Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 3, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Thursday, February 3, 2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 JEN SUD1CK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR JARED PABEN AYISHA YAHYA NEWS EDITORS MEGHANN CUNIFF PARKER HOWEI.I. SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS MORIAH BAUNGIT AMANDA BOLSINCER ADAM CHERRY KARA HANSEN EVA SYLWESTER SHELDON TRAVER NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR JON ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR NATASHA CHILINGER1AN SENIOR PULSE REPORTER AMY EIGHTY PULSE REPORTER CAT BALDWIN PULSE CARTOONIST DAVID JAGERNAUTH COMMENTARY EDITOR GABE BRADLEY JENNIFER MCBRIDE AJLEE S1ATER TRAVIS WILLSF, COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR LAUREN WIMER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER ERIK BISHOFF PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST KIRA PARK DESIGN EDITOR DUSTIN REESE SENIOR DESIGNER WENDY KIEFFER AMANDA LEE BRIANNE SHOL1AN DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY IEANNIE EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BIACKFIELD PAUL THOMPSON SPORTS COPY EDITORS AMBER LINDROS NEWS COPY EDITOR LINDSAY BURT PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR SIADE LEESON WEBMASTER BUSINESS (541)346-5511 IUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER REBECCA CRITCHEIT RECEPTIONIST NATHAN FOSTER AIBING GUO ANDREW LEAHY lOHN LONG HOLLY MISTELL HOLLY STEIN DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER MATT BETZ HERON CALISCH-DOIEN MEGAN HAMLIN KATE HI RON AKA MAEGAN KASER-LEE MIA LEIDELMEYER EMILY PHILBIN SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES KELLEE KAUFTHEIL AD ASSISTANT CLASSIFIED (541) 3464343 TR1NA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KATY GAGNON SABRINA GOWETTE I.ESUE STRAIGHT KERI SPANGLER KATIE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541) 346-4381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER LYRA SLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR |F.N CRAM LEI' KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT IONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald Is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law ■ In my opinion CONTROL of commentary If you browse this page regularly, you’ve no doubt noticed the Emerald editorial board’s acrid convictions about the quality of this year’s student government. In case you haven’t, some January editorial headlines make for a quick, fair primer: “ (Pro grams Finance) Committee threatens free speech on campus” (Jan. 5); “Do ing right thing just not ‘feasible’ for ASUO” (Jan. 6); “PFC attacks stu dents by censoring publications” (Jan. 24); “Budget cut contradicts an ASUO contract” (Jan. 25); and, less subtly, “Incompetent student government nothing new” (Jan. 27). Disagreements between student gov ernment and student publications are nothing new on this campus, and fes tering displeasure naturally rears its head when the stakes are highest: at the annual PFC hearings, when (most ly) elected students converge and allo cate a whopping $5 million in student incidental fees to student groups. This year, some PFC members upped the ante, however ineffectually, threatening to defund the campus’ two most im portant student publications — the one you’re reading and the embattled Ore gon Commentator. As of Tuesday night’s PFC meeting, when PFC Vice Chair Mason Quiroz resigned, the funding row still hadn’t been resolved. But tangent to this inflamed narra tive of a free press, student dollars and the committee’s dubious analyt ical skills, resides a quieter but equally illustrative drama. The butt of many one-liners (and also the subject of a mean-spirited entry in the Commentator’s “Faces to Avoid” feature), outspoken senator Toby Hill-Meyer has leveled against the publication the obviously serious charges of “hate speech” and the creation of a hostile environment on campus, and has filed a grievance with the ASUO. (Staff members of the Commentator argue the tabling of the Commentator’s budget was motivated not by concerns about the compliance of its longstanding mis sion statement but by Hill-Meyer’s quarrel with the journal.) Hill-Meyer’s recent guest commen tary in the Emerald (“It’s about hate, not conservatism,” Jan. 31) rightfully contends that the conflict isn’t chiefly TRAVIS WILLSE RIVALLESS WIT about clashing political orientations. Painting it as such obscures the deeper, nonpartisan points of free speech, os tensible harassment, and what exactly you can and can’t (and should and shouldn’t) say and when. Oh, and there’s the complication that the con tested expression is published with student dollars, too. Some of the Commentator’s jokes in question are indisputably tasteless, conjuring images of genital mutila tion (“jokes” are the journal’s charac terization, and one which Hill-Meyer seems to agree upon provisionally). But Hill-Meyer interprets these jokes — which take the form of obviously satirical false quotes attributed to him in the journal’s regular feature, “The OC Asks” — as implying something graver: “The implication here being that trans people ought to be dealt with through the (violent) removal of their genitalia, and that to do so with a gun would somehow be better, per haps more macho.” How he comes to this conclusion is unimaginable: The red herring about machismo aside, the Commentator’s content in ques tion alludes to Hill-Meyer inflicting bodily damage himself. None of it, however, can be reasonably con strued to mean that “trans people” ought to be “dealt with,” in whatever sense he means. Hill-Meyer correctly suggests that “the issue is not whether groups on campus are allowed to make hate speech,” but incorrectly argues that it is about “whether the campus is going to sponsor hate speech with roughly $15,000 a year.” The latter issue is moot: While it may be lurid, insensitive and nonsensical (as the Commentator’s writers are no doubt aware), the con tent in question, as well as depictions of violent sex to which Hill-Meyer has also objected, do not constitute “hate speech” of any reasonable definition. Moreover, there’s no evidence that any one has acted on the content, or that it has turned the campus into a hostile or unsafe environment for Hill-Meyer or anyone else. (Even if someone had act ed on the content, the Commentator’s words are so far from inciting action that it couldn’t be reasonably held li able in terms of student incidental fee dollars.) In a word, Hill-Meyer’s ap proach is overreaching (not to mention constitutionally suspect). That said, he has wisely criticized the