Eugene Volokh, of the eponymous Conspiracy and UCLA Law, tackles the Insurgent/SoF mini-debacle:

In any case, cheers for the University of Oregon, and a mild Bronx cheer to the Students of Faith. I understand why they’re offended, and I understand that undergraduates can’t be expected to know the ins and outs of First Amendment jurisprudence. But if you’re making assertions about First Amendment law — as the students were doing in their grievance — then you ought to check them with a First Amendment lawyer. And if you’re making arguments for why certain speech should be excluded from university-supported publications, it would help to think harder about the implications of those arguments for speech besides the sort that has made you angry in this particular case.

I know the Students of Faith have been claiming the support of five (?) local attorneys. I’m not sure what legal basis they were/are asserting for their challenge, but I’d be very interested to hear more about it.

I’ve just been booked on the O’Reilly Factor for tomorrow, where I’ll be discussing the Insurgent’s Christ-Penis debacle, as well as Frohnmayer’s handling of the situation. Joining me will be someone from Students of Faith, the ad hoc student group whose petition calling for an open apology from the Insurgent was recently rejected by David Goward. Surely this will be must-see television.

UPDATE by Ian: Just a quick reminder, the Factor’s on at 5:00 and 8:00pm PST on Eugene Comcast channel 48.

ASUO Programs Administrator and Bureaucrat David Goward today announced that he has ruled against the “Students of Faith,” a group created “in response to the recent escalation of religious intolerance at the” UO. Their basic contention is that the Student Insurgent published images and articles which slandered Jesus Christ and that this somehow violates school policy. Goward rightly points out that the publication of offensive images does not affect any student’s educational or professional access:

The Student Insurgent did not practice discrimination. Although students may have been offended by the content, no privileges or opportunities were denied to any incidental fee paying student through the publication of the Student Insurgent. Nor did publication affect a student’s ability to practice her or his religion.

Goward also touches on Southworth:

Decisions regarding awarding incidental fee revenues to and use of incidental fees by student groups must be viewpoint neutral as cited in Soutworth v. University of Wisconsin “We conclude that the University of Wisconsin may sustain the extracurricular dimensions of its programs by using mandatory student fees with viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle.” Except to determine if the publication contributes the physical and cultural development of students, decisions regarding award of incidental fee revenues may not be based on content.

Overall it’s a good, well-written decision. (A 42k .pdf of the ruling can be found here)

There are two pieces about the Insurgent’s cartoons in the Daily Emerald today. The first is the prerequisite reaction to reaction Editorial. To their credit, the ODE Gets It Right:

The ASUO and University should, under no circumstances, have the power to censor student publications. This was clearly established last year during the Oregon Commentator’s battle with the PFC when members of student government and the public tried to have the publication defunded for printing “hate speech.” The ridiculous irony is that members of The Insurgent staff spoke in favor of defunding the publication.

Pira Kelly, former Insurgent contributor, participated in a rally last year to encourage the administration to “take responsibility” for hate speech on campus after the PFC decided to fund the Commentator (“Students protest hate, discrimination” ODE, Feb. 18, 2005).

The point of the student incidental fee is that everyone may end up paying for something they do not support as long as it contributes to the cultural environment and marketplace of ideas at the University, a concept clearly established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Further, labeling any language “hate speech” is tricky business. The Insurgent’s sudden reversal in position from protester to protested demonstrates this perfectly.

Indeed. Of course, the gem of today’s paper is an excellent guest commentary by the Commentator’s own Tyler Graf:

Before spring break, our publication published an editorial lamenting the U.S. media’s inability to properly deal with the Mohammed cartoon controversy, which occurred several months after Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a number of political cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. We did this to put the controversy into context and educate the public. In our editorial, we mention that President Bush squandered a “teachable moment.”

Perhaps, at the University, our own mini-brouhaha will engender a teachable moment — a moment of clear, undiluted resoluteness: Speak freely, but don’t be a jerk. Or perhaps this moment will make us all realize how devalued the word “discrimination” has become, as the Zachary Whites of the world continue to believe that crudely drawn pictures of Jesus sporting a giant pink erection — images viewed primarily by Oregon’s prison population — are discriminatory. Or perhaps it will teach some members of the University community that free speech is an idea worth fighting for, and that it is ultimately intended to protect that which offends or goads.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing. (Oh, and the ODE appears to have inserted a superfluous comma into the second sentence of the second paragraph. The draft Tyler showed me a few days ago was grammatically correct, so I don’t know why they changed it.)

As Ian noted below, Total Choice has gotten us back up and running. He’s also provided a new link to the Insurgent .pdf. The file is unfortunately large (9 megs and change) and all the excess traffic sucked up all of our bandwidth in a matter of days. Our usage generally runs about 2-5 gigs a month, this episode spiked it to 10.63 as of this morning, with more on the way I’d guess. To keep us up and running, even with the no-charge doubling of our hosting for the rest of the month (Thanks Total Choice!), we needed to cut down the size of files going across the server.

