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

That Which Springs from Ignorance, Part 2

Here is Phylicia Haggerty’s reply to ASUO Sen. Tyler Griffin’s previous email:


I appreciate you writing me back. To clarify a few things 1) I am not ignorant and 2) I never said ASUO members have never been discriminated against. I did say that most of you are probably not taking this situation seriously because based on who the Pacifica forum is gearing hatred towards most of you would not classify. I think it was very unprofessional for you to say and I quote “how dare me” and that I should be ashamed of what I said. I think it is truly sad that some of the ASUO members have to thought twice about an issue that is blatantly wrong. I think it is ironic that from what I said in my e-mail that you would have the audacity to claim that you are scared of me. It is too bad that this issue probably will not be resolved until someone gets hurt. I do apologize for saying that nothing has been done about this issue because I know most of you do understand and that you are trying to find a solution. I will not be contacting you on any other circumstances and I do appreciate your time because I know you are very busy. I did contact Student Affairs and I have falsely accused ASUO Senate members in that the policy decision making is not left up to you completely in that the President makes final decisions. Thank you again for your time.

Phylicia Haggerty”

At this point in time, since Griffin hasn’t responded to Haggerty (or hasn’t forwarded us his response) we might as well take a swing at this one. Let’s start with her first e-mail, one which is astoundingly hilarious in its authors minute grasp of rational thought, or a basic concept of the U.S. Constitution.

It begins with:

“I wish you could all sit back and take this situation personally, but you cant because your not the one being hated against.”

There are two kinds of ASUO Senators. “Heart” voters, and “head” voters. Luckily, we have quite a few “head” voters on the ASUO–you know, ones who allow for debate and discussion instead of simply responding to such e-mails with “Oh yea? Well fuck YOU!” I’m guessing Haggerty is a “heart” voter. You know, the kind of person who would call me “follically challenged.”

It goes on:

“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.”

Insert snarky comment comparing Haggerty’s writing of  “I know what you all look like”  to both the e-mail sent to Emma Kallaway and the reported PF member who told a group of students to “watch out at night” here.

“The first amendment is only applicable when it does no harm to others. Trust me, I have studied plenty of Supreme Court cases.”

I’m not sure what version of the Constitution Haggerty is reading. It’s probably the same one that guards you against unreasonable search and seizure unless the police really, really need to find something.

It gets worse with this next email:

“I think it is truly sad that some of the ASUO members have to thought twice about an issue that is blatantly wrong.”

That’s just it though–the issue isn’t cut and dry, wrong or right. Sure, the PF invited some holocaust deniers a few years ago, and this year they brought in people who think the Sieg Heil is socially acceptable. Those people are factually wrong. But their right to speak about those wrong facts is the real issue. It’s not whether or not the Nazis the PF invites are morally corrupt, but whether or not the morally corrupt are protected by the Constitution. Last I heard, there wasn’t a clause in the Bill of Rights that said you’re only entitled to protection if you’re a good person.

Haggerty’s e-mail, as Griffin pointed out in his  initial response, shows an unfathomable ignorance of the issue at hand, the efforts being made by the ASUO, and the governing laws of this republic (it’s even worse that Haggerty said she’s graduating from the UO with two degrees. Nobody said you had to be smart to graduate from college).

Let’s just move forward and look ahead to next week’s Rules Committee, shall we? I need some time to wash the dumb off of me.

  1. Tim! says:


    It’s not true that nobody cares people are hurt. It is true that the Commentator cares more about constitutional rights than hurt feelings. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that anything more than feelings have been hurt. They, and apparently this year’s ASUO, generally try to give more credence to rationality than passion, to established facts over simple rhetorical devices.

    Disclaimer: I am not and have never been a member of the Commentator staff nor a UO student. My representations above are based on having read the Commentator blog for nearly a decade.

  2. Dane says:

    Our first e-mail was sent to us by Tyler Griffin, and the e-mail is his property. You did not state at any point in time to him that you did not wish to have this published, so you are not protected by any processes.

    Additionally, you yourself clicked “reply all” to the above e-mail, so you yourself willingly sent us this e-mail. As it states in our masthead “The Oregon Commentator accepts letters to the editor… We reserve the right to edit material we find obscene, libelous, inappropriate or lengthy”.

    That means we get to publish things you send us.

  3. Phylicia Haggerty says:

    I also think it is quite funny that I did not give permission for this to be public knowledge at all. Thank you Tyler for your mis conduct and for not being professional.

  4. Phylicia Haggerty says:

    For all of you who have comments thank you. You all have a right to believe what you want. It saddnes me that people are hurt and no one cares.

  5. Betz says:

    @Oofdang and Ross:

    You rang?

  6. Ross says:

    And the LORD looked down, and saw that it was so.

  7. Oofdang says:

    Oh Phylicia Haggerty, may your ignorance and poor diction be forever tied to you through the wonder that is google.

  8. […] –Quote of the week: “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 AWARE OF ALL SUPREME COURT TRADITIONS. […]

  9. Evan P. Thomas says:

    She can probably find a ton of them, Ross! Most of us would call them “assault” cases though, not “free speech” cases.

  10. Ross says:

    I would love to see what cases she’s referencing, because I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

  11. Ross says:

    “the kind of person who would call me ‘follically challenged.'”

    I’d just call you bald.

  12. Evan P. Thomas says:

    Some people take “fighting words” a little too seriously.

  13. Michael G. says:
  14. C.T. Behemoth says:

    “It is too bad that this issue probably will not be resolved until someone gets hurt.”

    Nice touch.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.