The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

That Which Springs from Ignorance

Today we were forwarded an e-mail correspondence between Phylicia Haggerty, a University of Oregon student, and ASUO Senator Tyler Griffin. I warn you, its contents are disturbing, for it shows the true nature of the misguidance many students have about the Pacifica Forum situation. I have my own opinions about the contents of this e-mail, but I dare not write them here, lest I take away from the incredibly intelligent, well-spoken and well-informed e-mail response Sen. Griffin replied to Haggerty with.

I hope Griffin doesn’t mind that I’ve posted this here, but I believe that such attacks on the members of the ASUO, who have been a highly deliberative body on the subject to this point, should not be subject to such ignorant attacks from members of our student body. I hope students can better inform themselves by better understanding the depth and consideration all members of the ASUO have taken on this point. All I can say is that I openly applaud Griffin for his expressed opinions within his reply. Good for you, Tyler.

From Phylicia Haggerty to Sen. Tyler Griffin:

To The Members of Our Student Senate,

I am a senior at the University of Oregon and I am very concerned for my safety. I am not understanding why the Pacifica Forum situation has not been resolved. I am getting ready to graduate in June with two degrees from this institution, which up until a week ago I was very proud to be a duck.

I have written a letter to Student affairs along with the president of this institution because I feel as though you all are clearly not responsible to make the right decision. I wish you could all sit back and take this situation personally, but you cant because your not the one being hated against. I know what you all look like and as far as I am concerned I believe there is only one person who looks like they would be hated against by this forum so I would not expect you to take this personally. I have already called the Oregonian and if you do not think this news will get out of the University of Oregon spot light you have another thing coming. If this hate group were a bunch of students of color you would have resolved this already.

Freedom of speech? Really is that all you can back your decision on. I bet that students will use their freedom of speech to take this higher than all of you. The first amendment is only applicable when it does no harm to others. Trust me, I have studied plenty of Supreme Court cases. I am very saddened that this has happened and nothing has been done about it. Being a person of color on this campus is already difficult and then to have a hate group promoting students to hate us is even worse. I hope this e-mail finds you well, but I am very frustrated and hurt that I do not feel safe to walk to class, and the fact that nothing has been done about it is beyond unbelievable. If you do not think that the diversity on this campus will decrease due to this decision you need to think again.

That is of course you probably have no concern to keep this “diverse” campus “diverse”. I urge you to sleep on your decision and attempt to take it personally before next weeks meeting. Thank you for your time.

Now, from Griffin back to Haggerty:

Phylicia,

I am sorry you feel hurt, and unsafe, and think that we are morally bankrupt people for not voting for this resolution, but..

You make me feel unsafe. And, yes at this time, because of this email you sent, I feel ashamed to be a duck. Knowing that my peers at this university are so ignorant and naïve to make such accusations of our ASUO Senators, elected by student body.

And, how dare you say we on the body have not been discriminated against! You should truly be ashamed for saying this. You trivialize the nature hate, as you are using the same rhetoric that you wish to silence.

I would encourage you to think, in more depth, what are the possible implications of your extremely false accusations.

Feel free to contact me at any point.

Senator Tyler Griffin (seat six)
EMU Board
Rules Committee Chair.

  1. Tim! says:

    “The first amendment is only applicable when it does no harm to others.”

    I laughed when I read this at first too, but on closer inspection, actually… mostly it’s just backwards and should read “The first amendment is not applicable when it does harm to others” — for certain values of ‘harm’.

    Physical harm is one of those values of harm: the first amendment does not protect you if you cause physical harm by e.g. shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded room that isn’t actually on fire, or inciting violence over the public airwaves. Nor does it protect you in threatening someone with violence as an intimidation tactic.

    Reputational is also one of those values of harm: the first amendment does not protect you if you tell lies adversely affecting someone’s reputation — slander & libel.

    Emotional harm is not one of those values of harm: the first amendment does protect you if you mock someone or make a claim of superiority over them. It does protect you if you threaten someone with social ostracization as a non-violent rhetorical or intimidation tactic.

    Protesters can say they don’t feel safe until the dusk of man, but unless there’s compelling evidence that the PF actively and directly engendered that feeling, then the PF did not cause that feeling — the protesters caused it for, in, and among themselves.

  2. dc says:

    Gandhi wrote:
    >>When I asked Schlotterbeck to send me some evidence of her claims of facebook threats she refused.<<

    dc writes:
    I think Devon has been referring to the post that I placed on her FaceBook Hate page, which of course, was deleted within minutes. AND (I confess) I (also) tried to read her 'profile' page–may have clicked on it more than once–because I couldn't access it.

