Friday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541)346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
PFC, the
cowardly
The Programs Finance Commit
tee is one of the most important as
pects of student government. By
overseeing and determining the
outcome of the budget process for
all ASUO student programs, the
PFC maintains student control of
millions of dollars in student inci
dental fees every year.
Or at least it did until Tuesday
night, when the PFC voted to ap
prove The Insurgent’s budget but
put it in a holding account until
questions about the independent
newspaper’s December issue could
be answered. With this decision—
ostensibly made to keep the
process moving—the PFC showed
a lack of courage and threatened
IION
sabotage.
At The Insurgent’s PFC
budget hearing, the issue
of whether it was respon
sible and legal to print
such material became the
primary concern of the
PFC members. As the
Emerald editorial board
previously opined, we
don’t believe it was a re
sponsible decision to
print what could be inter
preted as an incite
ment to commit
crimes. We think it
was a mistake to
print contact infor
mation for Univer
sity animal re
searchers in the
same issue—and
on a page facing the
student control ot student money.
Questions about The Insurgent
surfaced recently, when concerned
people started calling ASUO Presi
dent Jay Breslow about the news
paper’s decision to publish the An
imal Liberation Front’s primer—
an explanation of that under
ground group’s philosophy and a
step-by-step guide to arson, break
ing and entering, vandalism and
A.L.F. primer.
What the PFC members over
looked, however, is that it is not
their mission to determine whether
the printing was ethical, responsi
ble or legal. Their charge is to ex
amine the budgets and the mission
statements of student groups and
determine whether the groups con
tribute to the “cultural and physi
cal enhancement of the
University.”
The PFC did approve The Insur
gent’s budget and the group’s mis
sion statement. After much discus
sion, the members of the
committee even seemed to admit
that The Insurgent did enhance the
University. Their final concern, as
expressed by member Aaron
Week’s motion, was that if The In
surgent is sued over the publica
tion of the A.L.F. primer or the re
searchers’ contact information,
such suits could open the Universi
ty, the ASUO and the student inci
dental fee to lawsuits as well.
Whether a lawsuit against The In
surgent would be successful is
completely unknown. No one pres
ent at the PFC meeting had that
knowledge. If a lawsuit was suc
cessful, would it open the inciden
tal fee to lawsuits? Again, no one at
the meeting knew for sure.
The important point is that we
believe, as Insurgent collective
member Willie Thompson ex
pressed forcefully and repeatedly,
that the PFC has no authority to de
termine the legality of any specific
content produced by any specific
student program. The PFC’s job is
to either approve the program’s
budget or not, as a whole, based on
criteria other than content.
The Eyierald would certainly
not want the PFC to argue over the
acceptability of ideas expressed in
our paper, nor in any other student
publication. Whether those ideas
are legal or not, or acceptable or
not, is a matter for higher bodies to
decide—such as the Student Sen
ate or state and federal courts.
By acting to cover its ass instead
of acting as a decision-making
body, the PFC exposed the student
fee process to the judgment of the
University administration. What a
chilling effect, indeed, on free
speech if University President
Dave Frohnmayer’s legal counsel
decides that student money cannot
be given to a student group because
that group’s content is offensive.
The PFC process is confusing
and can seem arbitrary to those out
side student government. Making M
such an impotent decision, instead
of exerting the power that the PFC
does have, surely does nothing to »
reassure students that their mil
lions of dollars are being allocated
fairly.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board. Responses
can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Needed: Men to help
destroy male power
Guest Commentary
Lucas
Starting today and run
ning through the week
end, there will be a con
ference for men and
women at the University of Ore
gon titled, “Against Patriarchy:
a step toward the abolition of
male privilege.” I know a lot of
men Eire threatened by the con
cept of rejecting their privilege.
These men need to ask them
selves where this privilege
comes from and how others are
affected by it.
