1. University of Oregon President Richard Lariviere released a white paper outlining his idea for a restructure of University funding and management. The proposal includes a $1.6 billion endowment for the university, a portion of which would be financed by state bonds. The legislature is not pleased, but it certainly has folks talking.

2. The UO got grilled hard by the Oregon Senate Business and Transportation Committee about the $227 million arena project, the process for which did not involve an open bidding process, as would most large scale university projects. The committee also tapped into the Bellotti Buyout. The essence of the Willamette Week article linked to above:

“The university does not inspire confidence,” says committee chairman Sen. Rick Metsger (D-Welches). “What you get from this project is either they don’t know what they’re doing or they don’t want the public to know. Neither is good.”

The process for building the arena is actually pretty convoluted and complicated, and many people are displeased with the progress.

3. The State of Oregon has a pretty unsustainable budget, to the tune of $563 million that will come in across the board cuts to all state entities. Including a $4.7 million cut to the University of Oregon.

4. The University Senate confirmed large-scale campus speech policy changes, with the addition of a Freedom of Inquiry Policy and Facilities Use Policy. This is a real victory for administrators, who wanted to deal with the Pacifica Forum issue but not be seen as only promoting certain kinds of speech or, y’know, violating the First Amendment. The new facilities use policy dictates that only university recognized groups — not individuals — can access space for free. “Non-university entities” can still have space, but they have to pay for it. You can read the Register-Guard’s opinion here.

5. The UO created an Office of Public Records to deal with public records requests as Lariviere tries to deal with the aftermath of the Mike Bellotti deal and an athletic program on the fringes of his reach. They’re hiring a public records officer, if you’re looking for a job.

6. Tuition is going up again. No, seriously.

7. Phil Knight’s private company, Phit LLC, wants to construct additional football facilities to the Len Casanova Athletic Center. But they want to do it in a way that sidesteps the public bidding process by having this private company lease the land from the university, construct on it, and then donate the finished project back to the University of Oregon. The state approves.

8. Jeremiah Masoli got kicked off the UO football team for getting pulled over with a suspended license and marijuana in his car after rolling a stop sign. Masoli was a good quarterback. He just keeps getting himself into trouble.

9. Colorado joined the Pac-10. Texas said no. People are concerned with the implications of where the university’s priorities lay. I just like the math and the excitement of it all. GO DUCKS!

And that brings us to today. Those were some things that happened.

I am a firm believer that if you leave the Pacifica Forum protesters alone, they’ll continue to meet on campus in a small room, and nobody will even know they exist. Like before. Pacifica Forum protesters talk about how having the Pacifica Forum on campus will bring those with similar views to the UO, but until the protesters made a big fuss, most people didn’t know that PF even existed on our campus. The large-scale media attention that followed served to create the whole notion that individuals would flock to the UO campus because they sympathized with PF’s views. The protesters actually created more of the problem that they were — and still are — trying to mitigate.

Additionally, isn’t Orval Etter like, really really old? Isn’t he the only reason that PF are continuing to meet on campus? Not to be rude/mean/insensitive, but when Mr. Etter is no longer with us, won’t PF no longer meet on campus? And isn’t that likely to happen kind of soon?

Anyway, I really think talking about this is bringing more attention to the issue. The Ol’ Dirty opinion desk wrote an open letter to Pacifica Forum protesters yesterday, and I thought it was spot on:

But after six months of protesting, it’s time to face the facts — the Forum isn’t leaving the University or disbanding anytime soon. The Forum has the right to meet on University property because its founder, Orval Etter, is a professor emeritus. The Forum’s right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment, even though the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Forum a hate group.

…
[T]ry finding a new cause to protest. The Forum is a small, isolated group that isn’t growing a following and isn’t going to change its ways. Protesting the Forum is starting to seem like a lost cause, for a while at least, and there are thousands of other causes begging for awareness. Try directing your efforts to larger-scale projects that will reach a larger audience and engage more of the University community.

There is good work to be done, and lots of screwed up things to be protested. Move on, friends.

Eugene police arrested a woman Friday at the Pacifica Forum meeting on campus, while others were given citations after protesters deployed a stink bomb to disrupt the meeting.

. . .

The Emerald was unable to confirm how many protesters received citations on Friday. DPS spokesperson Sgt. Adam Lillengreen declined to comment, saying the report first had to be released at its scheduled time later today. Protesters who were given citations are not allowed back onto University property for 18 months.

. . .

