CHICAGO – Amid raucous protests in a packed University of Chicago lecture hall, conservative commentator David Horowitz on Tuesday called a group of activists “intellectual terrorists” and defended his controversial anti-reparations advertisement that ran in college newspapers nationwide.

“We live in an age of racial McCarthyism,” Horowitz told about 200 people in U of C’s Biological Sciences Learning Center. “People are intimidated from speaking up on reparations because they don’t want to be called racist. This is no different than what Joe McCarthy did 50 years ago.”

The ad, “Ten Reasons why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea — and Racist Too,” has sparked protests and newspaper thefts at colleges across the country.

Of 73 college newspapers that received the advertisement, only 28 printed it. At least three later apologized to their readers for running it.

Although the ad spurred protests at several universities and a barrage of letters at others, Horowitz said he never intended to catapult himself into the national spotlight.

“I had no idea what this was going to produce,” he said in the speech. “My ad was bought. It wasn’t insensitive, and it wasn’t offensive. Only if you’re paranoid or hyper-sensitive is that ad offensive.”

The Daily ran the ad on Wednesday.

The protests at U of C, which Horowitz said were the worst of anywhere he spoke, prevented him from speaking for nearly 30 minutes.

The ad argues that “there is no single group responsible for the crime of slavery” and that blacks already have been compensated by receiving welfare.

As Horowitz stepped up to the podium, about eight students stood up to demand that he take questions from the audience. Horowitz had planned to screen any comments in advance.

U of C junior Mercy Bunmi Oni leapt to her feet, calling Horowitz an “intellectual fraud.”

“You wish to make us voiceless this evening,” said Oni, a public policy major. “I thought you believed in free speech, Mr. Horowitz.”

Her comments elicited a mixture of boos and cheers from the audience, drowning out Horowitz’s demands that she be expelled. As security guards attempted to drag her from the room, Oni clasped her hands around the leg of a chair and refused to budge.

“This is disgraceful,” Horowitz said during the commotion. “This is what fascism looks like. It’s not any more glamorous than this.”

After failing to remove her, the security guards allowed Oni to stay in the lecture hall. But she remained standing with her back to Horowitz throughout his entire speech.

After the speech, Oni said Horowitz structured his lecture to stifle public debate.

“He’s hiding behind the podium,” she said in an interview. “He’s a coward who is not willing to defend himself intellectually.”

Inga Peterson, U of C’s assistant dean of student services, said she hoped Horowitz’s appearance would create an open forum for discussion.

“The goal of the university is to let Mr. Horowitz talk,” she said. “We knew this would be a heated and passionate debate.”

Horowitz, president of the Center for Popular Culture, was active in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement before turning sharply to the right in the 1980s. He said his liberal background helps him understand blacks’ struggle for racial equality.

Outside the lecture hall, about 20 protesters marched in opposition to Horowitz’s appearance, chanting, “David Horowitz, U of C: Racist tools of the bourgeoisie.”

“He’s saying that our people should be happy that they were brought here as slaves,” said Bob Egwele, a graduate student at Roosevelt University who carried a sign that read ‘Protest David Horowitz Racist Ideologue.’ “He has the right to talk, but I believe people like that should be protested against.”

But some said Horowitz should have been allowed to make his point without disruption.

Mark Kormes, a junior majoring in economics, said the Horowitz speech challenged U of C students to listen to unfamiliar opinions.

“It’s about the principle that someone should be allowed to express a view not in the mainstream,” said Kormes, who said he agrees with most of Horowitz’s points. “It shouldn’t be that you can speak freely only if you’re on one side of the aisle rather than the other.”