The Insurgent debacle has now become the King of all Stories at Oregon that Will Never Die, but nonetheless I feel that the argument by ASUO Senator Dallas Brown published in the Emerald on May 30 deserves some response (“Senators’ walkout a hypocritical act that showed lack of principles”).
Brown is right that the walkout was somewhat hypocritical and irresponsible, and about that there is little debate. It would have been nice to see student senators discuss the issue that has been of so much attention to some parts of this campus – possibly even unreasonably so – in recent months.
Brown also deserves commendation, along with Senator Wally Hicks, for making probably the most logical and legally effective argument in favor of somehow censoring The Insurgent so far: that the ASUO can shut down content that “does not contribute to the goals of the University.”
The problem many arguments and protestations have had in regard to this row over The Insurgent’s March issue is that they have failed to consider the Southworth decision or other relevant free speech case law. Southworth pretty clearly states that all decisions regarding student funds must be “viewpoint neutral,” and cannot be used to muzzle unpopular or offensive speech. Brown and Hicks, however, are not nearly as ignorant, and are, in fact, not ignorant at all. They consider the issue and present an argument to counter: The Insurgent intended to offend, not to educate, and therefore detracted from the University’s goals of promoting intellectual discourse with the campus media.
This argument, despite its merits, is still flawed. The problem with it is simply the result of The Insurgent’s March issue, which many found to be offensive to Christians. In response to the immature and mean-spirited cartoons published by The Insurgent, students have presented a number of thought-provoking and well-reasoned positions, as Brown and Hicks have done. Many have also presented arguments that were less so, but nonetheless contributed to a campus debate regarding very serious and interesting issues. Because of The Insurgent’s March issue, however offensive and absurd it was, students at the University have been exposed to a number of incredible teachable moments: Emerald columnist Ben Lenet’s argument for decency, student Zachary White’s concerned commentaries, ASUO President Jared Axelrod’s proposed free speech forum, even the legal reasoning employed by Brown and Hicks in their ASUO Senate resolution. Each of these elements of response to The Insurgent constitutes a promotion of intellectual discourse.
Therefore, while I respect Brown’s position and appreciate the fascinating legal reasoning behind it, I believe that whatever The Insurgent’s intentions, one thing is clear: It’s March issue gave us all a chance to learn, debate, and better understand our fellow students and our principles. I think that while I personally would have wished that The Insurgent had not been so exploitative and juvenile with its portion of our ASUO fees, there could be some saving grace in the realization that the debate they may have unintentionally unleashed has been so philosophically fruitful.