Sens. Schultz, Whitecalf to propose new resolution for Pacifica Forum
As last night’s resolution failed to pass the Rules Committee, Senate Vice-President has drafted a new resolution for next week’s Senate meeting.
In general, the premise behind the new resolution is a questioning of the rules that allow non-student groups like the Pacifica Forum to be held on campus, free of charge, when hosted by emeritus alumni (as is the case with the PF).
Section II.
2.1 Be it resolved that, the ASUO Senate stands in solidarity with a large segment of the student body in asking that the University Administration review the policies that grant non-student groups access to University rooms and resources, free of charge.
2.2 Be it further resolved that, the ASUO supports the Administration’s recent decision to move the Pacifica Forum to a campus location outside of the EMU.
2.3 Be it further resolved that, the ASUO Student Senate encourages the University Administration to mediate the situation and ensure that students feel safe on campus.
Basically, if the UO Administration decides to make the Pacifica Forum a contracted group (making them pay for their space) they would fall under the University of Oregon’s anti-hate policies. In fact, the resolution makes mention of this fact (sort of).
1.5 Whereas, the ASUO supports the Affirmation of Community Standards of the University of Oregon which seeks to “Reject bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation of any kind.”
For anti-Pacifica protesters, this is the proper avenue to explore as a means of removing the Pacifica Forum off campus. You know, instead yelling asinine things like, “Fuck free speech!”
The only issue is with 1.5: It may be relatively easy to say that certain individuals are bigoted or discriminatory or violent, but is it fair to say that the PF group overall is? Again, not without sufficient correlation. Absolutely, the people who ARE bigoted and discriminatory and violent should be disallowed University access. But the actions of individuals don’t represent the advocacy of a group.
Blount punched a guy, which violated the Affirmation of Community Standards, but does that mean the whole football team should be removed?
I agree, however, that this is the right avenue. It just needs a few more tweaks.
“…a large segment of the student body…”
What, somewhere around 2% ?
I’m wondering what this would look like if the tables were turned and it was a group of conservatives protesting a liberal hatemonger who was paid $$$ to come speak to the UO and the community and spread their bigotry and intimidation through implication?