Black Tea Society spokesperson Damage, who declined to give his legal name out of safety concerns, refused to give names of the other protesters who received citations. Damage also said he thought six Black Tea Society members were issued citations on Friday.

Let the shitshow begin, I suppose.

The University Senate denounces in the strongest possible terms the hateful speech that is frequently expressed at the Pacifica Forum and deplores the pseudo-debates that Pacifica Forum portrays as serious intellectual inquiry, and the University Senate will publicize this stand widely throughout the University community.

Now that that’s out of the way, does anyone want to talk about how water bottles are bad? Or maybe about Duck athletes getting into trouble? I’m bored.

ASUCSD president Utsav Gupta pulled funding to 33 campus media outlets on February 20, following coinciding with perfectly with the dying Pacifica Forum outrage.

Apparently, “Jigaboo Jones,” a local radio shock-jock, organized a party he called the “Compton Cookout” with the help of several fraternity members. Jones, in his own off-color way of celebrating Black History Month, used the ghetto for the party’s theme. The facebook ad encouraged attendees to dress ghetto style, telling men to roll with their “Jersey’s, stuntin’ up in ya White T” and  women to “have short, nappy hair.” No fraternity houses hosted the party, although several members of the UCSD Greek community helped organize it.

Days after the party, outrage of the offensive stereotypes swept UCSD. And in politics, you cry to state litigators instead of mom and dad. Legislative pressure prompted UCSD authorities to launch an “aggressive investigation” (Why hello, Joe McCarthy) of the students involved in promoting the party.

UCSD publication “The Koala,” known for patently racist and provocative content, aired a public statement on SRTV objecting to the investigations. The statement used the words the words “ungrateful n—-rs” among other racial slurs, according to Adam Kissel of FIRE.

In response to the advertisement, Gupta dissolved SRTV based on contractual permits which allow president to dissolve any media that breeches its contract.

Gupta says he was prompted to dissolve SRTV because he found out that Koala Program was produced illegally. “We [ASU President and VP] have authorization in cases of noncomplience to pull funding from programs” he says.

He additionally froze funding to 33 media organizations to review their content and look at whether the ASU is funding publications that harass and target community members. “The past few days here at UCSD have been intense” he says.

Gupta explains that the freeze is not permenent but temporary. “The 33 program list is actually inflated” he claims. Of the 33 programs listed, 14 have already published issues and have funding to finish their publications for the term. Gupta says the ASUCSD plans to review the publications and return funding when they have  determined that the publications serve a public interest.

The fraternities suspended their members responsible for advertising the party, and the University launched “aggressive investigations” of the students. University Chancellor Mary Anne Fox was unavailable for comment on what the “investigations” were for. Considering how disciplining students for their actions would snap the first amendment neatly in half, I imagine they are investigating “whether or not the students did something mean”. What they’ll do after finding that students have prejudiced views is beyond me.

In the meantime, the University has set up a website, battlehate.com, to keep updated on what has basically become a massive PR circlejerk centered around taking down “hate-and bias-related events”.  The link to Utsav Gupta’s reasoning for shutting down SRTV was conspicuously broken, and the rest of the site seems to be about everyone giving each other back rubs and fighting the h8ers.

Forces beyond the University are also calling for punishment of the students. According to FIRE’s release, members of the California State Legislature are calling for names, suspensions, and possibly expulsions of the involved students. Such members include Speaker-elect John Pérez, Speaker Karen Bass, and Assemblymember Isador Hall III.

Naturally FIRE jumped all over the issue, and sent two letters to the University on February 22. The first is directed at President Gupta regarding his media freeze actions, and the second at Chancellor Mary Anne Fox regarding the investigations.

FIRE alleges that The University’s actions of investigations and media freezes  are unconstitutional, and that they are motivated by pressure from state legislatures to penalize students for protected speech. In their letter, FIRE says that “has violated the procedures for handling SRTV complaints and non-compliance issues as given in the Standing Rules” and issued a list of requests to reinstate the media. As of this writing, the UCSD Chancellery has yet to respond to FIRE.

The list followed with reminders that the ASUC is still an agent of the University and subordinate to University administrators, who are obligated to act in the interests of the First Amendment.

In light of the anti-fascism rallies at the U of O recently, the ASUC shutting down all campus media in response to hate speech comes at an ironically appropriate time. Maybe UCSD administration should consult legal aid before they bend over for a handful of zealous state legislators.

