Programs Finance Committee to students: “free speech is bad for you”
In a decision made when the largest, most-read and most-frequently published supporter of free speech on campus, the Ol’ Dirty Emerald, is conveniently on vacation, the ASUO Programs Finance Committee rejected the Oregon Commentator’s mission statement, declaring our little rag not to be “advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students.”
The decision is based on unspecified “material” in “several” issues. (At least) two problems with this:
1) Can the PFC declare an entire journalistic enterprise not advantageous to the cultural development of students based on a small amount of objectionable material?
2) Does the PFC realize that its finding regarding that objectionable material might just raise a few problems under the First Amendment? Perhaps we should publish a copy of Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia and see if they find that culturally advantageous.
Decision as follows:
“I am sorry to inform you that we did not approve your mission and goals, due to the fact that several of your issues contain material that is in violation with Oregon State Statute 351.070 3d that states”prescribe incidental fees for programs under the supervision or control of the board found by the board, upon its own motion or upon recommendation of the recognized student government of the institution concerned, to be advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students. Fees realized in excess of amounts allocated and exceeding required reserves shall be considered surplus incidental fees and shall be allocated for programs under the control of the board and found to be advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students by the institution president upon the recommendation of the recognized student government at the institution concerned.”Our decision was also made based on Executive rule R94.3 ASUO Recognition status that states The ASUO Executive will only grant the status of “Recognition” to programs that add to the “cultural and/or physical development of the University Community”. That status is a privilege and may be revoked if the program does not conduct itself in a manner consistent with ASUO rules, UO rules, and State law.”
I dunno, your hypothetical changes might get the thing approved….
Actually, I changed “conservative” to “marxist” and “publish magazine” to “kill the Pope”…
Of course I changed 19 to 21.
I’m guessing Tyler changed 19 to 21 or 22.
what did you change about the mission statement?
Yes! A flaming bear! Thrown by pirates, riding sharks! Which are also on fire!
Jan-
It’s annoying, but it also makes for excellent material to fill pages when there’s nothing else happening on campus. The OC does some of its best work when it’s under fire. It’s like a bear. If you leave it alone, it will leave you alone (usually). But, when you start poking it with sticks, it’ll tear your fucking face off.
Rosenberger’s about brimstone? Awesome!
In all seriousness, assuming you meant point 2 about public money, we’re golden. Furthermore as we are a volunteer organization it’s not like we hire anyone.
I assume the PFC did this over break in hopes that it’ll die quietly before everybody gets back. In the words of Bugs Bunny: “he don’t know me very well, do he?”
And, again, CALL THE CN.
Ah, so the enemies of free speech poke out of the woodwork once again. This is so obviously a retalitory move by Toby and his — oh sorry, ZIS? — cronies on PFC to stifle speech they find disagreeable. The point of the mission statement process is to make sure groups aren’t discluding others from participation, not to judge content, and you certainly don’t need 4 paragraphs of legal blather to figure that one out.
But I don’t know what’s more hilarious: That ASUO thinks it can win this fight despite losing it year after year, or that in the end they will be relentlessly and brutally attacked on all fronts for their efforts.
This also highlights the inherent problem with giving students under the scrutiny of student publications the power to make budgetary decisions in media. I say that if Toby felt he was wronged in your publication, he should try his luck in the legal system, not pimp himself out to the traditional anti-First Amendment armies of ASUO. We all know how that ends (paging Mr. Morales?).
Good luck on this one, guys. It should be fun to publically expose PFC’s cluelessness, but annoying nonetheless to have to deal with the bullshit.
AK–
I changed the wording of the mission statement ever so slightly before I submitted it.
Tim: regarding point 3, that’s what Rosenberger’s all about.
“During its nineteen-year existence, it has enabled University students to hear both sides of issues.”
Uhhh, might need at least one little revision to that mission statement…
Tyler: Correction, you are right, in implying he has said false things against the OC, I misread your sentence. I prostrate myself before you and beg forgiveness.
1) Tyler, to nitpick here again it’d be libel.
2) They CANNOT defund us for content. Can not, it is illegal as far as I know for them to take public money away from funded speech for content, which is exactly what they’re doing. Farrah, Dan, y’all are the smart ones, do you know more on this?
3) If you need any hellfire or brimstone, I have a lot of free time after work these days. Call me, email, etc. I’ll write a guest comment to the ODE, etc, just let me know what you need.
4) Despite strain, call the CN. CALL CALL CALL the CN.
Dan
We’ve already said our piece, and I believe that the PFC (well, at least the PFC members we spoke to, Mason and Persis) heard us loud and clear.
As Farrah points out, these people are misreading the statute. Plain and simple. They were finding something to stick us with (we shouldn’t forget that our slandering friend Toby Hill-Meyer is on PFC), and they just so happened to run across a statute concerning the allocation of the incidental fee. Never mind that fact that IT DOESN’T PERTAIN TO US OR OUR MISSION STATEMENT.
Anyway, the PFC’s lack of justification for its decision was blatantly obvious when I asked Mason (our PFC tag who informed us of the ruling) to explain the decision.
“I’m not at liberty to discuss that right now and I can’t speak for anyone else,” he replied.
Well, that clears that up. I then asked for the tape recording of the hearing.
“Sure, you can have that,” PFC member Persis said, hesitating for a brief moment. “But there’s a process you have to go through.”
Of course there is, but I want that damn tape, primarily because both Mason and Persis had absolutely no basis for an argument. They couldn’t explain how this statute or executive rule pertained to our mission statement. Their primary worries concerned whether or not we allowed people of different political persuasions to write for the magazine. At this point, we tried to explain that we are a journal of opinion and that our editorial stances are clear. Hell, we’ve had the same mission statement for 15 years, maybe more.
So, yes, we have a more conservative outlook, but if anything this adds to the cultural development of the University. They then voiced their concerns that we might purposefully exclude dissenting opinions in our publication. Once again, we explained that we are a journal of opinion (a delineation made clear in our mission statement), and that this is perfectly legal under Southworth.
Eventually, Persis tried to assuage any fears we might have been having about being singled out.
“We’re not trying to pick on you guys,” she said
“So you did this to the Voice and the Insurgent, too?” Olly asked.
Pause
“Yes,” Persis responded.
We’ll see. Anyway, that’s the basic breakdown. According to Mason, this should all be taken care of and we wont have anything to worry about. Ill believe it when it happens.
May I add that it may be a good idea to send a note to certain bloggerati?
they’re misreading the statute they quote. the statute they use governs the conduct of the board. in order for the OC to not “add to the cultural and/or physical development of the University Community” the board has to show that the program “does not conduct itself in a manner consistent with ASUO rules, UO rules, and State law.”
they want to reject a 21 year mission statement that has never been found to not add to the cultural or physical development of the university community – show you’ve acted inconsistently with ASUO rules, UO rules and State law.
I’m sharpening my knives, but they’re not sharp enough yet.
I want that square!
AK
Well, we’ll get to say our piece (and it’ll be a doozy!) at their next meeting in February.
Damn it! That’s f**king ridiculous!
Somebody should start a pool – like those stupid baby pools you see in offices when some lady’s pregnant – for us to gamble on when they’ll overturn the decision and, as Sheed would say, CTC.
AK