In rejecting the mission statement of the Oregon Commentator, the PFC demonstrates its complete inability to reason clearly, apply consistent standards or judge groups in a viewpoint-neutral manner. What’s more, the PFC attempts to place itself above the law in deciding what is or is not protected political speech.
It seems the PFC has chosen two groups notoriously critical of the ASUO to defund and attempt to silence. Both publications provide very important coverage of ASUO shenanigans and try to make the ASUO accountable not only to the 4.6 percent of the student body who put them in office, but also to the entirety of the student body.
The Emerald does this through often solid reporting and the occasional scathing editorial, while the Commentator provides analysis, in-depth reporting and, yes, biting (often callous) humor. Both are vital to the free exchange of ideas and, in their own way, seek to expose the major failings of the ASUO as an institution. Trying to stifle such important media outlets because what they say puts the lie to all of the ASUO’s lofty rhetoric is shameful, childish and, moreover, pathetic.
Are the members of the ASUO really so weak they can’t take a little criticism? In 2002 the PFC tabled the Commentator’s budget due to the content of the mission statement. In the early 1990s, the IFC, a predecessor to the PFC, attempted to defund the Commentator for unpopular content. The PFC’s habit of abusing the two most important publications on campus must come to an end. If the PFC is allowed to get away with this, the campus environment will be damaged beyond repair.
Timothy Dreier

2003-04 editor in chief
Oregon Commentator