To that end I’ve replaced the Insurgent .pdf that was hosted on the OC site with a .pdf that says “HOTLINKING IS THEFT. STOP STEALING.” After I get off of work today I’ll update it to include something a little more polite, and the new URL for the “controversial” issue of The Insurgent. Again, I apologize for the inconvienience, but the website needs to stay up and a 461k file is a lot safer for us than one that’s 9 megs.

That said, thanks to everyone who’s been linking to us. Ian did a great job putting together the Insurgent issue for the web, and we certainly appreciate the attention here at the OC Blog. If you’re new, take a stroll through the archive, read a back issue or two, have a drink, do some coke off of Stevie Nicks, kick your feet up, and relax. And, just FYI, we’re far more Reason than we are NRO.

UPDATE: Rude .pdf replaced with this one (and it’s only 23k!)

I apologize for our earlier downtime tonight. This morning we were using 44% of our 10gb monthly bandwidth allotment. By 9:30 PM, we were at 110% of our quota and our hosting provider promptly restricted access. We’re back up for the moment and the Insurgent .pdf is now being hosted at a different location.

The WorldNetDaily story Ian pointed to has been updated with a quote from an unnamed Frohn-spokesman:

I share your concern about the offensive nature of the content contained within the [Insurgent].

I understand why it may seem as if the University should have prevented publication or should take some action against those responsible for the publication. The Student Insurgent is not owned, controlled or published by the University of Oregon and is funded with student fees. Therefore, the University cannot exercise editorial control over its content.

The best response to offensive speech often is more speech. … I am strongly opposed to speech that makes individuals feel that they or their beliefs are unwelcome or belittled, and I can assure you I will use all permissible means to respond to publications such as the recent Insurgent.

Well, at least nobody had to issue thinly veiled threats of legal action to get a quote out of them this time. That’s progress, right?

UPDATE by Ian: The Register-Guard also has a story concerning the images in today’s paper.

WorldNetDaily, America’s Most Trusted News Source, has an article about Catholic League President Bill Donohue’s efforts to complain to UO President “John Frohnmayer.” Donohue has apparantly learned of the Student Insurgent’s recent issue and, angry at a depiction of Jesus and a friend “sporting erections,” has now directed his ire towards our fair state. My popcorn is on hand.

As the ODW reported earlier today, ASUO Programs Administrator David Goward ruled in favor of the Student Insurgent after UO Student Zachary White filed a grievance alleging that “[t]he articles lacked any analytical or scholary (sic) value, rather [they] were derogatory and discriminatory in nature” and were “a clear case of discrimination being funded by the student incidental fee.” Seeing as how White failed to actually list any sort of violation of the Green Tape Notebook, Goward ruled that the Insurgent was not in violation of any of the rules.

While I’m here, why not take a relaxing stroll down memory lane: all the way back to 2005, when the issue of controversial speech on campus was also in the news. Back then, of course, the issue was whether the Commentator was allowed to mock a student senator who I can’t be bothered to name here for demanding that the ODE refer to him as “ze” instead of “he” in their stories. The Insurgent allied themselves firmly with a branch of student government that did its very best to have the Commentator shut down, and provided us with many instructive quotes along the way:

As a student who pays incidental fees, I refuse to allow my fees to promote hate…

That’s Insurgent fellow-traveller Stacy Bourke, expressing her views on the range of opinions the incidental fee should subsidize on campus.

I don’t think students should pay for hateful messages. That’s poor use of student money.

That’s disgraced fomer PFC member Mason Quiroz, in an article that points out that he “is not judging the [campus publication]’s content, but rather how that content might affect students.”

My favorite, though, is:

[Someone who might as well have been Zachary White] is by far not the only person who feels threatened by the [campus publication]’s material, just the first person with the skills and courage to start dealing with it. people have been complaining for years about the way the [campus publication] reinforces oppression, it’s just that there hasn’t been a coherent attempt to deal with it before now. honestly, i’m not sure why people are complaining that it’s happening now rather than asking why nothing was done before.

That little gem is the work of Insurgent collective member Pira “Anti-Capitalism? I Thought You Said Anti-Capitalization!” Kelly, who strove so valiantly last year to have the Commentator kicked off campus.

One wonders how the Insurgent collective - and especially Ms. Kelly - likes these particular apples.

Hello, all. Couldn’t resist chiming in on this one. It’s almost too good.

First, while it would be deliciously ironic if the Insurgent could be shut down for this, they clearly have the right of the issue here. Alas, I doubt they have the brains to learn anything about the benefits of a free press from this eminently teachable moment.

