PFC should fund ‘twerps’
I thought I would write to talk about the PFC’s decision to hold up the approval of the Oregon Commentator’s mission statement. I don’t think there is a problem with the OC’s mission (other than opposing it on ideological grounds). Certainly, they do allude to conservatism in their mission, but that does not necessarily imply the OC serves the interest of any particular group.
Based on the Southworth decision, it was mandated the student fee allocation be done in a “viewpoint-neutral manner.” In my opinion, the PFC is putting the burden of viewpoint neutrality on the OC, rather than acknowledging that this burden is their own.
To clarify, the PFC has the responsibility to allocate funds on the basis of a group’s contribution to the campus community, and not on political grounds. I urge the PFC to reconsider their position.
Granted, I think the OC writers are a bunch of juvenile, bigoted twerps, but I think that dialogue on campus is, in general, better for having their publication.

Randy Newnham

senior

anthropology and linguistics

Viewpoint neutrality explained
The idea of getting sucked back into the Dante-esque level of hell known as ASUO politics makes my liver twitchy. But I’m compelled to write regarding Monday’s editorial (“Commentator staff should toe the line,” ODE, 01/28). I’ve been an editor at the Commentator and a member of the Programs Finance Committee.
The editorial states, “the Supreme Court recently ruled that groups such as the ASUO Programs Finance Committee must maintain ‘viewpoint neutrality’ when allocating student fee money, in order to maintain an open marketplace of ideas on campus.” This is gross misinterpretation of the Southworth case the Supreme Court ruled on. “Viewpoint neutrality” means the process for allocating funds must be “viewpoint neutral,” not student groups themselves. You can fund the Commentator, which is conservative, as long as left-wing papers have access to the same funding process.
The case against the Commentator is absurd; so long as the Commentator doesn’t fund political parties or campaigns, it can state whatever mission it chooses (short of hate speech).
I’m baffled words such as “conservative” and “left-wing” are singled out by the PFC, yet no mention in the mission statement refers to utopianism. If we’re going to take a hard line on value neutrality, the word “utopia” is a no-no. This standard would send everyone down the slippery slope faster than you can say “Res Ipsa Loquitor.”
So leave the Commentator alone, and start hacking away at groups that genuinely violate rules about funding political activity (OSPIRG, cough, cough).

M.H. Hemingway

Class of ’98

Washington, D.C.