As has been the case too many times, student bodies have tried to defund speech they find offensive and hateful. Perhaps Ustav Gupta should read up on Southworth V Univ. Wisconsin Board of Regents, in which the Supreme Court established unconstitutionality of allocating student fees based on content.

The world is not a happy, good place. Anyone who has ventured beyond the politically correct walls of education knows. Trying to enforce decency in a public institution, not matter how noble the cause, is still illegal. People don’t become nice through the regulation of what they say.

What has ensued is a disaster of epic proportions. It began with protesters meeting and shouting down speaker for their “pro-Nazi” views. The issue then became about safety, with an attack directed toward a student group directly after. Finally, it has evolved into something so hideous, so disgusting it’s almost unbearable to write about. Yes, the Pacifica Forum has become a soap opera.

From all sides, the characters fill their Jungian archetypes as if they felt the ever-present frame of a soft lens and a dimly backlit stage. An e-mail from Billy Rojas surfaced recently that suggested that there was some kind of co-dependant love triangle between several Pacifica Forum members, resulting with the Forum’s host, Orval Etter, becoming open to persuasion for upcoming topics.

But we have seen the drama crest fall as well, hitting a low when two weeks ago the National Socialist Movement – a group of neo-Nazis – failed to show up at Forum. Just when the hippies had called in their “militants” to protest them, we miss out on a skin-head/freegan battle royale.

We’ve even seen the drama unfold on our own blog. Dawn Coslow, an active participant in the Pacifica Forum, went back-and-forth with other readers in the comment sections for weeks. Students seem to have taken issue with us, needlessly, as well. When we published a series of e-mails between an ASUO Senator and a student, the hammer somehow came down on the Commentator, despite both parties having willingly sent us the e-mails. “It was,” they said, “a mistake.”

Yet despite our own student’s poor understanding of journalism law, that is what this whole debate has been. A mistake. It’s been a mistake on the part of the public, who have come to assume that the Pacifica Forum is a “Nazi group.” It’s been a mistake on the part of the anti-Pacifica protesters, who lodged their complaints in the realm of free speech, then quickly changed it to “safety.”

But mostly, it’s been a mistake on the part of all of us, equally, for giving the Pacifica Forum it’s due attention when clearly they are undeserving. The Forum hosts debates about highly controversial topics, but continually fails to offer a complete point/counterpoint discussion from equally opposite sides. What the Forum is, essentially, is a series of crackpots – Nazis, holocaust deniers etc. – and a few speakers who unenthusiastically try to refute their insane claims.

What we’ve done, essentially, is give weight to the words of a room full of Dale Gribbles. Stroking their ego, they no doubt meticulously checked this blog, the Emerald and the Insurgent for precious mentions of their forum during the last two months. But the whole thing has come crashing down lately. With the “who is giving who the business?” talk in Billy Rojas’ recent e-mail, we have undoubtedly finished the final scene of Act III. The Pacifica Forum has climaxed, and sweet Jesus I’m glad the curtain has closed.

It seems that through a highly convoluted series of events, the Student Insurgent has coincidentally “intercepted” a message from Billy Rojas, which has been denied as being a fake. Even if the e-mail is real, it’s long and boring and I don’t really need to go over its contents. The best part is that the Black Tea Society has decided to call on anti-Pacifica supporters from all over the state to protest the next Pacifica meeting on the 12th because of the e-mail.

Here’s where it gets juicy. The Black Tea Society intends to bring militants to the University of Oregon campus in order to protest the Pacifica Forum. That’s right… militants.

“Militants wishing to participate in this action should arrive in front of Agate Hall on the University of Oregon campus, this Friday February 12th at 4:30pm”

In case you didn’t read that correctly, that means the anti-Pacifica people–the ones concerned with student safety–are bringing militants to our area. Their reasoning?

“The Northwest is front line of the the battle against the fascism, many of their ilk are hoping to make this part of the country where they make their stand, it is also where we and all students of history will put an end to them. ( we mean end philosophically of course)”

Oh, philosophically. Well in that case, right this way sirs. My fears are put to rest, and this no longer seems highly hypocritical, since you mean to end their existence “philosophically”. Here I was thinking that inviting militants–which, mind you, is a far different term than mere “protesters” and takes on the assumption that by calling a group “militants” they are inherently a group that is unafraid to use violence as a means of enforcing their views–was a bad idea. Now I see that everything’s OK because you’re going to battle them philosophically.