Secondly, unless this is all a brilliant joke (which I also doubt; see link below) Zachary White really needs to grow a pair:

It struck me as I read it that it is now OK to discriminate against the beliefs of Christians in our campus community, which hypocritically prides itself as being tolerant…

What does it mean to “discriminate against the beliefs of Christians”? To not share those beliefs? To make fun of them? To argue against them? I’m sure the Insurgent’s anti-Christian tirade was as bad as the rest of the stuff they publish, so why not ignore it and go about your day, or mock them right back, or - if you feel you absolutely must - attempt to seriously rebut their points? What does it say about your faith that it needs protection from needling by this bunch of anarcho-halfwits?

Of course, this is only the first piece of the inevitable blowback from allowing religious groups to demand uncritical acceptance of their own various beliefs and practices from the slavering secular hordes. (Insert your own cartoon of the prophet Mohammed here.) White’s insistence that his delicate sensibilites should enjoy administrative protection from challenge or ridicule is childish and (dare I say) un-American, but isn’t this a tantalizing glimpse of the world that the Insurgent collective claims to want? A campus climate in which people can feel accepted, dammit!

I got a weird sense of deja vu after reading White’s op-ed the other day, and sure enough: a little Googling reveals that we have encountered this fellow before. Not much seems to have changed in the interim.

Anyway, it has been a while since we’ve had a round of Tim vs. Catholicism, hasn’t it? I’m going to take a shot every time he says “papist”, and I encourage you to join me.

As Tim mentioned earlier there’s been a bit of a brouhaha over the latest issue of the Student Insurgent, the University of Oregon’s student-run Marxist/Anarchist publication.

In their latest issue, the Insurgent Collective decided to print a number of depictions of Jesus in various poses. As a headline on page 11 of the issue makes clear, their purpose in printing the comics was to confront Christians. And as Collective individual “Jessica” says on page 16, “I have to say it is really fun to offend people.”

Regardless of content, people and organizations should not be censored for speech that’s considered “offensive” or “hateful.” Indeed, we support the publication and round denunciation of ideas and opinions which are bigoted or inappropriate. The best way to counter the free expression of bad ideas is with the free expression of good ideas.

Of course, the Insurgent collective does not necessarily agree with us. Last year, Collective individual Pira Kelly was one of the loudest supporters of the effort to defund the Oregon Commentator. She passed out pink armbands symbolizing the fight against free speech before our budget hearing. What a difference a year makes!

Anyway, we’ve put the Insurgent issue in question up in .pdf form since we have no ideological qualms about technology. Please note that it is not our opinion and does not reflect this author’s own views or beliefs. Also, since the format of their magazine was too wide for our scanner we’ve had to splice each page together. If a member of the Collective would like to put a better copy on the web, I know that I for one would appreciate it.

UPDATE: I notice that we’ve been getting a significant bit of traffic thanks to links from Hot Air and a few other blogs. For those of you who are new: thanks for visiting. You may have noticed that the Student Insurgent mentioned our own publication of the Muhammed cartoons as one of their justifications for printing the anti-Christian drawings. I encourage you to read the issue in question and decide for yourself if the Commentator’s presentation and editorial are comparable in tone and substance to the Insurgent’s. As always, I believe that context is everything.

UPDATE: You can find an archive of our blog’s coverage of the Insurgent (including more recent tidbits) here.

The ODE this morning points to a small battle between our dearest friends The Insurgent and the University administration. Well, okay, mail services.

Apparently The Insurgent doesn’t qualify for use of the University’s non-profit bulk mailing discount. Seems odd, as the entire time I spent at the OC we used the bulk mail price to send out issues to alumns. The Frohn insists this was in the works before this issue of The Insurgent, but I don’t feel particularly inclined to believe him. Given his incredibly spineless history as University President, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he’s concerned with the University’s image and is making up an excuse. They should just mail the damn things, and proceed with corrections to the rate from there. It doesn’t seem like student groups were informed of this new policy in an efficient and timely manner, so the right thing to do is mail these copies of The Insurgent and change the policy going forward.

My favorite part of the article, though, is this bit:

University student Zachary White filed a grievance with the ASUO against the publication April 13.

“As a student minister at the Newman Center, and as a faithful Catholic who has never ridiculed the beliefs of others, I find it intolerable and contrary to the University’s mission of tolerance and non-discrimination to use public funds to allow for discrimination of a religious group on campus,” according to White’s grievance.

Never ridiculed the beliefs of others, eh? You ever recited the Nicene Creed there, papist? I mean, that’s sort of a defacto ridicule of non-Christian beliefs*. Never? So you’re one of those folks who thinks all beliefs are equally valid? I mean, really, you going to file a grievance against the ODE for allowing Ailee Slater to say that Hamas’s viewpoint could use some improvement?

