There is an important debate raging across America's campuses over the past week. Last week, an ad by conservative author David Horowitz lambasted a recent movement proposing reparations be paid to black Americans for slavery. Mr. Horowitz originally tried to place this ad in more than a dozen college newspapers, 10 of which rejected him flat out. The three of the four newspapers that printed it later followed up with apologies for becoming an "an inadvertent vehicle for bigotry." In the ensuing controversy, he has sent the ad out to more than 100 other college newspapers. This ad, titled "Ten reasons why reparations for slavery is a bad idea — and racist too," has brought about a most interesting backlash. Instead of prompting a debate on race relations in America's universities, Horowitz has been labeled a "racial provocateur." The offices of Brown University's school newspaper was stormed by angry students, stealing copies of newspapers which featured the ad. Students as the University of Wisconsin demanded the resignation of its newspaper's editorial staff. Countless articles have appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

This debate is immensely important, concerning issues of freedom of speech, the liberal bias of today's journalists, race relations, and the damaging effects of a nation that is too politically correct for its own good. This is probably one of the most interesting debates for a college newspaper in recent years. Where is the Collegian in this?