42 U.S.C. § 1983: Apparently The Only Reason The Commentator Isn’t On Double-Secret Probation Right Now
Hot off the presses! UO Administrators “applaud” and “support” the illegal and arbitrary behavior of the Programs Finance Committee, while tossing a grudging bone to Southworth and that whole damned First Amendment thing.
Now, the fisk . . .
Statement re Oregon Commentator and ASUO Program Finance Committee by Dr. Anne Leavitt and Dr. Greg Vincent
The UO student community is engaged in difficult and controversial discussions around the content of recent editions of the Oregon Commentator, and the ASUO Program Finance Committee’s budget recommendation for that publication. Some focus on the offensive and objectionable nature of material that they feel targeted an individual student leader and the community the student represents. Others focus on principles of protection for speech that may be offensive and hurtful but is not illegal.
We write to recognize the significance of these discussions to the quality of life in our campus community. There are individuals who feel less welcome, less respected, and less safe because of these dialogues.
Yes, Mason Quiroz has been physically intimidating our student group; thanks for noticing! Oh, wait, you’re not talking about that?
There are individuals who find some material in the journal, and the Commentator staff’s convictions that they are entitled to publish speech that may be offensive, almost unbearable.
We write at this time to acknowledge how hurtful biased speech can be to our community.
Pull over. Look at how vague that statement is. ALL speech is biased, and all political speech is failing in its essential purpose if it doesn’t “hurt.” What you mean to say here is “bigoted speech,” so say so. (Of course, to do so invites a vigorous and truthful response from us: We are none of us bigots.) Otherwise you come across sounding like a lilly-livered enemy of free speech. I’m sure you’d hate to give that impression.
We have as a campus community committed to a culture of respect that honors the rights, safety, dignity, and worth of every individual. We have affirmed that respect for the rights and well-being of all members is essential to promoting the diversity of opinions, ideas, and backgrounds that is the lifeblood of the university. We have recognized, as a core value, our commitment to cultural diversity, and we have recently affirmed the protections we afford gender identity in the UO’s non-discrimination statement.
This community must preserve the freedom of thought and expression of all its members. It is important at the same time to speak out, forcefully and directly, when members of our community feel targeted by speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise biased, whether in words or in images.
Sure, it is important that someone speak out. Community members engaging in the marketplace of ideas, most preferably. Excoriate the Commentator in print. Vilify us all night on the radio. Rally and march down 13th howling for our blood. We welcome the challenge!
Just don’t try to defund us. Do not turn the engines of government against our content and try to silence us. That is illegal.
And please, speaking now directly to Drs. Leavitt and Vincent: don’t encourage students to violate the Constitution by trying to defund us. We don’t appreciate it. At the very least, shoot us an email first.
We applaud the leaders of the ASUO for supporting a vigorous dialogue, for recognizing that the Commentator’s subject matter has deeply concerned a number of students, and for encouraging PFC members to preserve our right to speech and to properly fund the Commentator.
Nice of you to acknowledge the Constitution, finally.
We support student leaders who have expressed their concerns about this subject matter, and its chilling impact on our campus climate.
You know, the phrase “chilling impact” is usually…oh, never mind.
We support students, both from the Commentator and others, who have reminded us of important protections to free speech, even as we react to speech that offends us.
Our offices are supporting a number of individual students and student groups participating in these difficult dialogues.
One “student group,” however, has recieved exactly zero “support,” or even a word of communication, while “participating” in these difficult dialogues. Can you guess which one?
The Bias Response Team has provided educational programs on civility and free speech, and offers “QAC: Queer Ally Coalition” training.
We propose that the University’s Bias Response Team, in conjunction with the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity, Student Affairs, ASUO, and the Program Finance Committee, sponsor a forum or town meeting, later this term, so we can come together to discuss how bias incidents and hate speech can divide our community.
Far out. Don’t forget to forget to invite us. Will there also be discussion of how censorship incidents can divide our community? And why is the PFC invited? I’m pretty sure this is about four miles outside their bailiwick.
We will work with student leaders to design a meeting with structure to ensure inclusive, respectful and productive dialogue.
In the interim, we urge all participants in these student government discussions to recognize the importance of a safe community that is respectful and protective of diverse points of view and life style.
You might have also urged all participants to obey federal law. They, like you, need those kinds of reminders.
Dr. Anne Leavitt, Vice President for Student Affairs
Dr. Greg Vincent, Vice Provost Institutional Equity and Diversity
February 9, 2005
_________________________
*42 USC § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Looking back months later on all the good times we shared, I think the identity of this anonymous commenter…Since when have you fucks been about news?ya’ll are just pussiesPosted by: at February 12, 2005 06:04 PM…is actually pretty obvious. And it sure as hell wasn’t Mr. Dolberg.
Hence the reason they call me “Big M”.
Since I have Scandinavian mythology studies this term, and have yet to exercise any knowledge of it…
When Ragnarok comes, and the Vasir and Aesir must fight the race of Giants, those literary warriors who have been waiting at Valhalla will burst forth, four thousand from each door, and meet with the literary armies who wait at the end of time.
Anonymous will be in Midgard siring/bearing half-animal children with a goat in a cave. Then, it will be revealed by Loki that the goat is, in fact, the sibling of Anonymous.