By its very definition, a privi
lege or power granted to one
person or group requires the dis
empowerment of another per
son or group. No one can have
an advantage without someone
else having a disadvantage. In
the case of sexism and patri
archy, it is men who are granted
power and privilege. Therefore,
it is men who bear the responsi
bility of rejecting that privilege
and starting to level the playing
field. This conference is not
about blaming all men for the
existence of sexism and male
privilege; it is rather about help
ing men take responsibility for
the privileges an unfair system
has granted them. Let me share
the mission statement of the
conference.
A movement towards the
elimination of male privilege,
domination, and sexism. Striv
ing to create dialogue, educate
ourselves and each other, and
inspire action.
• What is patriarchy, and how
does it affect each of us?
• What are the practices and
results of male privilege, domi
nation and sexism?
• How do we identify male
privilege?
• What does it mean to be a
man or woman in this culture?
• How does this gender polar
ization limit us?
• If we could get outside of
these roles, what kind of people
would we like to be?
• How does male domination
connect to other oppressions,
such as racism, heterosexism,
ableism, classism, capitalism,
government and speciesism?
• How do we go about an
swering these questions?
The aim of this conference is to
focus directly upon patriarchy
and our roles within it. Through
presentation, dialogue and per
formance, we hope to broach
these questions seriously and
playfully, with intellect and emo
tion. The goal is an increased un
derstanding of our society and
how w,e might change it and our
selves for the better.
To reject, we must identify,
understand and fight.
The conference, being held in
Grayson Hall, kicks off this
evening at 5 p.m. in Room 240C
with an introduction, followed
by a performance and workshop
by the Young Women’s Theater
Collective. The conference con
tinues all day Saturday and
Sunday in Grayson Hall. It is
free and open to the public. I
hope that people of all genders
come with open minds, ready to
challenge the patriarchy found
in all of our society’s institutions
of power, which has taken root
in our minds and hearts. It’s
time to rock the boat!
Please visit www.fruitionde
sign.com/againstpatriarchy or
stop by Grayson Hall any time
this weekend.
Lucas Spiegel is a member of the AP
Collective.
Letters to the editor
Education should come first
If the University persists and pre
vails in the Autzen-WISTEC park
ing controversy, then I’ve instruct
ed the Alumni Association to take
me off the list for future solicita
tions for cash and support.
I’ve got nothing against the Uni
versity sports program, but when a
so-called institution of higher edu
cation gets heavy-handed on behalf
of football over a community sci
ence and education center — one
that benefits possible future Uni
versity students — well, that’s not
right.
Mitch Hider
journalism
class of 70
Sports valued over schooling
I was stunned to discover that the
University of Oregon, with the help
of Eugene’s City Council, has decid
ed that football outweighs science
education in the Willamette Valley.
As a former employee of both the
University and WISTEC, I have a
unique perspective. Both organiza
tions were founded with education
in mind. Somewhere along the line,
the University chose, instead, to
provide minor-league training to
the NFL and the NBA. I suppose
we’re fortunate that major league
baseball pays for its minor leagues.
I left the University three years
ago to become director of a plane
tarium in North Carolina. Here,
people understand that a science
museum is a major part of their
children’s education. Is Eugene’s re
putedly forward-thinking City
Council incapable of seeing WIS
TEC’s value?
Take this quote from City Coun
cil member Gary Pape: In an article
(“Autzen expansion approved,
might force WISTEC to close,”
ODE, Jan. 23), he said, “I think WIS
TEC would be miles ahead if they
went out knocking on doors and
doing the hard work we all do (to
fundraise).” At least one City Coun
cil member has absolutely no idea
how hard it is to keep a museum go
ing.
It’s obvious that with the ongoing
expansion of University athletics,
the Leo Harris Parkway region will
run out of space within the next 10 •
years. Why not move the stadium to
a more appropriate and accessible
location?
Eugene and the University have a
reputation for being forward think
ing. Don’t kill that reputation for
the sake of a few more nosebleed
seats.
James C. Craig
director, James H. Lynn Planetarium
Schiele Museum of Natural History
Gastonia, NC
Left Field
by Frank Silva