Ridicule of belief is, frankly, an incredibly important aspect of the war of ideas. Moreover, it’s good, old-fashioned fun. Regardless of the merits of The Insurgent’s claims, they have a right to publish them as they see fit. Frankly, I think it’s incredibly myopic to say that Christianity has had nothing but a negative influence on western culture over the past 2000 years. Much of cultural development, especially in the areas of philosophy and science, are the direct result of Christianity’s influence. Sure, science goes back to Aristotle in some form, but to deny the influence of Aquinas is completely stupid as far as I’m concerned. Hell, Newton was a Puritan and it’s arguable that those beliefs stongly influenced his drive to understand the natural world. Note: I am an atheist, but I want to point out how incredibly silly I think The Insurgent’s position is.

Anyway, digressions aside, White needs to grow up and realize that nobody has a right not to be offended. The University needs to just go ahead and send the damn commie rags because that’s the right thing to do. And, lastly, I need a damn nap because I am cranky.
_______________________________
*note, I am totally fine with ridiculing the beliefs of others, as some beliefs are patently stupid.

The Student Insurgent tonight asked the Student Senate for $850 in surplus funds in order to take eight members to the Eleventh Annual Anarchist Book Fair. This is their second special request of the year for funds to go on a trip, the first asking for $800 out of surplus to attend a conference. They wanted to bring eight people along on their trip, but it was quickly revealed that some of the people going were not fee-paying students. While the ASUO Executive deserves credit for bringing the issue to the attention of the Senate, it was Don Goldman who admitted when pressed that two of the people coming along were not fee-paying students. Who were the two people? One is unknown, but the other was John Walsh, the on campus NORML advocate who’s been a part of the Insurgent Collective for 12 years and is unfortunately not related to ASUO President Adam Walsh.

Considering that paying for non-fee students to go on trips is a gross violation of the spirit- if not the letter- of the Green Tape Notebook, the Senate ultimately voted to stop discussion with only Mike Filippelli dissenting.

If you think we’re going over the top here, I assure you: we only do so when our survival is at stake. The situation is not exactly unprecedented, of course: the question of what can be printed on campus is perennial. I even dimly recall one of these controversies myself. I think it provides a teachable moment, although it’ll take a while to lay out in detail.

Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I’ll begin.

Dateline January 2001, when Southworth was still fresh in our minds. The good ol’ Student Insurgent, just being adorable, decided to tackle the issue of animal research. Being insurgents, their approach involved reproducing a primer from the Animal Liberation Front on effective ways to commit sabotage and property damage - and being students, they juxtaposed it with a list of various professors’ names and home addresses. Emerald coverage here.

Not surprisingly, many people felt this was going a bit far. While the professors were public figures - the same way that members of the ASUO Senate are public figures, for example - the Insurgents weren’t just calling the professors “silly [and] self-aggrandizing” - they seemed to be tacitly recommending the perpetration of violent acts against them. Emerald outrage here.

The PFC, in its frequently assumed capacity as a moral compass, swung ponderously into action. While they approved the group’s budget and mission statement, they placed the money in a holding fund and denied the group access to it pending resolution of the legal issues. Again, let me stress: the paper printed the home addresses of these professors alongside an Animal Liberation Front handout on how to best commit acts of property damage, and their budget passed PFC. Emerald argle-bargling here. Unfortunately, the Insurgent’s web presence doesn’t contain this issue (nor has it been updated for the last three years) but their somewhat unconvincing claim to be merely fostering a dialogue seems to have been listened to. (I’m sure that the presence of collective member Willie Thompson on PFC at the time had nothing to do with this.)

And what happened? Well, of course, the PFC was flagrantly exceeding their authority, and got their asses handed back to them. The Insurgent is still with us, and the campus is the richer for it, lunatics though they may be. Emerald flapdoodling here. Our own response is locked up in a PDF file halfway down this page (Issue VII) but is worth quoting:

On an aesthetic level, [the Insurgent] reads more like a parody of itself, a grab-bag of mindless rants, dialectical arguments, and unmitigated hypocrisy. It’s ugly, poorly edited and barely laid out. The spelling is wrong, the graphics are pointless, the headlines are non sequiturs, the content is reprinted filler and the logic is circular… That said, the Insurgent does not, by any means, deserve to lose its funding, not this year at least. If the PFC really is afraid of a lawsuit against the Insurgent “jeopardizing the fee”, as so many student government wonks often dread, they’re just not familiar with the First Amendment case law… While extreme, [the Insurgent’s] beliefs are relevant to much of the curriculum, from sociology to biology and women’s studies. In the short run, Frohnmayer could rule otherwise and the tradition of allowing unpopular political speech in the court system would reverse the outcome.

Nice work there, Bill (I think). Once more for the record: home addresses, primer on sabotage, budget and mission statement passed PFC.

To paraphrase Patrick Henry: if this be hate speech, make the most of it! You sack of bastards.