David Horowitz is a provocateur. He intentionally tries to offend people. He pushes his opponents in order to reveal their irrationalities. As a former '60s radical and Marxist theorist who became disenchanted with the violence of the far left, Horowitz took a swing to the right in the mid 1980s. He's now a conservative columnist who pummels the left at every opportunity.

Horowitz is currently embroiled in a national debate on college campuses about slavery reparations and free speech. Horowitz created an advertisement titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too." The ad was derived from a column on Salon.com called "Does Oprah need reparations?" But instead of creating a debate about the subject of the ad itself, the ad has illustrated the pervasive politically correct atmosphere that dominates most college campuses today.

Many of the arguments contained in the ad, in my opinion, are sensible, and they verge on the point of irrefutability. The problems with determining who gets paid, how much and by whom are logistical nightmares with ethical qualms of their own. Should the descendants of immigrants who came to America after the Civil War have to pay? What about the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who died in a cause that ultimately freed the slaves? Should they get something? Horowitz's ad also points to the divisive nature of reparations and the fact that they would almost certainly dramatically heighten racial tensions.

Yet, the ad does not use high prose. It uses inflammatory rhetoric. Point nine asks, "What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?" Horowitz claims that blacks are indebted to America because slavery existed for thousands of years until a movement led largely by white people decided that slavery was a moral outrage. He also writes that the standard of living of blacks is much higher than that of other blacks living in Africa. Thus, he concludes, blacks in the United States should be grateful that their ancestors were slaves kidnapped from their homelands. This is akin to saying that Jews who came to America to flee the Nazi terror should be grateful to Hitler because they enjoy a higher standard of living in America than they would in Poland. While it may be factually accurate to say that the standard of living is higher here than it is elsewhere, this point ignores the fact that intense and long-lived suffering occurred before this higher standard of living was achieved.

This is inflammatory, maddening rhetoric. They're words that would make some people clinch their fists, tear up the newspaper, scream out loud and then send an angry letter to the editor. They're words that can inspire rage. And indeed they did.

Horowitz submitted the ad to 52 college newspapers. Brown's student newspaper ran the ad and an entire press run of the newspaper was stolen and destroyed. Berkeley's paper ran the ad and its office was stormed by left wing protesters demanding an apology. The same thing happened at Duke. Many of the other schools that ran the ad experienced angry and violent protests. Twenty-seven papers, including The Daily Collegian, rejected the ad for numerous reasons.

It's not such clear-cut an issue as some make it out to be. It's not just censorship vs. free speech. There were real concerns to be weighed before printing or rejecting the ad. The politically correct climate that exists around college newspapers makes it hard for them to print controversial ads like Horowitz's. These are the unfortunate realities that exist on the cravenly politically correct climate of college campuses, where actual thought and debate are discouraged. Instead of responding to an incendiary argument with a logical rebuttal, students are quick to yell, "Racist" and make demands without ever addressing the actual issue of reparations.

Horowitz's cause is not slavery reparations. The American people don't need convincing that reparations are a bad idea, as 70 percent of them are already against reparations. No political leaders are seriously making an argument for them. If Horowitz wanted to convince an audience that holds some sway in politics, he certainly would not have sent the ad to college newspapers. College students don't vote in large numbers, read college newspapers, and their opinions are not really valued by politicians.

Horowitz's cause is the revival of conservative thought on college campuses. Or not even conservative thought, just thought that leads to debate. Certain politically incorrect views are just not tolerated, and this is the antithesis of free speech. These incidents at Brown, Berkeley, and other universities, show that PC thugs rule many college campuses, and their views are the only ones to be acknowledged.

Horowitz is concerned about groups like those at Brown that destroyed thousands of newspapers because they disagreed with their content. He's concerned about conservative speakers (like himself) who need bodyguards on college campuses because they are shouted down from podiums and threatened with physical violence. He's concerned about academic departments where the debate is between Marxists and leftists. He's concerned that conservatives are being pushed out of every position in the academy. He's concerned that the mantra of diversity chanted by college administrators on a daily basis only applies to race and not ideology.