It's sad that Joan Walsh has fallen into the No. 1 delight of conservatives who like to feel victimized by this "p.c." beastie -- a hatred and disdain for young people as they attempt to formulate their own morals and worldview and sometimes, unpleasantly, rebel against their parents. I've always thought that, in bashing the victimology they see in political correctness, conservatives betray the same desire to take the place of the victim.

On the subject of rejecting an ad in a publication, do you people know that publications do this every day, and that is what editorial boards are for? That right, in some ways, is why you start a publication in the process. It's a free will act where nobody is telling you what to do. If you choose to be one ad check poorer for pissing someone off, you make that decision proudly. That would not at all count as limiting freedom of speech. Rather, it's limiting advertising. I would tell Horowitz to write a bunch of letters to the editor and let the editors do their job. If he's not happy with that, he can start a zine (if he knows what one is).

For anyone not intimately acquainted with the purpose of a college publication, it may be difficult to understand all the anguish that goes on over which ads to print, what copy to run. I saw that many times as a teaching assistant at Ohio State University's lab paper, the Lantern. The student lab paper is fascinating because it's a place for learning. Bashing these students because their moral searchings and decisions do not have results that please us is mean-spirited and disrespectful to young people. Horowitz's glee at "making idiots of" these students betrays his fundamentally sadistic aim, as does Walsh's assent that these kids and their developing, passionate personalities can be summed up as "self-important" and "hormone-addled." Walsh's description of the campus left as "mostly dormant" only betrays the ignorance of someone out of touch with campus and youth culture -- and someone who has not bothered to carefully research a story.

With this kind of disdain -- and even hatred -- for young people and for those who rebel, the frightening rage that many young people feel becomes suddenly more understandable.

-- Sonya Huber

Joan Walsh's piece about the reparations ad was an incredible, finely nuanced and succinct way of summarizing how I feel about the anemic tolerance of the left. As a liberal myself, I find it disturbing that college leftists aren't made of sterner stuff. To be honest, as much as I despise Horowitz's columns, I would hate to miss the opportunity to read them. From William Buckley to Horowitz to Jonah Goldberg, I find no greater intellectual joy than poring over the words of someone who passionately disagrees with me, then gleefully bashing them for doing so. It's the greatest weakness of the left that delusional sanctimony prevents free exchange and consequently these people get crucified on their own reprehensibly stupid arguments.

Although I appreciate Horowitz as an ideological provocateur, the truth is, in a tit for tat debate on most issues, he can't carry his weight. It's just sad that in the rush to cloister people from having their sensibilities bruised, these student newspapers have given infinite ammunition to the new cult of conservative victimhood.

-- Terry Sawyer

As a former managing editor of the Badger Herald at the University of Wisconsin (in 1998), I feel obligated to correct a few misconceptions and mistakes in your article.

The advertisement proposed by the Multicultural Student Coalition was not a refutation of the Horowitz ad. It was an ad calling the Herald a "racist propaganda machine," a sentiment few newspapers would print about themselves. I doubt even your beloved Cardinal would support free speech to that extent.

Labeling the Badger Herald as a conservative paper is inaccurate. The days of the Karl Armstrong-defending Cardinal vs. the Nixon-supporting Herald are over. When I was on the staff, both papers leaned left, with the Cardinal possibly leaning a little more. Judging the Herald based on characteristics you knew a quarter-century ago is not fair to the current staff. I have read staff editorials from the late '70s and I was appalled by many of them. As an illustration of the changed ideology, I offer an editorial I helped to create, supporting the formation of the Multicultural Student Coalition two years ago. Times have changed since 1979, when a column titled "Can Africans Rule Themselves" was acceptable content for the editorial page.

I don't know that either paper is considered the "official" paper. However, since you left campus in the late '70s, the Herald has become the larger paper, surpassing the Cardinal in circulation, staff size and physical size (broadsheet vs. tabloid). I won't presume to judge quality because of the obvious self-interest involved.

-- Mike Schramm

Salon Politics: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.