Although I admit it would be hilarious to watch a bunch of smelly, protein-deficient freegans mix it up with a group of old men, I find it hard to believe that the Black Tea Society, and the anti-Pacifica movement in general, doesn’t see this as an inherent escalation of the situation in general. Bringing a violent-minded group to such a hostile environment will inevitably only exacerbate things, and if things go south–if violence breaks out–their entire argument goes to pot.

Further, the fact that they use words and phrases like “battle” and “make their stand” conjures up images of a violent nature. I understand that it’s just neohippie babble being used to stir up some testosterone, but it seems hardly a smart idea being as how they’ve been harping on the Pacifica Forum for “inciting violence”.

I can see it now–too many DPS and EPD officers, masked trustafarians with drums and a very old man in a wheelchair. Components of a massive riot. I find it amazing that the anti-Pacifica side of this debate has been the first side to publicly and specifically call individuals of a violent nature to this campus.

Actually, now that I think about it, it’s not that surprising.

My question now is where is the ASUO Senate on all of this? Will there be a separate resolution banning anti-anti-Pacifica violent protesters as well? Not to disappoint you, but that resolution could have been. A student (who shall remain nameless until I acquire his permission) turned in to us an edition of the resolution that had more general denunciations of bigotry and perpetrators of an “unsafe environment” on campus.

The purpose of this more general, less Pacifica-specific language? “To include the campus protesters. Technically, according to University bigotry codes, many of them qualify,” he said (If I get the permission to, I’ll publish the resolution that could have been). In the meantime, I’ve got a big, shiny penny for anyone who files a resolution, and gets it sponsored, that says the ASUO stands resolute against individuals or groups who knowingly bring militant, dangerous groups to campus.

In any case, I won’t be attending the Pacifica meeting  for fear of my safety. You know, because of the militants.

QUESTION:
PACIFICA FORUM IS…:
A)     A Neo-Nazi Group
B)      Responsible for vandalizing LGBTQA
C)      A Free Speech Group
D)     Against feminism, homosexuality, and ethnic equality.
E)      A White Supremacist Group
F)      Responsible for the anti-Semitic note
G)     Loving, respectful, intelligent people
H)     All of the above

ANSWER KEY:
A)     If you answered (A), you get an F. They’re not Nazis, or so they claim, but they talk about Nazism sometimes. Some members could possibly be Fascist, though probably not… but Fascism doesn’t inherently come with racism, sexism and bigotry (as illustrated by Imperial Japan). So, if you’re the protester whose been holding up that “smash fascism” sign, you get an F-.
B)      If you answered (B), you get an F. Until someone’s arrested, nobody’s responsible for vandalizing LGBTQA. When someone is arrested, they (the person) will be responsible for vandalizing LGBTQA. Kind of self explanatory.
C)      If you answered (C), you get a D. Just high enough to not have to take the test ever again. Because, in truth, every group that ever talks about anything is a free speech group. Do they exist solely for the empowerment of the First Amendment? Doubtful, considering it doesn’t really need to be empowered. So if you answered (C), you kind of cheated. But at least you have deductive reasoning.
D)     If you answered (D), you get an F. Some people in Pacifica may hate lots of stuff, some may even speak about it, or be intolerant about it, but that doesn’t mean the group represents those ideals, it means some people in the group do. Kind of self explanatory. Again.
E)      If you answered (E), you get an F. Same answer as (D).
F)      If you answered (F), you get an F. Same answer as (B).
G)     If you answered (G), you don’t just get an F, you get a WTF.
H)     If you answered (H), you don’t even get a grade because you’ve been kicked out.

So, what is the answer? You’re going to laugh. I promise.

I’ve attended several Pacifica meetings now to observe. I’ve watched idiotic protesters wave signs, ring phones, cry about things that they don’t actually understand. I’ve watched idiotic Forum speakers talk about things that would be humorous to credit with validity, pathetic concepts that no thoughtful person would ever think to give assembly for. The answer, dear campus, is that Pacifica Forum is a conspiracy theory group. Yeah, maybe not all of them believe the conspiracies, maybe some of them (hopefully the ex-Professors) know more about subjective truths and just are open to housing extremist concepts. But the fact remains that these concepts are discussed. They talk about concepts that are so inherently dumb (like that MLK was a Commie, of Jews killed 66 million people in Russia—very common conspiracy theories) that it’s nothing short of funny. The group is not malicious. The group is not dangerous. The group is not trying to hurt anybody, intentionally. The group is not trying to be hateful, intentionally. It’s just that… they’re dumb. Dumb for believing conspiracy theory, or dumb for providing it a venue. Either way.

