An advertisement opposing the payment of reparations to former slaves that recently ran in some college newspapers has caused protests, uproar and apologies on campuses across the nation.

The Daily Collegian was faced with the same business decision as its peer college newspapers and decided against running the advertisement, which vehemently opposes reparations for slavery.

The advertisement, headlined "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea and Racist Too," was sent to university papers around the country by David Horowitz, President for the Center of the Study of Popular Culture.

"The Daily Collegian has the right to accept and object all advertising that comes into question. . .when I saw the ad, I just knew it was inappropriate for the Penn State community," she said.

Sadiky said she considered the ad's connotations and inflammatory words, as well as recent incidents at Penn State, such as racist e-mails sent to many black students last year, that have created a sensitive climate on campus. Sadiky said she wanted to save students from "unneeded stress, hurt feelings and duress."

"The entire tone of this ad was inflammatory. . .the issue at hand was presented in an inappropriate manner," Sadiky said.

According to the Collegian's advertising policies: "All advertising is subject to the approval of the business manager, who reserves the right to refuse any advertising" and "reserves the right to refuse or to change advertising that is felt to be in poor taste or judgment. . .that maligns identifiable persons, races, religions, or professions; or that is not within the reasonable boundaries of accuracy and truthfulness."

Because Horowitz's speech was in the form of an advertisement, the decision whether or not to run the ad was solely a business decision. The Collegian's news division and editorial board are not involved in the paper's advertising.

"This is not a news decision. This is a business decision," said Patricia Tisak, editor in chief. "I had no say on whether the ad should run."

Sadiky said the Collegian's business department carefully weighed its options before deciding not to publish Horowitz's advertisement.

"I consulted with my staff and, ultimately, it was my decision not to run the ad," she said.

A similar controversy arose seven years ago when college newspapers debated whether or not to run an advertisement headlined "A Revisionist Challenge to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum," which denounced the museum's proof that gas chambers were used to kill Jews during the Holocaust. The Daily Collegian ran the ad in February 1994.

Weighing possible outcomes that could result from Horowitz's advertisement, most student publications decided against running the advertisement. According to Horowitz's Web site (www.frontpagemag.com), he sent the ad to 50 papers, 10 of which ran the ad.

The University of Pennsylvania's student-published paper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, took the same stance as the Collegian and did not publish the advertisement.

"We have an obligation to stimulate discussion and dialogue on our campus, but we do so on our editorial pages, not in our advertising space," said Executive Editor Michael Vondriska.

Some schools, however, decided to run the ad and were met with both praise and intense criticism for their decision.

Brown University's newspaper, The Brown Daily Herald, ran the advertisement last Tuesday. Students at the university stole the entire press run of the issue and attempted to enter the news office of the paper with the intent of destroying the remaining copies.

Herald Editor in Chief Katherine Boas defended her paper's decision and said that despite the manner in which the ad was written, the Herald believed there was no reason to withhold the publication of the ad.

"It was a business decision, but if we (the news division) see something, we can pull it. . .we saw no reason to pull this ad," Boas said. "David Horowitz expressed his views. . .that's all this is."

Unlike several other schools, the Herald ran the ad and refused to issue an apology.

"We're not apologizing because there's nothing to apologize for," Boas said.

Arizona State University's student publication, State Press, issued an apology after running the ad, however no reporter or editor would comment last night on the reason for the paper's initial decision or its subsequent apology.

Clay Calvert, an assistant professor of communications and law, said the decision faced by universities across the country is not completely dictated by the first amendment because the object of discussion is a paid advertisement and not an article.

"The first amendment does not compel a newspaper to accept or withhold any advertising," Calvert said. "It's a judgment call."