges all over the country and that conservative views cannot be expressed on most college campuses. He is certainly correct that there is a problem of political correctness on many college campuses as reflected in the childish speech codes that have been enacted in many places. But conservative clubs are alive and well on numerous college campuses. Moreover, the conservative viewpoint is welcomed, indeed sought, by The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, National Review, The Weekly Standard, Fox Television, and dozens of other media outlets. These media sources are available on college campuses. The conservative voice has a megaphone in Washington and is championed by many of the most powerful forces in America. This is not to deny that some divisive ideas - - particularly about race and gender - - are unwelcome by administrators, faculty members and students in many colleges and universities. But Horowitz fails to understand - - or more likely understands but fails to acknowledge - - that his deliberately provocative ad was not well designed to test whether certain ideas are acceptable on college campuses, but rather to test whether certain incendiary attacks on important racial symbols will provoke an emotional response. Horowitz tells us that he was called a racist for expressing the idea that “white Americans died to free American slaves;” and that he was characterized as “anti-black” for praising Jefferson and Lincoln as “heroes of liberty for all Americans.” This is flat out false, as proved by the fact that many professors of history express those views routinely on college campuses without criticism. It was the manner by which Horowitz expressed these views and the divisive context in which he offered them which resulted in the emotional response he had surely anticipated.
Horowitz understands that he has provoked raw emotions. He repeatedly focuses on students bursting “into tears” or being unable to “perform basic functions like walking or sleeping because of this ad.” In this respect Horowitz is something of a bully, since he is a mature adult who knows how to take advantage of the sensitivities and emotions of young students. He may not be completely deaf about nuance and tone, but he is certainly “tone challenged” (to use a politically correct term he would despise) or else he deliberately turns off his tone aid when it comes to race.
Does this mean that Horowitz should be compelled to attend “sensitivity training” on race dialogue? Or that he ought to be called a racist? Or that his speech should be silenced? Of course not. He should be criticized in the marketplace of ideas both for the content of some of his views as well as for the manner by which he often expresses them.
It is precisely because this is a book about Horowitz and his style of inciting divisive and emotional reactions that it is of limited value. It does prove that many students have thin skins, many faculty members limited vision and many administrators little courage when provoked by insensitive speech; and that such speech must be fully protected on campuses. But as I know from personal experience, provocateurs should not expect polite responses. Nor should they expect - - as Horowitz does - - all civil libertarians to rush to defend the substance of their views, as distinguished from the right to express them in a deliberately provocative manner. Provocateurs shouldn’t whine, as Horowitz does, when they succeed in provoking irrational responses.
The lesson of this controversy is not to take the bait of race-issue-baiters like Horowitz. Always remember that he is seeking “the opportunity to bait the tiger in his lair.” Don’t fall for it. Print his ad and let it sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas. Use his ad as an opportunity to educate students about all sides of the debate over reparations. The answer to bad speech is not censorship. It is more and better speech, especially on college campuses.
Alan Dershowitz is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age.