Dear everyone who stopped caring,
Remember how much we’ve been reading about Pacifica Forum for the last month (partly my fault)? I have a pop quiz for you, just to see if you were paying attention.
QUESTION:
PACIFICA FORUM IS…:
A) A Neo-Nazi Group
B) Responsible for vandalizing LGBTQA
C) A Free Speech Group
D) Against feminism, homosexuality, and ethnic equality.
E) A White Supremacist Group
F) Responsible for the anti-Semitic note
G) Loving, respectful, intelligent people
H) All of the above
Earlier this week I had the great fortune of sitting down with both Vice President Robin Holmes and President Richard Lariviere. At the time these meetings were scheduled two weeks ago, there remained an array of unanswered questions in regard to the Pacifica issue, including and not limited to: much misinformation about the stances of the University, misunderstanding regarding the legal rights and causality regarding the Forum, a multitude of smear tactics and intolerance displayed by both sides, misquotation and misrepresentation of our university administration.
Since two weeks ago, much has happened. A Student Senate resolution was declined, a protest was outraged, and a hideous act of vandalism was induced. I was worried, perhaps erroneously, that these events could have clouded the judgment of our institution like they have clouded judgment of many protesters and student body (much of the student body still thinks “Pacifica Forum” is a “Neo-Nazi Group,” hence the populace of the “Anti-Pacifica” Facebook group).
I am humbled and relieved at the remarkable objectivity and forward thinking of our administration. I now know that it was unfair of me to equate the mental capacity of our university officials with the riotous aggrandized assertions of some undergraduate protests; I irrationally feared that the UO would get swept away in the deep rooted emotion of many of the students, a very alluring mentality.
I may say with confidence now that my fear has been put to rest.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to Drew’s editorial from the last issue lately, and the more I think about it, the more I think the premise of his argument is a viable, actionable plan. If you haven’t read it, the argument revolves around a plan that would involve students–including those protesting the Pacifica Forum–into the actual Forum as debaters.
The Pacifica Forum was started in 1994 as a way to debate two sides (or three) of an issue. As the years have gone on, speakers at the Pacifica Forum have started to push the envelope of topics discussed. Here, we should make an important distinction: The Pacifica Forum has no members per se, but an open call for its organizers. Indeed, the premise of a Forum is just that–an open discussion or debate. Instead, its protesters have been acting as if the Pacifica Forum is one, solid group with a single mindset.
Contrary to what many may think, the Pacifica Forum is not all Nazis. Instead, the organizers of the Forum have invited Nazis and debated back and forth with them about certain topics–the swastika, the Sieg Heil etc. The problem lately, however, is that the two sides of the debate haven’t been far apart enough in their arguments. Instead of a debater that is far to one side and another that is far to the other, the debaters at the Pacifica Forum have been far to one side with the other somewhere in the middle.
This is where our beloved protesters come in. Although protests were initially meant to be “silent” they have strayed far and away from that premise. Effectively, the anti-Pacifica people want their voices heard. What Drew proposed–and what I think is an exceedingly good idea–is that those protesters join the debate on the other side of the table, as speakers. Instead of holding signs and shouting, or waiting for your turn to speak at the microphone, why not sit on the other end of the table as a third party, a third side to the debate about Nazism or what have you?
I find it harder and harder to find any support within myself for the anti-Pacifica protesters. The Forum itself is not perpetuating Nazism–idiots like Jimmy Marr and Anelauskas are. Why not stand up, take charge, and take back the Forum for yourselves?
Amidst this conflict, somebody told me, “The proper reaction to bad speech is not less speech. The proper reaction is more speech.”
Here is Phylicia Haggerty’s reply to ASUO Sen. Tyler Griffin’s previous email:
“Tyler,
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.
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.
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!”
This is a guest piece submitted to the Oregon Commentator by a student. Unfortunately, by the time we received it we did not have space for it. We have instead chose to post it to our blog as the content is time sensitive. Be advised that the student is not a member of the Oregon Commentator and their views do not represent the editorial position of the Oregon Commentator.
*Note: I am not representing the interest of either opposing faction in terms of this issue: the Pacifica Forum, or its protestors. I represent the legal system applicable to all persons of this country as defined by the institution of the UO’s Code of Conduct, the Oregon State Constitution and the Federal Constitution. I am a realist; I hope I can convince readers to be realists with me.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding by the Pacifica Forum protesters about the causality and validity of their protest. The Pacifica Forum has become notorious for housing uncommon, extremist ideological perspectives that few of us share or respect. Speakers at Pacifica have denounced Judaism, preached hate, and lashed out at community members: they have been specifically praised and acknowledged by neo-Nazi organizations and the NSM (though it is important to point out that the Anti-Hate Task Force, the group leading the protest against PF, has been praised and acknowledged by neo-Communist organizations). But, in order to objectively and dispassionately review the behavior of the Pacifica Forum, as is necessary for legal dispute like banning them from government property, it is important to translate and apply our laws to this organization, not just attack them on morality and personal emotion before litigation is announced. Unfortunately for many protesters, our laws protect this organization.
As you may be aware of, since last week’s Senate meeting, the debate over the Forum has turned to a matter of “student safety”. Several people spoke at the Senate meeting about how they felt threatened by members of the Forum’s choice of words, specifically with comments regarding rape etc. Even ASUO President Emma Kallaway has received an e-mail with pictures of her taken by Pacifica members with her comments written below.