    Anyway, here is her 'evidence' of having been threatened:

    Dear Devon
    You are severely misinformed with regard to the Pacifica Forum. We have been meeting at UO WEEKLY for many years. I personally AM now a full time student, we are all tax payers and some of our regular attendees have kids who are alumni.

    The forum has no beef with students. Our beef is with the "Anti-Hate Task Force" and Michael Williams who has been trying to shut down our weekly meetings since 2003. He is a paid shill and is at the center of the $PLC blacklisting us. You are FOOLS to play this game for him.

    What you think you know about the Forum is based on the Hate Force's version of reality, nothing more.

    They are deliberately inciting you students, USING you, and you NEED to think for YOURSELVES. Do some research/ don't operate on emotion and false information spoon fed to you!

    http://www.splcreport.com/?gclid=CNqa7IXyoZ8CFQJaagodg0r9Ug For more on the $PLC/rock that your hallowed leader climbed out from underneath.

  3. Evan P. Thomas says:

    Gandhi: I want to have your children. (I know that whole celibacy thing and no female-genitalia thing may get in the way, but we can find a solution.)

    You just said in four paragraphs what my entire article said in 4 pages. Truly: father my children.

  4. Jay Knott says:

    I appreciate the support for academic freedom on campus which the more thoughtful commentators contribute to this journal. But even the most sympathetic commentators say the Forum is ‘white supremacist’ (whatever that is) or `blames the world

  5. Darth Vader says:

    I think what you meant there, Gandhi, was “administration would have ACTED with the speed…”

  6. Mahatma Gandhi says:

    Cims, I’ve asked, several times, for the protesters (you, Devon, a few others from the Survival Center) to provide proof of threats or actual harassment. I would love to have it so we could publicize it and make a case against PF. For some odd reason no one could substantiate a single instance where someone was in any way DIRECTLY menaced or threatened by someone with a DIRECT link to Pacifica Forum.

    When I asked Schlotterbeck to send me some evidence of her claims of facebook threats she refused. If people have been menaced outside the Women’s and Survival Centers, why hasn’t DPS made any reports of it in an e-mail, why wasn’t it publicized?

    What sickens me, Cims, is the way in which the protesters, yourself included, throw around the ideas of hate, violence, and abuse as if they were nothing more than some ideological grenade. It’s insulting, especially to survivors of sexual assault and racism, to have their experiences trivialized for the sake of getting your way.

    This is not a safety issue. Had it been a safety issue, administration would have with the speed, conviction, and zeal of a blacksmith striking metal. Were this a safety issue, it would not be dragging on into week four in overtime.

    Why don’t you get off your stupid high horse, throw away your double standard, and start looking at the world like a rational human being instead of the dumb-shit, muckraking, rabble rouser you are? You’re protests against PF have done NOTHING but fan the flames and give them more press coverage and your ideas of equality are sickening at best and dangerous at worst.

    But as CJ said, I too support your right to print whatever bullshit you want, even advocating the violent overthrow of the government. All you need to do is look at 1850’s France, 1917 Russia, Cuba, and 1950’s China revolutions to see how well that’s all worked.

  7. Evan P. Thomas says:

    Hahahahaha (on so many levels). Namely: “The first amendment is only applicable when it does no harm to others.”
    As for responses:

    Daniel: I am fully able to recognize the validity of the Free Speech argument, but it does not apply in this situation,

    Really? Because when you’re trying to pass legislation that forces a forum-group off governmental property, I was under the impression that had to do with free speech. Care to explain to me how it doesn’t?

    Daniel: and indeed Free Speech in this country is a hoax. ….blahblahblah… Where, in this argument, is their Freedom of Speech considered?

    So… you are really trying to uphold the argument of “look how free speech wasn’t taken into account in this situation, so it should be ignored in this one too!” Wow, man. That’s not only logically nonequivalent but it’s pretty morally corrupt, too. A lot of previous poor governmental actions (and, I know, there’s lots of them) do not justify future poor governmental actions.

    Cims: The trouble is that the resolution should have passed, it asked the administration to ask the forum to not meet on campus- this did not interfere with their free speech, it voiced a concern from students.

    Asking someone to leave somewhere in which they have the right to be… is a violation of free speech! If current policy were in place that would disallow potentially racist behavior, then the administration absolutely has grounds… but no such policy exists. No threat or assault or safety issues were considered valid, so no action was taken. It was the right choice as a legislative body.