Maybe one day you and I shall ascend from the ranks of mere mortals to the realm of Literary Valhalla with anonymous up there.
I don’t know, Tim. Those two sentences have a certain grace that indicates the author clearly carries a superior working knowledge of prose and the English language. I for one envy his clever usage of “pussies” and hope someday I can achieve such astounding literary genius.
Being that “y’all” is a contraction for “you all” our Nameless Commenter Who Is Probably Andy has his or her apostraphe in the wrong spot. Poor little apostrophe, all lonely in the middle of the word for no reason. Dipshit.
Right, well, you go on and remain nameless then, eh?
Since when have you fucks been about news?
ya’ll are just pussies
Listen, I pulled the story. It’s not newsworthy. Period. It seems too much like a personal attack. This is not Ben’s fault, however. It’s a great story.
Trust me, if we DON’T print the story we look better. We’re already on the winning team here; we’ve already scorched these people, laid waste to their villages. If we print the story, WE look bad and open ourselves up to attacks. We would LOSE allies, okay? That’s all I’m saying.
This isn’t over yet, so there’s no point in looking ill-tempered by printing this. As Pete said, it’s bush league. If you want a better explanation, I can give you one. Just email me.
The next issue will be out on Monday then.
Hey, I just handle the legal questions. Editorial questions are for Tyler.
Tyler: Where’s the mini issue?
Now, now Timothy. Don’t get jumpy.
Also, I reiterate that the 9th is a kangaroo circuit for kangaroos. Kangaroos, I say!
That doesn’t explain why Ben’s story isn’t out. Or where the mini issue is. Publish That Right This Minute for the love of God.
Max: I’d love to sue, but (in the 9th Circuit, at least) we have no case as long as this mess can still be settled administratively. A similarly situated publication in the 8th Circuit might be able to bring it, but we can’t until administrative remedies are exhausted. Them’s the breaks.
I can’t help but feel like someone needs to take these people to court over this. Making nice with everyone will not change the fact that they all hate the commentator. Historically, it has been hated on this campus with a passion that rivals the love of playing drums in public and not voting in student elections.
I don’t think enough people are looking at the big picture here. All over america (see the link in this article even) people are prodding the 1st amendment for weakness and sharpening their cencorship knives. Somebody needs to make a splash and show people that you can’t just get away with this (even if you can get away with wasting student money on a drug/drinking binge). If this whole thing gets swept under the table then it will happen again. And again.
P.S. Ben’s story should go out now while the persons involved are still actually newsworthy. When has giving your lunch money to the bullies ever made them stop asking for it again the nexy day? Making nice, in this case, will only encourage them.
Dan: yes, it kind of sounds like an investment strategy. Although, you should probably diversify across more than just equity markets.
I laughed when I read “biased speech.” Diversity of all flavors is good. But when diversity of opinion and diversity of speech are not recognized as forms of diversity deserving of protection, something is terribly wrong. I suppose the authors believe their own statement is free of bias?
Drs. Leavitt and Vincent talking about cultural diversity being a “core value” is hypocritical when they offer no criticism towards those who call the Commentator’s staff “fascists” and “pukes.” Is stealing Commentator bins and physically assaulting Commentator supporters a form of”preserv[ing] the freedom and expression” of community members?
And what about Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and others who are actually intolerant and against many forms of diversity? I would like to see how Drs. Leavitt and Vincent would respond to a critique of Saudi Arabian wahhabist culture. A condemnation of the terrible treatment of women in Saudi Arabia is, in hand, a condemnation of much of Saudi culture. Is this form of cultural criticism inappropriate? Is intolerance of an intolerant culture a violation of the “core value”?
All of these questions I ask are in vain, but I’d love answers.
Eep.
Oh, I KNOW that if it were up to Vincent, we’d be defunded. Fortunately, there are powers in this world superior even to the chief of “institutional equity and diversity.” (Is it just me or does that sound like an investment strategy?)
Anyway, if he and Kieffer think it is worthwhile to disobey the First Amendment, I suppose that’s their prerogative. But I hope, for their sake, that they don’t expect anybody to turn out in the streets for it. That’s a dry riverbed. I hope.
You gotta love a law professor who advises breaking the law. It shows such a commitment to staying in academia and avoiding the real world. What a guy.
I attended a Leadership Symposium tonight where Dr. Vincent was a keynote speaker. He spoke of the three qualities a leader must have, and the one he named first, after rereading this published statement makes me pause and it should do the same to you. The first quality was to “break the law”. He spoke of breaking laws that were unjust. Although his example was a noble one (Martin Luther King Jr.), I couldn’t stop thinking about everything revolving around The Commentator right now. I truly think that if he had it his way, we would be absolutely defunded right now. I also couldn’t help but wonder if he and Keifer had shared some words before our meeting…
That’s it. I give up. If these people have Ph.Ds in higher ed. then the system really doesn’t work. Hopefully it only hurts when they think.
If you need support, I’ll do my best. You know where to find me and the moonlaser.
I think someone needs to educate Ms. Leavitt and Mr. Vincent on the proper use of Supreme Court cases involving this exact type of thing.
I’m willing to get a lawsuit filed, and include them in as defendants. Anyone game?
You can tell I am pissed off right now.