The Oregon Commentator, the University’s conservative journal of opinion, is contesting a controversial decision by the ASUO Programs Finance Committee to reject the magazine’s mission statement — a decision the Commentator says the PFC had no jurisdiction to make and one whose merits the PFC is now debating.
PFC rejected the mission statement at a hearing in December, but later decided it would recall that decision at the Commentator’s budget hearing Feb. 1. The PFC, which allocates incidental fees to campus groups, must approve mission statements for student fee-funded groups such as the Commentator before reviewing their budgets.
Oregon Commentator Editor in Chief Tyler Graf said the magazine has had the same mission for the past 21 years and the PFC had no reason to reject it.
“We’ve never had our mission statement rejected,” Graf said. “We felt we were being treated unfairly.”
No other groups’ mission statements were rejected.
Graf said the PFC did not initially give a sufficient reason for why the statement was rejected. However, Graf said the Commentator later learned that the motion to decline the statement stemmed not from the mission itself, but rather concerns with the magazine’s content.
“There were questions to our content and whether they perpetuated hate,” he said.
These concerns arose from a student who approached a PFC member about the Commentator’s content, which he or she deemed offensive, PFC Chair Persis Pohowalla said.
The Commentator published information that made students feels unsafe on campus, Pohowalla said. “A student did come and complain to one of the PFC members, and the PFC felt it was necessary to take action.”
PFC member Mason Quiroz said he brought the issue to the PFC after the student complained to him because he thought it was necessary to explore the issue and find a possible course of action.
“It seemed to me that the
Commentator had jeopardized the safety of the student,” Quiroz said.
Quiroz said he felt it was his duty as a PFC member to determine whether the magazine should be student fee-funded. Citing the ASUO’s Green Tape Notebook, Quiroz said it is the PFC’s responsibility to decide how a student group is culturally and physically advantageous to students. According to the rule book, “each program … must submit a goal statement which allows each Finance Committee to determine for itself whether the program or activity meets the statutory standard of ORS 351.070(3)(d), which authorizes the (Oregon State Board of Higher Education) to collect fees to fund programs for the cultural and physical development of students.”
Nonetheless, Quiroz said he
decided that the PFC should recall the decision because there is lack of clarity among the PFC members about exactly why the mission statement was not approved. In addition, the Commentator was also not present at the hearing when the decision was made. Quiroz said he still
believes the issue of the Commentator’s content should be pursued and he plans to have it discussed at
the magazine’s budget hearing. He said it is important for students to have an avenue for their concerns to be addressed.
“I’ve been really disappointed with the lack of action not taken by the other bodies in student government,” he said.
However, Pohowalla said the PFC could not make decisions about a publication’s content. The work of the PFC is only to determine whether student groups are following the rules, fulfilling their goals and missions and being fiscally responsible, she said.
“Every group is supposed to fulfill its mission and goals, and the
Commentator does that,” she said, adding that the Commentator “is a service to campus.”
She said PFC should not discuss content, adding that “that’s not part of what we’re supposed to do.”
“As PFC we realized we’d made a mistake,” she said. “We misinterpreted what the rules were.”
She said she believes PFC members were “not educated enough” about what the rules are when the initial decision was made.
“We have to stay very viewpoint-neutral,” she said, adding that if the PFC started to question the Commentator’s content, it would also have to discuss content from other campus publications.
But Quiroz said he is not judging the magazine’s content, but rather how that content might affect students.
“I don’t think students should pay for hateful messages,” Quiroz said. “That’s poor use of student money.”
Graf said the PFC did not have the authority to question the magazine’s editorial content.
“The PFC tried to do a very underhanded thing thinking we wouldn’t respond,” Graf said. “They couldn’t reason their way out of it. I don’t think legally they had a leg to stand on.”
Although the PFC did not specify which student made complaints, one student came out publicly to protest the Commentator’s content.
ASUO Senator Toby Hill-Meyer wrote in a statement given to
the Emerald that the Commentator “has repeatedly and maliciously targeted me with hate speech, ridiculing my gender identity, even with violent innuendo.”
Hill-Meyer, who is transgender, said the Commentator attributed false quotes to Hill-Meyer in the
last summer issue. The student senator said the comments provoked safety concerns.
Hill-Meyer wrote the statement
in response to comments published
in the Commentator regarding
Hill-Meyer’s preference to be referred to by a non-gender-specific pronoun.
“While I do not know the specifics of the PFC’s decision or how they plan to proceed, I myself have read through the Commentator and wondered how they can use student money to print their magazine,” Hill-Meyer said.
Hill-Meyer said there was no desire to have the magazine defunded, but wished to see “some kind of University response to this kind of hate speech.”
“I am glad that the PFC has decided to go down a path that will create a forum to discuss these issues,” Hill-Meyer said.
Graf said the paper does not publish hate speech, adding that it is evident that what was written about Hill-Meyer was satirical.
“We’re not going to allow Toby Hill-Meyer to dictate the editorial content of the paper,” Graf said. “The quote that we had on him was clearly in jest.”
Graf said the Commentator has no intentions to cause anyone any harm.
“We’re very conscious of whether we’re going to put someone in a bad position,” Graf said.
ASUO President Adam Petkun said it is important to separate the issue of the Commentator’s funding from that of whether it publishes hateful content. He said the Commentator operates under First Amendment rules that he wouldn’t want to be violated.
“We need to make sure that
(the PFC is) allocating student funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner,” Petkun said.
Petkun added that ASUO is developing other ways to address the allegations of hate speech made against the Commentator.

[email protected]