42 U.S.C. § 1983: Apparently The Only Reason The Commentator Isn’t On Double-Secret Probation Right Now
Hot off the presses! UO Administrators “applaud” and “support” the illegal and arbitrary behavior of the Programs Finance Committee, while tossing a grudging bone to Southworth and that whole damned First Amendment thing.
Now, the fisk . . .
Statement re Oregon Commentator and ASUO Program Finance Committee by Dr. Anne Leavitt and Dr. Greg Vincent
The UO student community is engaged in difficult and controversial discussions around the content of recent editions of the Oregon Commentator, and the ASUO Program Finance Committee’s budget recommendation for that publication. Some focus on the offensive and objectionable nature of material that they feel targeted an individual student leader and the community the student represents. Others focus on principles of protection for speech that may be offensive and hurtful but is not illegal.
We write to recognize the significance of these discussions to the quality of life in our campus community. There are individuals who feel less welcome, less respected, and less safe because of these dialogues.
Yes, Mason Quiroz has been physically intimidating our student group; thanks for noticing! Oh, wait, you’re not talking about that?
There are individuals who find some material in the journal, and the Commentator staff’s convictions that they are entitled to publish speech that may be offensive, almost unbearable.
We write at this time to acknowledge how hurtful biased speech can be to our community.
Pull over. Look at how vague that statement is. ALL speech is biased, and all political speech is failing in its essential purpose if it doesn’t “hurt.” What you mean to say here is “bigoted speech,” so say so. (Of course, to do so invites a vigorous and truthful response from us: We are none of us bigots.) Otherwise you come across sounding like a lilly-livered enemy of free speech. I’m sure you’d hate to give that impression.
We have as a campus community committed to a culture of respect that honors the rights, safety, dignity, and worth of every individual. We have affirmed that respect for the rights and well-being of all members is essential to promoting the diversity of opinions, ideas, and backgrounds that is the lifeblood of the university. We have recognized, as a core value, our commitment to cultural diversity, and we have recently affirmed the protections we afford gender identity in the UO’s non-discrimination statement.
This community must preserve the freedom of thought and expression of all its members. It is important at the same time to speak out, forcefully and directly, when members of our community feel targeted by speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise biased, whether in words or in images.
Sure, it is important that someone speak out. Community members engaging in the marketplace of ideas, most preferably. Excoriate the Commentator in print. Vilify us all night on the radio. Rally and march down 13th howling for our blood. We welcome the challenge!
Just don’t try to defund us. Do not turn the engines of government against our content and try to silence us. That is illegal.
And please, speaking now directly to Drs. Leavitt and Vincent: don’t encourage students to violate the Constitution by trying to defund us. We don’t appreciate it. At the very least, shoot us an email first.
We applaud the leaders of the ASUO for supporting a vigorous dialogue, for recognizing that the Commentator’s subject matter has deeply concerned a number of students, and for encouraging PFC members to preserve our right to speech and to properly fund the Commentator.
Nice of you to acknowledge the Constitution, finally.
We support student leaders who have expressed their concerns about this subject matter, and its chilling impact on our campus climate.
You know, the phrase “chilling impact” is usually…oh, never mind.
We support students, both from the Commentator and others, who have reminded us of important protections to free speech, even as we react to speech that offends us.
Our offices are supporting a number of individual students and student groups participating in these difficult dialogues.
One “student group,” however, has recieved exactly zero “support,” or even a word of communication, while “participating” in these difficult dialogues. Can you guess which one?
The Bias Response Team has provided educational programs on civility and free speech, and offers “QAC: Queer Ally Coalition” training.
We propose that the University’s Bias Response Team, in conjunction with the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity, Student Affairs, ASUO, and the Program Finance Committee, sponsor a forum or town meeting, later this term, so we can come together to discuss how bias incidents and hate speech can divide our community.
Far out. Don’t forget to forget to invite us. Will there also be discussion of how censorship incidents can divide our community? And why is the PFC invited? I’m pretty sure this is about four miles outside their bailiwick.
We will work with student leaders to design a meeting with structure to ensure inclusive, respectful and productive dialogue.
In the interim, we urge all participants in these student government discussions to recognize the importance of a safe community that is respectful and protective of diverse points of view and life style.
You might have also urged all participants to obey federal law. They, like you, need those kinds of reminders.
Dr. Anne Leavitt, Vice President for Student Affairs
Dr. Greg Vincent, Vice Provost Institutional Equity and Diversity
February 9, 2005
_________________________
*42 USC § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
