As a University graduate
and proud alumni of the Emerald news staff, I was sickened to
learn that Programs Finance
Committee members continue
to wieldnchecked power to stifle
free speech and use faulty logic to attack campus media. That said, I wasn’t completely surprised, either.
Last year, while I was the
managing editor of the Emerald, the paper’s budget was assaulted by the ASUO Executive, which
argued that the Emerald shouldn’t
receive student money because non-students might pick up a
copy of the paper. That asinine reasoning was quickly shot down, however, by a simple analogy: The Executive also recommended an increase for other groups, such as OSPIRG, that partake in campaigns that don’t directly benefit all students (cleaning up the Willamette River, for instance).
This year, the PFC had the
audacity to call for complete defunding of the paper based on the clear genius of Mason “viewpoint neutral” Quiroz, who made the profound assessment that extra newspapers are left in the Emerald boxes at the end of the day. Scandalous! From this astute observation, Quiroz was somehow able to conclude from one stack of leftover papers that students didn’t read the Emerald — at all! (Quiroz said: “students shouldn’t have to pay … for a paper that isn’t read.”)
I surely hope, for the sake of all other student groups, that this isn’t the defining logic of the PFC.
Whether you agree with its editorial stance or coverage, the Emerald is an award-winning, more than 100-year-old student-run publication that has produced and continues to boast many outstanding journalists. The PFC would be hard pressed to find a finer group of student journalists. At the Emerald, dedication is an understatement when you are juggling a full class schedule and working countless hours to produce daily content. In the end, it isn’t the money that drives Emerald news staff — it’s the paper’s mission of informing students and providing an open forum for the free flow of ideas (clearly something with which the PFC isn’t familiar).
Given that, any fan and fighter of the First Amendment will recognize the obvious absurdity of a government body controlling the budgets of the same campus media that serve as watchdogs to student government. Is it simply coincidence that PFC has attempted to silence both the Oregon Commentator and the Emerald, two publications with the most exposure on campus, at a time that PFC has come under scrutiny for illegal actions, such as smoking pot and vandalizing private property at a student-sponsored event? Is it not a travesty in the face of American free speech that both publications have exercised their rights to be critical of elected leaders, only to be attacked by those same leaders at a budgetary level? It stinks of censorship, and if Quiroz, who suggested defunding, thinks he can go through life silencing any entity that criticizes him as a public figure, then I’m eager to witness the day he wakes up to realize he is sorely mistaken.
The proud history of the Emerald spans far beyond the short sight of Quiroz and his cronies. Just ask Drex Heikes or Mike Fancher — successful editors of the Los Angeles Times Magazine and The Seattle Times, respectively, and both Emerald alumni. I think they’d agree that Quiroz’s arms aren’t nearly long enough to box with the First Amendment.

Jan Tobias Montry was 2003-04 managing editor of the Emerald