Editor,
It seemed like a bad enough start to the day to see that the infamous Horowitz advertisement had made its way to our campus, but the free speech shield carefully placed on the opposite page really ruined my morning. Eighty percent of the “Opinion” page is dedicated to the Horowitz hoohah, 100 percent of which is in defense of its publication.
Did anyone give a heads up to the African-American Studies Department to opine on this matter or was it just given to a select two? The lack of variety of opinion makes the protection of free speech argument, while valid in some respects, seem like a thin veil. It’s an age-old tactic of the oppressor to dress in victim’s clothing.
The advertisement was dressed up and generously adorned by Daily Lobo layout. Perhaps they thought that the column by the special, surprise guest columnist Ken Paulson and the not-so-clever cartoon would help hold up their position on its publication. It only added insult to injury. Not only was the content of the Opinion page almost as poorly argued as Horowitz’s 10 points, but it also revealed an incredibly irresponsible attitude toward misinformation, bigotry and the advertisement’s injurious intent.
Horowitz’s agenda is far more menacing than any “scam” or “escort service” that would be censored by this paper. The threat of an escort service is great enough to do away with freedom of speech in order to protect the students from its exposure, but racist propaganda slimes its way in. Who gets protected here? Do you want to protect students from using their credit cards to pay a pimp? If you want to censor the pimps, censor yourselves. You provided a space for Horowitz to get UNM to bend over, get paid and get screwed — and you didn’t provide protection.
-Alison Gregg
Undergraduate student