Commentator (at least publicly) only for a few bits of content: In partic ular, the Commentator’s jokes at his ex pense and loose descriptions of violent acts. But these represent the least useful and interesting parts of the publication. At its best, the Commentator is incisive, smart, plainspoken, and rouses discus sion about important issues in the world at large, and particularly on cam pus. It offers features (like extensive in terview transcripts) outside the scope of traditional newspapers, and, as a journal of opinion, includes in-depth commentaries far longer than, say, the Emerald’s format allows. As a reader of the Commentator, I find the latter sort of feature much more compelling and thought-provok ing than the sort of content to which Hill-Meyer explicitly objected. From the piece he mentioned unrelated to his faux quotes: “I want to murder someone. I want to smash a chair on someone’s head and bite their lips off. I want to beat someone to death as they scream for mercy. I want to break a bone in my hand while breaking someone else’s nose. Either that or I want to hate f— some girl. But prefer ably both at once. ” This content evi dently distracts from the Commenta tor’s finer points. And it would be a superior publication if it shifted its content accordingly. But this call for an adjustment of tenor from a reader is only that. Given that its speech is legal and that the journal is advantageous to students’ cultural development (as it presently is), the Commentator’s content must be dictated by its staff, not by the sen sibilities of its readers — Hill-Meyer’s and my own included. traviswilhe@dailyemerald.com INBOX Free speech only way to explore meaningful ideas In regards to the Jan. 26 editorial, "Yellow ribbon complaint — code red free speech threat,” thanks for getting it right. Political correctness is the road to servile mediocrity. Free minds are the strongest source of great thoughts. A University that cannot accept even moderate free expression cannot explore meaning ful ideas. Thanks again for doing your jobs. Patrick Lasswell Portland Emerald mistakenly lacks coverage of Iraqi vote Your lack of coverage on the recent vote in Iraq is appalling and inexcus able. Regardless of your views on pol itics, January 30 was a monumental day in history for democracy. Millions of Iraqi citizens defied threats from terrorists to exercise their freedom of choice. It is an insult to the tens of thousands of troops fighting in the Middle East and the more than 1,400 Americans who have died in Iraq. A small editorial does no justice. Instead of the ongoing coverage of your tiff with the ASUO and the PFC, how about you actually cover some important news? It’s not surprising that your funding has been decreased. Rob Zaebst Undergraduate Negative coverage negates positives of Iraq war Though I admit to not reading your paper everyday, it seems to me that on those days I am able to pick it up, the news on Iraq is always negative. War itself is not positive but it can and will have a positive outcome when Ameri cans stand behind the effort and start celebrating the good that is coming from us being there. While it is terrible to lose even one life during this cam paign, we cannot let them die in vain. Everyday thousands of Iraqi’s are get ting fresh water delivered to them, get ting electricity for the first time in their lives, and now have the right to vote in a legitimate election for the first time in almost 50 years. Can you not find articles about these things? With every negative headline, with every television news report that makes it look like Americans are against helping spread democracy to the world and not supporting our president or military, the terrorists win another battle. The worst is over and good things happen every day now; start spreading the good news. You don’t have to forget the bad, just be supportive while you do it. Shawn Garrett Undergraduate ■ Editorial Facilitator desperately needed for PFC process This experiment in student government, whereby elected student leaders are responsible for allocating millions in incidental fees, has been a rocky one to say the least. Nevertheless, it is an experiment worth saving. Rather than dismantle the system because of student incompetence, as some have argued, students should take the responsibility for their finances more seriously. This begins with the responsibility of the student body as a whole to take the time to research student candidates and vote in student elections. This ends with the responsibility of our student leaders to carry out their duties in a legal manner. The Oregon Commentator’s Programs Finance Committee “hearing” (if you can call it that) on Hiesday did prove one thing: Reform is desperately overdue. Contrary to popular belief — and current practice — PFC meetings are not a forum for student leaders and the student body to air their specific grievances and accuse the Commentator of hate speech. Rather than discussing budgets and fiscal responsibility, as a few members desperately pleaded for, most PFC members spent two hours arguing about their job descriptions and their moral responsibility to protect one of their own constituents. There seemed to be absolute confusion about what viewpoint neutrality means and whether it is even legitimate. This is a serious problem. Right now PFC members are either ignorant about the limits on their power — due to rapid turnover and/or a lack of formal training — or they do not take those limits seriously. Either way, their promise that student groups will receive a fair hearing about their budgets is not being delivered. Our solution: Mandate that PFC meetings are run by a non-voting, outside facilitator who will be responsible for making sure that student members follow the law and base their decisions on fiscal responsibility rather than conflicts of interest and misplaced activism. It is an ideal compromise: Power over incidental fees would continue to reside with elected student officials, while providing for a more fair, professional PFC meeting. Something must change if students are going to continue to be trusted with the power to allocate their own fees. How many more years will go by before we dub this experiment an utter failure and students lose control of our money? At the very least, we must find a way to get our student leaders to operate within the law. EDITORIAL BOARD Jennifer Sudick Editor in Chief David Jagernauth Commentary Editor Steven R. Neuman Managing Editor Shadra Beesley Copy Chief Adrienne Nelson Online Editor OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submissions should include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald.