    Cims: The senate lacked to spine to even exercise their own free speech.

    Passing legislation does not fall into the category of “exercising their own free speech.” We went over this. Morality vs. legality. The senate, as they should, sided with legality.

    Cims: Who was bought, who was pressured, who has no conviction- the Senate and who has every right to be upset, all the students like Haggerty.

    Bought or pressured? They had conversations with the student populace outside of the protest– myself included– if that’s what you mean.
    You have a group of about 50 people who are gung-ho passionate (“all the students like Haggerty”) about PF and safety. Hardly a majority. The senate at least gave you an audience.

    CTB: The new resolution makes a little more sense, but still has room for improvement and a lot more room for a more respectful presentation to the ASUO.

    The new resolution essentially says “we don’t like what PF talks about.” Which is fine, I guess, and most of the student body agrees with that… but I don’t see the purpose in making a resolution about it. I think each person is capable of discerning that conclusion in their own right. The new resolution pretty much asks nothing of the administration in terms of the eradication of PF, which is good.

    CJ: I support your right to print stupid crap like that, by the way. The First Amendment protects your right to advocate arson and destruction just as surely as it protects the Pacifica Forum

  8. Michael G. says:

    The trouble is that the resolution should have passed, it asked the administration to ask the forum to not meet on campus- this did not interfere with their free speech, it voiced a concern from students.

    Using that same argument, people should be perfectly fine with the “free speech zones” set up during presidential campaign rallies and the like.

    Something tells me, Cims, that you’ve got a double-standard.

  9. CJ says:

    Cims, you write for a magazine that openly endorses the Earth Liberation Front, so I don’t know where you get off shouting into a megaphone about dangerous speech.

    I support your right to print stupid crap like that, by the way. The First Amendment protects your right to advocate arson and destruction just as surely as it protects the Pacifica Forum’s right to blame the world’s problems on “organized jewry” — just as surely as it protects my right to call you a hypocrite.

  10. WScott says:

    Protesters shouldn’t have been kicked out for holding a banner, unless they were blocking a fire exit or something. Even then, they could have just moved.

    But the university setting policy by extrapolating on the PATRIOT Act and some anti-PETA law doesn’t seem like a very good idea.

  11. Daniel says:

    I am aware you are avoiding answering the questions in the second paragraph of my post. I assume it is because the answers aren’t satisfying. Dont worry, I have no expectations of truth here.

  12. Senator Schultz says:

    On an entirely separate note, I am really interested to see any criticism aimed towards the new resolution. I understand it is not perfect, and I would never claim that it is. However, I always believe it is more difficult to offer constructive to an imperfect proposal than it is to simply write it off.

    I am sure many people do not like certain aspects of the resolution. I would love to see what can be done to accommodate your concerns. Rather than shoot this one down, lets revise it so that a working solution results. Feel free to contact the entire ASUO Senate at senate@uoregon.edu.

  13. Gsim says:

    Man, Senator Griffin had better watch himself. His reply is a shocking display of ignorance just smacking of sexist thought (bordering on hate speech)! It undoubtedly originated from his white male privilege of having spent so much time at country clubs during his youth.

    He would do well to remember his white guilt and publicly acknowledge the fact that only people with sufficient levels of pigmentation in their skin have had to deal with adversity and only they can truly understand hate.

    If he isn’t careful the UO Diversity squad is going to cart his ass off to be re-educated in the basement of the womyn studies buildings.

  14. C.T. Behemoth says:

    A concern that amounted to, “My feelings were hurt by people in this group”. The safety issue, if it is to be justified in this instance, needs to be substantiated. The students who have this concern (a vocal minority at this point) also didn’t help themselves either. That’s where the lecturing came from. I think the resolution would be better served if the ‘bullshit!’ crew didn’t show up. It would also be better served if what the ASUO was standing for was better articulated and couched in a more rational framework. So far, the safety issue seems like a politically convenient canard.

    The new resolution makes a little more sense, but still has room for improvement and a lot more room for a more respectful presentation to the ASUO.

    Also, the students were not shut out of the process. They’ve been a big part of it all along, but they didn’t get what they wanted (yet). Not getting what you want is not the same as being shut out. These students, as well as you Cims, should realize this as you move forward. If you insist that not getting your way amounts to being shut out, you just sound like a whining juvenile who can’t manage to construct a logical, substantiated argument. The same can be said for the accusations of being bought or pressured or not having conviction being leveled at the ASUO. Nice rhetoric, but ultimately groundless and not helping.

