Between controversy surrounding The Insurgent and the Diversity Plan, University policies and events continue to draw attention from beyond campus. Conservative Townhall.com columnist Mike Adams joined the commentary Tuesday, publishing a column criticizing the new Diversity Plan.
Some community members might remember Adams, a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, from his speech on campus May 16 during which he encouraged students to speak out when college administrators discriminate against political and religious groups, thus abusing free-speech rights.
Although we disagree about his interpretation of both the spirit and the content of the Diversity Plan, Adams aptly reminds us about the dangers of double-standards regarding speech.
Adams asserts that the University is not committed to freedom of expression as spelled out in the plan. He bases his argument on what he sees as a discrepancy between how the administration handled controversy surrounding the Oregon Commentator last year and how it handled the snafu involving The Insurgent this year.
Although his choice of semantics is misleading, he correctly states that the Commentator in essence lost its funding for a period because of an outcry about remarks it published about a transgendered individual. He also rightly says administrators have not taken action against The Insurgent.
However, he is incorrect to call this a doublestandard. Irresponsible and overzealous student government officials, much like those who want to censor The Insurgent now, imposed their values on the funding process last year, resulting in the Commentator controversy. This year, the ASUO thankfully did not go that route (although some student senators tried to last week).
In both cases, the administration did little to intervene. University President Dave Frohnmayer sent a letter to the Emerald this year calling for responsible speech. Although it may have been a largely unpopular move, he should have sent a letter last year advocating for the Commentator’s right to free speech. If anything, the administration has been guilty of inaction to support students’ rights rather than action to stop them.
Adams also argues that the incidental fee should be abolished, saying it would “increase socio-economic diversity at UO by making a college degree less expensive,” that it would help students become responsible by fundraising and that it would “get the UO administration out of the constitutional requirement of ‘viewpoint neutrality’ with regard to the distribution of mandatory fees.” Putting $600 a year back in students’ pockets is not going to make or break a student’s ability to attend college. Further, the administration isn’t in the “viewpoint neutrality” business at all -student government is.
Few may remember now, but the student government tried to sanction The Insurgent in 2001 in exactly the same way that the Commentator was attacked, but cooler heads prevailed then as well (“PFC, the cowardly LION,” ODE, Jan. 26, 2001). Ironically, members of the “Insurgent collective” pressed for the same sanctions to the Commentator in 2005 that they lobbied against in 2001.
The key lesson from all of the recent speech related turmoil is that the student government, the University administration and student groups, as Adams recommends, should uphold speech rights for all. While expression may sometimes offend, it does contribute to the diversity of this campus in a tangible manner.