Now, although our detractors would beg to differ, the Commentator prides itself on giving fair judgment to situations, especially ones that are sensitive to civil rights. Since the efforts of protesters last week to turn the issue towards student safety, the Commentator has been feverishly trying to uncover examples from students who feel they have been violently attacked–indeed, if such an event had happened, that would call for a serious discussion on the Forum effecting student safety.
Unfortunately, as you can read in Ross’ article, there have been no explicit threats or acts of violence by members of the Pacifica Forum to our student body. Rather, I should say, that if there has been explicit threats, we have not been able to find evidence of it. We have contacted both DPS and the EPD and neither of them have any reports filed about a member of the Pacifica Forum making an explicit threat of violence. Further, those making the claims of violence or threats from the Pacifica Forum have been unwilling to provide evidence or documentation of these events.
Apparently the Pacifica Forum protesters discussed a rumor that the Oregon Commentator would, “Send 30 or 40 people to protest our protest of the Pacifica Forum.” Looks like they were wrong.
University of Oregon officials have decided that the Pacifica Forum is no longer allowed to hold meetings within the EMU for the rest of the year. University Administrator Dr. Paul Shang informed last nights crowd several times throughout the senate meeting that the UO’s Administration has banned the controversial group from holding meetings in the EMU for remainder of the year.
That was just the beginning of an ASUO senate meeting that had to be one of the most emotional and intense senate meetings this school year. Over 70 students attended the meeting pushing the maximum occupancy of the Walnut Room to the limit, making a few onlookers watch from the windows. The new resolution stated that the Pacifica Forum should remove themselves from the UO’s campus. The resolution was amended later to state that the students no longer want the Pacifica Forum gathering on campus.
Before the proposal was presented the ASUO allowed for 20 minutes for a guests speakers list. Several audience members declared that they feel unsafe on campus. Ashlie Watts a student at the University of Oregon declared that “I’m from Southern California and I never experienced blatant racism until I came to Eugene.” BSU president Michael Reta declared that BSU members do not feel safe on campus.
The issue of campus safety was at the heart the argument for the resolution. People who presented the resolution brought up several safety issues citing one instance of a Pacifica Forum member bringing a knife to campus, several instances of protesters being targeted by Pacifica Forum members on fliers and several instances of harassment through E-Mail from members of the forum.
The senate got very emotional in debating whether or not this resolution would infringe people’s right in free speech. ASUO Vice President Getachew emphatically exclaimed that “This is not an issue of free speech, this is an issue of safety.”
The administration is hesitant on making a quick decision on whether or not to remove the group from campus entirely. Dr. Robin Holmes stated. “We want to make sure that we can protect the institution.” It seems that the administration is going to take a while on making a decision on whether or not to remove the Pacifica Forum entirely from campus. This is largely in part because removing the group could be in violation of the 1st Amendment.
The resolution will be voted on at next weeks senate meeting.
Tonight there was a Pacifica protest meeting at Cafe Roma. The Commentator was a seemingly unwelcome addition to the meeting when it was stated by one of the Black Tea Society affiliates wrapped in a particularly douchey bandana that, “Contributors to the Oregon Commentator have voiced their support of free speech by ANY means necessary.” This seemed a bit absurd to me. I believe the blog comment (not a staffer’s post) was:
“OC editors, I respect you: Call me on it if I’m wrong to be frustrated with the funding side. I support free speech, and would, indeed, fight to the death to protect the PF’s right to it. (Well, maybe not Marr. But the others? Sure.)”
The protesters on Friday were disorganized to say the least. They could not agree on what it was that they were protesting, let alone whether they were to be silent or disruptive. Fortunately, this was first thing on the agenda.
Cimmeron Gillespie wanted to emphasize that protesters against the forum should not associate their cause with the question of free speech. Gillespie made it very clear that the reason for the meeting was to plan an effective protest against what they believe to be a narrow-minded group with ties to one or more groups, such as Volksfront and Stormfront, who have an alleged history of violent bigotry.
“Again, this is a campus and student safety issue,” Gillespie continued. He then ran us all through the plan of attack for their protesting of the next Forum topic: Neo-Communism and the Anti-Hate Task Force (which, supposedly, targets one of Eugene’s own Lane County Board members. Pictures of him and other protesters from last Friday appear on the fliers). The plan consists of three parts:
1. Framing – Emphasize safety, not free speech.
2. Administration – Gillespie described the UO administration as, “A giant tractor with no engine. We have to pull and push and move it how we want.”
3. Forum – Develop a reasonable argument with constructive questions that will lead Billy Rojas and his followers to either “hang themselves up,” or realize the error of their ways.
Emma Kallaway put in her two cents, using her experience with the administration to her advantage. She thought that this whole fiasco is even more complicated than it seems. The fact that the University of Oregon is a public institution funded by the state and part of OUS (Oregon University System), iterates that the buck doesn’t stop with Dick Lariviere. Furthermore, to change policy regarding alumni, old professors and rights to the usage of OUS property is asking quite a bit.
As for the Pacifica Forum, hopefully they will have a chance to exercise their right to free speech this Friday. Personally, I can’t speak to the extent of their connections with violent groups and whether or not they are using Pacifica as a front for their “socialist recruiting machine.”
There will also be a Senate meeting in the Walnut Room on Friday at 7pm. The first ten minutes will consist of four people recalling their individual altercations with Pacifica attendees. The rest of the time is reserved for questions.
Those wishing to learn more about the issue are encouraged to attend and not ignorantly yell and scream like a fucking idiot.
