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.