  15. Cims G says:

    The trouble is that the resolution should have passed, it asked the administration to ask the forum to not meet on campus- this did not interfere with their free speech, it voiced a concern from students.

    The senate lacked to spine to even exercise their own free speech.

    More ridiculous yet, the senate voted with unanimity- except one abstain, in support. It would appear they have no consistency of opinion, no courage and no concern for students. THey refuse to even use their own free speech. The Senate had a chance to stand for something positive, instead they neglected their duties, shut students out of the process largely and indignantly lectured students.

    Who was bought, who was pressured, who has no conviction- the Senate and who has every right to be upset, all the students like Haggerty.

  16. C.T. Behemoth says:

    I think that the assumption that one’s color of skin correlates with their experience (or lack thereof) when it comes to discrimination, is what Griffin is peeved about. It’s fine to be upset as a student, but lobbing arguments that are wholly dependent upon assumptions and misrepresentations is not going to win anyone over. Furthermore, the implication in the student’s e-mail is that the ASUO is an unintelligent, possibly racist body which is hiding its inability to comprehend how people are impacted by hate behind the notion of free speech. That’s a pretty heady thing to say or even allude to; although, I would also say that with the way words like hate, discrimination, diversity (etc) are bandied about…many of them have lost some edge. This is unfortunate too, but I digress.

    The student also doesn’t seem to understand that if a white supremacist attends a meeting held by group X, that group is not white supremacist. If the same group invites a Holocaust denier to speak, that group is not denying the Holocaust. Certainly, there are people who are a part of the group as well as some of their past speakers who represent some pretty distasteful ideas (to say the least). Still, this is yet another assumption. Namely, that white supremacists only attend Pacifica Forum meetings. It’s probably more likely that there are white supremacists attending classes, eating in the EMU, attending guest lectures across campus and living lives very similar to the rest of us…all over America. So, if we follow the logical path of this student’s argument, we must then extend the same sort of displeasure to every instance where a white supremacist has been a part of something on campus. I also wonder when these white supremacists wander campus and threaten minorities. I would never try to defend them, but I’ve yet to see this happen (which is not to say that it hasn’t, indeed, happened). I will say that the only time I’ve ever seen a white supremacist out in the open, was at a PF meeting. Still, the person was quiet and didn’t threaten anyone in the room (and there were people of color present). Surely, the fact that the person’s hate was out in the open was intimidating, but I wonder what is worse–a white supremacist who’s telling you what he is or a white supremacist who hides it beneath a layer of civility.

    I totally understand that this student may feel frightened by these types of people. Hell, I am too. Still, the world is full of assholes and some seriously demented people. If statistics bear any truth, our reality is full of white supremacists, child abusers, wife beaters, alcoholics, drug addicts, petty criminals, and all sorts of people who might strike fear into someone. In other words, the world is a scary place. I’m not trying to make light of the e-mail as much as I am pointing out that the student’s fears seem to be based off of ignorant claims (e.g. the PF hates students of color).

    For the record, I’m as white as they come. Still, I’ve also been subjected to physical and psychological violence via discrimination/racism. I won’t pretend that I have the same experience as anyone else, but if one were to assume that my skin being white means that I’ve had an easy go at things throughout my life, they would be very…very wrong. Absent the information for making such a claim, this student (and anyone else) would be better served by not making the assumption. I would expect the same if my skin was black, olive, or any other color, and I imagine the student would too.

    I also hate defending the PF, but I think it would be irresponsible to not discuss this situation with factual information. The mob think that has risen up against the PF could easily be directed at other groups on campus with the right combination of students. That’s what worries me the most, and I’m happy that the ASUO has not embraced this approach to dealing with the PF. I’m looking forward to the next round of discussion based on the new proposal; although, I still think there is a lot of room for improvement with the new draft.

  17. Daniel says:

    I am not sure where the content that Sen. Griffin found threatening is. Perhaps if he is not prepared to hear the impassioned and frustrated cries of students he should reconsider his position in government. While obviously there are many members of the Senate who are illuminated by PF’s broad beam of hate, it is understandable for students to feel that their fears are being ignored or lessened by a group that seems incapable of understanding the full implications of their decision.

    I am fully able to recognize the validity of the Free Speech argument, but it does not apply in this situation, and indeed Free Speech in this country is a hoax. You say there should not be legislature that preempts violence. Are you familiar with the arrests and raids conducted under both the Patriot and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Acts? Are you aware that peaceful and silent PF protesters were forcibly removed from a meeting merely for standing and holding the banner with student signatures on it? Where, in this argument, is their Freedom of Speech considered?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.