Spring Break
Reparations ad sparks protests
Jennifer Hoyt/Staff Writer
Issue date: 4/20/01 Section: News
| |
|
Tensions surrounding the advertisement, entitled “Ten Reasons Why Slave Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too,” heightened Thursday morning after news spread that racially offensive graffiti had appeared on campus.
The advertisement has spurred controversies at other college student newspapers that chose to publish it. At Brown University, a student coalition stole almost 4,000 copies of The Daily Herald in response to its decision to publish the advertisement. Other papers, such as The Duke Chronicle and the University of Wisconsin Badger Herald, were also protested after they printed the advertisement.
Vicki Triponey, vice chancellor of student affairs, served as a mediator for the protest and told students that because the graffiti appeared on Tuesday it was not prompted by the advertisement, which was printed two days later.
One woman in the crowd disagreed that the incidents were unrelated, stating, “I found out on Tuesday that this ad would probably be printed on Thursday.”
Her comment was met by yells of shock from the protestors.
The UConn police said that the graffiti was found in a men’s bathroom of the Gant building on Tuesday.
“The threatening graffiti was racist and anti-Semitic in nature,” a crime alert produced by the police department said. “Specifically, there was a threat of violence to be carried out on April 20.”
The number of police patrols on campus has been increased in response to the threat.
“It could just be a prank, but [because of] the nature of the threat and its message, we plan to take it seriously,” Triponey said.
Dr. Willena Price, director of the African American Cultural Center, said that the AACC and the Hillel Foundation expect police protection all day today.
UConn adminstrators said they are deeply concerned about the graffiti incident.
“The University of Connecticut is a vibrant and diverse scholarly community,” said Chancellor John Petersen. “As such, we are outraged by this disgusting act, which is offensive to us all. Racist behavior and hate speech have no place on our campus, and we will continue to work hard to assure that the university remains a place where every student feels safe and welcomed.”
Organized student reaction to the advertisement began at 3 p.m. Thursday, when students at the African American Cultural Center held a press conference to publicize their concerns about the advertisement and the graffiti.
After the press conference, a large group of students walked to Gulley Hall to express their concerns with UConn administrators.
A racially diverse group began to congregate outside The Daily Campus at 7 p.m. to discuss the advertisement with the paper’s staff.
After speaking to students running for the Undergraduate Student Government next year, the group expressed their concerns about the advertisement to The Daily Campus staff members Beau Carson, commentary editor, and Adam Sudbury, associate commentary editor, who went outside to meet the group.
“When you tell me what you think, you are just convincing me. If you write a letter to the editor, 10,000 students will see your name and your opinion,” Carson told the protestors, encouraging them to publish their concerns in the paper.
At approximately 8:30 p.m., Ryan Daneault, editor in chief of The Daily Campus, went outside to speak to the crowd.
The group questioned Daneault on his reasoning behind letting the advertisement run in the paper, knowing that it caused racial tensions when it ran in The Daily Herald at Brown University.
“I knew that we didn’t have to be Brown; we could be something different,” Daneault responded. “We could address the issue. We could address the content of the ad, and use the paper as a medium for addressing that issue.”
The group said that The Daily Campus should have rejected the advertisement, like many other college newspapers chose to do.
“Thirty-six other universities chose not to print it, so that option is there,” one protestor said. “It’s not that you had to print this, it was that you took the money to print something that you knew would offend people, regardless of whether it sparked debate or get a bunch of people together, that’s still not acceptable.”
“Exactly, and that’s 36 universities that aren’t as well informed that there is this issue going around the United States at this time,” Daneault responded.
The group was unhappy with Daneault’s reaction to their protest.
“You honestly make us feel like our lives are not worth $720 because you would print something like that in the paper,” one protestor told Daneault. “And now we are worried about what is going to happen tomorrow and we feel like a lot of this was fueled because of what was on the back of the paper.”
Horowitz’s full-page ad cost $693.
The protestors said that they were angry that their student fees fund a paper that would print material that offends them. Some group members said that The Daily Campus should print a retraction.
“If you are supposed to represent the student community, this is not representing us at all - and it does not just affect African-Americans, you see the crowd - it’s real diverse out here,” one student said.
“The purpose of the newspaper isn’t to represent the students,” Daneault responded. This comment was met with shouts of disagreement from the protestors.
“The purpose of this newspaper is to represent the community,” Daneault continued over the shouting. “We represent the administration, we represent students, we represent everyone - we are an independent newspaper.”
Members of the group disagreed, stating that the paper was obligated to the students because of the funding they provide for it.
Triponey offered to purchase a full-page advertisement in the paper so the group could respond to Horowitz’s advertisement.
The general consensus among the group was that they should not have to pay to make a response.
“We can use that money in other places, you know what I mean? We can put that money [toward] the [cultural] center and other things like that,” one student said.
Daneault said that the purpose of printing the advertisement was to inform the community about a national issue and incite debate.
“If I sent you 10 reasons why The Daily Campus should be shut down, would you print that too?” a protestor asked Daneault.
“Yes, I would print that in a second,” he replied.
After discussing the issue with Daneault for approximately a half-hour, students said they were unsatisfied with his responses.
“Basically, he’s not apologizing for running it; he would print it again, so what are we going to do?” one student asked the crowd. “We could stand here and talk to him for hours. I say we go to the board of trustees and say that we don’t want to pay for the paper.”
This comment was met with loud applause.
The protest disbanded shortly after the group agreed to ask the board of trustees that their student fees no longer go toward running The Daily Campus.
They plan to discuss the issue further on Monday at 7 p.m. at the African American Cultural Center.
After the protest, four administrators met with a group of eight to 10 students at Gulley Hall to discuss the advertisement and the threatening graffiti.
“We’ve done about as much as we can,” Triponey told The Daily Campus after she met with the small group of students.
Martin A. Smith, a 4th-semester acting major, told The Daily Campus that steps have to be taken to combat the effects of the advertisement.
“It’s like a cancer eating away at part of the student body, and the worst thing about cancer is that it spreads. ... What we need to do right now is amputate this from the paper before it spreads and it kills everybody.”