In March, the University’s very own anarchist/Marxist publication, The Student Insurgent, released its latest foray into self-parody – an issue so devoid of wit, wisdom or punctuation as to confirm it as some sort of Dada-esque meta-critique on anarchic journalism. The cover and the contents of the issue featured Jesus in sexually explicit poses. These images have created a mini stir on campus, eliciting responses from President Frohnmayer, the Emerald, and campus Christians.
The controversy centers around whether The Insurgent has the right to print material that some people might find offensive. One of the aggrieved, students, Zachary White, went so far as to file a grievance with the ASUO. In his grievance, White writes: “I find it intolerable and contrary to the University’s mission of tolerance and non-discrimination to use public funds to allow for discrimination of a religious group on campus.”
The implication of White’s grievance, buried beneath his obstinate navel gazing, is that The Insurgent is discriminatory and therefore should not receive student fees. This argument is hopelessly flawed. Although the cartoons were intended to shock and titillate and contained nothing resembling measured analysis or satirical wit, they are still protected under the Southworth Supreme Court decision, which stipulates that a student group’s viewpoint cannot factor into its fee-funded status.
For me, the issue is simple. As Voltaire said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.”
The inspiration for The Insurgent’s sucker punch to Christianity rests partially with the publication for which I occasionally write and edit, the Oregon Commentator. Before spring break, our publication published an editorial lamenting the U.S. media’s inability to properly deal with the Mohammed cartoon controversy, which occurred several months after Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten published a number of political cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. We did this to put the controversy into context and educate the public. In our editorial, we mention that President Bush squandered a “teachable moment.”
Perhaps, at the University, our own mini-brouhaha will engender a teachable moment – a moment of clear, undiluted resoluteness: Speak freely, but don’t be a jerk. Or perhaps this moment will make us all realize how devalued the word “discrimination” has become, as the Zachary Whites of the world continue to believe that crudely drawn pictures of Jesus sporting a giant pink erection – images viewed primarily by Oregon’s prison population – are discriminatory. Or perhaps it will teach some members of the University community that free speech is an idea worth fighting for, and that it is ultimately intended to protect that which offends or goads.
Thankfully, the controversy ended with the best possible outcome. In a ruling on April 24, David Goward dismissed the grievance, thus affirming the right of student publications to offend the sensibilities of some within the community. The decision was a sound one, because true freedom, true liberty, rests on our most cherished of rights: Our right to free speech, no matter how asinine or offensive it may be. If the intention is to offend, and you are ultimately offended, then you have already lost. Now that’s a teachable moment.
Tyler Graf is editor emeritus of the Oregon Commentator
