In an already disgrace-filled year for University student leaders, the Programs Finance Committee’s recent attempt to muzzle the Oregon Commentator is the most disgraceful moment yet. In fact, all prior examples of the PFC’s contempt for students’ rights (and money) pale in comparison to this ignorant attack on campus free speech.
In the PFC’s note of rejection to the Commentator, it stated that several unspecified issues of the magazine “contain material that is in violation” of an Oregon statute designating incidental fees for programs “advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students.” The PFC then had the gall to lecture the Commentator on what an immense “privilege” it is to be recognized as a culturally advantageous program, a privilege that can be “revoked” at any time. The threat is clear: Write so much as one article that we don’t like, and your entire publication will be punished.
The PFC provided few clues to what specifically set the members off, and it leaves the concept of “culturally advantageous” so vague that it renders it meaningless. Committee members’ attitudes seem to be, like pornography, that they know it when they see it. In an open letter to the PFC (posted online at www.oregoncommentator.com), Daniel Atkinson, publisher and board member of the Commentator, brilliantly rebukes all of the PFC’s haphazard accusations. The letter is so well argued that it, in and of itself, proves that the magazine is a culturally advantageous project.
One problem with the PFC’s position: The Commentator has never published anything remotely inconsistent with the law — constitutional or otherwise. We hate to break it to the PFC, but last time we checked disagreeing with liberal dogma does not constitute hate speech. Apart from that, the PFC has absolutely no right to adjudicate what is acceptable campus expression. It is on a perverse and illegal power trip. The real question students should be asking themselves is: How culturally advantageous are our student leaders?
Ironically, by challenging the Commentator’s recognized status, the PFC has legitimized the magazine’s mission, the very mission that it has chosen to reject. In part it reads: “We believe that the University should be a forum for rational and informed debate — instead of the current climate in which ideological dogma, political correctness, fashion and mob mentality interfere with academic pursuit.”
We need to embrace this attitude now more than ever. Many liberals and conservatives alike have a lot to learn about tolerance. Protesting an idea does not mean trying to silence that idea. Publishing an idea does not necessarily mean endorsing it. And listening to an idea is not the same as embracing it. Rather than cleansing campus speech of everything potentially upsetting, we should be encouraging truthful expression even if it is ugly, uncomfortable or controversial.
Every student who cares about his or her right to speak freely on this campus should support the Oregon Commentator as it continues to fight for the funding that rightfully belongs to it.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]