Opinion: After student behavior at the BYU game, UO’s claimed commitment to diversity and inclusion are becoming elusive.
———-
“We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe and respectful community,” UO’s mission statement reads. To me, this means that, upon entering campus grounds, I will be met with others who respect the dimensions of my identity. The words themselves are powerful; the contradicting actions of our student body are spoken louder.
I’m not a big fan of football. My first in-person Ducks game occurred only recently when UO played Brigham Young University. Despite my aversion to the sport, I was excited to experience the energy adoring fans bring to Autzen Stadium. This was misrepresented at the game I attended.
I’m not here to discuss the profane student chanting at the BYU game. It seems unnecessary to issue another apology that simply states the obvious: UO doesn’t condone these actions because they go against our written morals. The clarification on what the university stands for is unnecessary; inclusivity on college campuses is an obvious ethical standard. Lectures about morality are not enough to ensure just actions, and that is where the university fails in its liberal approach.
Trevor Petersen, an alumnus of BYU and a current resident of Klamath Falls, Oregon, attended the BYU game. He was accompanied by his brother, his friends and his two sons.
During the game, the UO fans behind him were manageable. Yelling and chanting could be heard from this section of the stadium, but it was language expected from any fans. It wasn’t until after the game that Petersen and his sons experienced the derogatory chants from UO students. UO had already won by a large margin.
“My only experience with it was when I was walking to the car with my sons,” Petersen said. “I heard someone yell it out the car window: ‘Eff the Mormons!’”
Petersen’s youngest son is 8 years old.
“I live in this state, and my brother lives very close to Eugene,” Petersen said. “We’re members of these communities, and so it was hard to hear people in my home state, or close to my home community, disliking me, maybe for my faith.”
I have been to many UO events. It seems as if the words “diversity and inclusion” are laced into every opening statement as if to convince students, once again, that we are absolved from any past bigotries we have committed.
This is effective to an extent, given any press release could pick out these statements and applaud such a compassionate approach to academics. But outside of the walls of lectured equity, contradictory events ensue.
“This isn’t just about that game; these are community members [who] we are chanting this about,” Petersen said. “There are members of that same faith on this UO football team.”
He continued talking about the lack of inclusion felt by surrounding fans.
“There were recruits [who] were thinking about going to UO who left the game early because they didn’t feel comfortable there,” Petersen said. “Like they weren’t welcomed or wanted.”
A high school quarterback recruit, who is Mormon, left at halftime with his family because of the chants. While he said it didn’t remove Oregon as an option, it still had an impact on him.
This is not the first time bigoted behavior has been demonstrated by the UO community. In 2016, a current UO professor participated in blackface at an off-campus Halloween party, and another obvious statement against offensive behaviors was issued. The university continues to discuss these topics with vague apologies that hold no valuable solutions for the future.
In response to biased events, the university has a history of creating programs such as the UO African American Workshop and Lecture series. However, these policies are adapted only after the prejudice event has occurred. They are enacted as an afterthought more than as a meaningful effort.
Sporting events can be a location to set the framework for the university’s practice of inclusion. At the BYU game, it turned into an outlet for deconstructing and attacking the dimensions of someone’s identity. It’s one thing to say sports fans get riled up about collegiate competition; the reality is that abusive language could unknowingly target any individual, regardless of the original competitive intent.
Petersen did not hold resentment for the opposing team’s relentless chanting. Instead, he graciously took it as a call-to-action. He embodied what UO students should learn to exhibit: understanding.
“It wasn’t what I was hoping my 8-year-old son would hear on the way through town, but I think it was deeper than that,” Petersen said. “For me, it was a chance to self-reflect.”
Petersen talked about his own internal gazing, asking, “Am I being very cautious as a fan or as a community member to respect, appreciate and value all the diversity in my community?”
Petersen’s values rest on an increase of empathy and social awareness; this is something our student body should start mimicking.
There is a limit to how much I can preach about understanding one another before my words — along with the university’s — become nothing more than abstract. Our call-to-action lies in the participation of the liberal morals we claim to uphold. The future calls for a necessary change. Our silent, motionless actions, disguised as apologies, don’t correct the wrongs we have committed. Only concrete actions can change the future course of our hollow, sorrow-filled statements.