But for the love of Mary, stop protesting a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Stop giving them attention; stop validating the fact that their theories are even worth opposing. They’re not going to go away, they will continue to use their free speech and further outlandish ideas. Why can’t we all just ignore them and let them piddle away onto the backburner where they belong? Why can’t the protest just leave them alone and let them be stupid in isolation? WHY HAVE YOU EXPOSED THE REST OF US TO STUPIDITY THAT WE NEVER WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT?!

Right now the protest is conspiring about just as much bologna as the Forum by arguing with them. They have provided foul behavior and misinformation just the same. The protest has come no closer to kicking Pacifica off campus then they were on day one, so why does it continue? The actions of both of these groups are so utterly demoralizing to our faith in human-kind that it’s making us sane people lump both Pacifica members and the protest members together into a collective group that we just call “the dummies.”

And if all of “the dummies” don’t shut up about all of this pretty soon, I’m going to have to start a protest against them.

Tomorrow: Protest Pop Quiz!

The controversy started when Gower did not follow the speakers list–an ordered list for members to abide by–and instead called on Senator Lindsay Reichardt, out of turn. Schultz accused Gower of abuse of power, and called to question Gower’s action. Sens. McCafferty and Gower told Schultz he was not allowed to question that specific action of the Chair (Gower). Schultz, along with ASUO President Emma Kallaway, left the meeting for approximately 40 minutes and came back with a book of Robert’s Rules of Order–the governing rules the ASUO abides by.

From here, the situation escalated into a term I’m trying to coin here lately (patent pending)–a McDisasterfuck. Schultz had figured out that Gower and McCafferty were wrong, and that if two or more Senators called to question the actions of the Chair (Gower) then they could indeed discuss it.

Unfortunately, Gower’s initial move–in calling on Reichardt–was entirely viable. According to Robert’s Rules, the speaker’s list is merely an act of good faith, and technically the Chair (Gower) can call on whomever they please, regardless of the order of the speaker’s list. I asked Schultz if, had he known that Gower’s calling on Reichardt was complicit with the Rules, the entire situation could have been avoided. “Yes I suppose it could have,” he said.

When I asked Schultz if he felt that Gower was still in the wrong he said, “Well, he wasn’t in the wrong by the rules but he was wrong by the normal way we’ve done it for years in Senate–abiding by the speakers list. I’ve never seen anyone go off of it like that. It was rude.”

When asked if “rudeness” was an appropriate reason to call for the resignation of the ASUO Senate President Schultz said, “I suppose not. But I believe the issue is one of communication. Gower and I have very different styles. If he understood the rule [the one allowing him to call on Reichardt] then he should have explained it to us. Nick knows Robert’s Rules very well–probably the best out of anyone of the Senate. It should have been a learning experience for us.”

Senate Treasurer Lyzi Diamond said that she agreed with Schultz’s premise that the experience should be one the Senate can learn from, “But I don’t think the Senate floor is a proper place to do it. Office hours, down in the ASUO office, is the proper place to discuss such matters.”

Schultz disagreed, “I think we can learn right there, right on the floor. I think we should be explaining everything we do with each other.” On that note, I asked Schultz if the Senate had a communication problem, “I think Nick and I have a communication problem, but we’re actively working on changing that.”

Later that night, Schultz sent out an e-mail to the Senate and the press that said, in part:

“I apologize for my irrational outburst this evening.  Quite frankly, it was uncalled for.  My unprofessional behavior was both an embarrassment to myself and the ASUO Student Senate as a whole.  It is quite clear to me that I have become a detriment to this body and the work it is hoping to accomplish.  I have a short agenda which I would like to accomplish prior to departing the ASUO Student Senate.  Once I have accomplished the tasks I have remaining, I will voluntarily step down from a position of leadership at the University of Oregon.”

Schultz, for the second week in a row, threatened his own resignation in the e-mail. He also apologized to Gower personally:

“I will inform you when I feel I have completed my time with the ASUO

…

I am sorry if I embarrassed you in a public environment.  That was wrong to do.”

When I spoke with Schultz today he said he does not plan on resigning, “I only have 3 months left, I’d be letting down my constituency. I’m graduating soon, I think it’s best that I stay.”

If such McDisasterfucks could be avoided in the future, surely a better understanding of Robert’s Rules of Order might help. Schultz agreed, “I encourage any and all Senators to learn the Rules. It’s part of our job and it will make everything easier.”