Student groups are expressing anger — and confusion — over a new policy that requires the University “O” logo on all printed materials.
The policy will affect all new materials requested by student groups, including letterheads, fliers and business cards.
“Artistically, that ‘O’ is ugly,” said Chris Blackborn, a member of the Native American Student Association.
Aesthetic concerns aren’t the only problem, according to student groups. University and ASUO officials haven’t officially decided who will enforce the new policy, what will happen to old letterhead and other materials without the logo, and what the consequences will be for groups who don’t comply.
And paying for the change, which was announced Oct. 10, has caused considerable worry on campus.
“We want to know if there’s going to be help or compensation for materials we’ve already printed,” said Women’s Center spokeswoman Jenna Cunningham, who added she was told that funding could be frozen for groups failing to meet a Jan. 1 logo deadline.
“Nothing is being really clearly explained.”
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Alliance Co-Director Austin Shaw-Phillips added that she thought the new policy was “ridiculous.”
“We have a tight budget as it is, and I don’t want to spend money (on new materials) that I could be spending on programs and events,” she said.
University officials said the policy has been misinterpreted.
Harry Battson, associate vice president of strategic communications, said if student groups already have printed materials like stationery, the University will allow them to use up their current supply before integrating the new logo.
“Jan. 1 is a date that we have used with University units, but it’s not a hard-and-fast date,” he said. “I don’t personally believe in waste, and I think we need to be careful not to cause departments to have costs that are unnecessary.”
Battson said the administration was not requiring groups with old materials to immediately order new supplies with the logo.
“One of the misinterpretations here is that we’re trying to force students to do this,” he said. “On the other hand, I think what we’re doing is we’re allowing students to associate themselves formally with the brand of the University.”
But some groups, such as the Oregon Commentator, still think the policy violates free speech and said adding a University logo to some student groups could be equated to an endorsement of questionable material.
“Not only do I think it’s a poor decision in terms of student groups’ rights to express their own views, but it’s also a highly questionable business decision to attach the (University) logo to inflammatory views of some student groups,” Commentator publisher Bret Jacobson said. “In essence, the University is trying to enforce a bad policy that may even turn out to be illegal.”
Opinion is still divided over who, exactly, will implement the new rule. Battson said the University hasn’t decided how the policy will be enforced, while ASUO Accounting Coordinator Jennifer Creighton-Neiwert said the ASUO could freeze new-material funds for groups who aren’t complying by Jan. 1.
ASUO spokeswoman Lacy Ogan said she’s been fielding questions from many student groups who’ve assumed the ASUO made the logo decision.
“This is an effort from the University, not from the ASUO,” she said.
Ogan added that groups will still be able to use their own logo on materials.
“We understand that the (University) wants to maintain continuity, but with allowing each program to have their own logo appended, it still allows them to have that individuality,” she said.
Clarification about the new policy may come this week, as the ASUO is holding three meetings with incidental-fee-funded programs, non-profits and departments.