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.”

Since two weeks ago, much has happened. A Student Senate resolution was declined, a protest was outraged, and a hideous act of vandalism was induced. I was worried, perhaps erroneously, that these events could have clouded the judgment of our institution like they have clouded judgment of many protesters and student body (much of the student body still thinks “Pacifica Forum” is a “Neo-Nazi Group,” hence the populace of the “Anti-Pacifica” Facebook group).

I am humbled and relieved at the remarkable objectivity and forward thinking of our administration. I now know that it was unfair of me to equate the mental capacity of our university officials with the riotous aggrandized assertions of some undergraduate protests; I irrationally feared that the UO would get swept away in the deep rooted emotion of many of the students, a very alluring mentality.

I may say with confidence now that my fear has been put to rest.

Realists–the things that I am about to say are absolutes. They are not arguable, they are not protestable (which I recognize is not a word, but Shakespeare made up words so I will too). They are the actions that the University of Oregon is obligated and passionate about implementing or refusing, and I agree with them wholeheartedly.

First and foremost, as of right now the Pacifica Forum will NOT (repeat NOT) be eradicated from this campus by the University of Oregon.  The administration, along with nearly every person familiar with the Pacifica issue, sympathizes with those who are morally strained. We sympathize with those who have been the target of hate speech and repugnant language. We are committed to making all persons (not just students) who have been in undesirable contact with irrational racists, sexists, or bigots feel empowered: feel safe: feel free to express themselves against such hatred: feel liberated.

It was made clear to me that eradicating Pacifica, even if they may promote or allow or encourage extremist thought, is not the solution to empower those hurt and affected. The concepts of bigotry and racism are not new to this community and not the sole responsibility of Pacifica. Removing Pacifica will not amend this hate. Next, a First Amendment group will be founded by a current faculty and will create protest, then founded by a student, then founded by another community member. Combating bigotry cannot be done in a single act of legal pressure, it will always remain. Chopping off the head of the Pacifica Forum is not the solution, it is a band-aid:  it is a band-aid that results in heavy lawsuit.

The reason, realists, that the UO administration cannot kick off a group of this nature from campus is because it is illegal to do so. This is not up for debate. It literally, absolutely, completely and fervently violates the First Amendment rights of the Pacifica Forum unless sufficient evidence of incitement to violence (as illustrated in my last article) is obtained. The University stands in solidarity with the Student Senate in recognizing that the evidence presented by protesters is not sufficient. If the UO were to attempt extermination, the violation of Pacifica member’s rights will result in a lawsuit that far towers any number of funds OSPRIG usurps or that the surplus fund accumulates. Combined.

Both Lariviere and Holmes vehemently affirmed an important concept that is often overlooked–Pacifica is not and will never be a University sanctioned group. The relationship of Pacifica and the UO is a tactic that even Pacifica seems to promote: that the University is letting them, specifically, be here. There is no, zip, zero relationship between the university and Pacifica. Subsequently, policies of conduct within the university mission are not applicable to Pacifica. Regardless of the concept of lawsuit, the UO has zero jurisdiction to remove the group from campus for anything that they are saying or doing. And, because Pacifica is being housed on a government-funded institution (at least, 8% of a government-funded institution, but that’s a different conversation), the laws that are applicable to Pacifica are literally the state laws. The only UO policy that is applicable to Pacifica are the blanketing use-of-space policies–policies that are currently under reformation to include emeritus-related groups (PS: to any proteseor who ever said the emeritus “free use of space policy” was unwritten and could not be found, you’re very wrong. It’s very real). However, these use-of-space policies cannot legally barrier speech conduct: they are nothing more than a contract that would require Pacifica to supply proper liability insurance, sign waivers, pay for extra expenses when needed, etc. These are the same exact policies that President Obama had to adhere to when he spoke on campus in 2008.

The Student Senators are not cowards who have neglected their own free speech rights. The UO administration has not “turned its back on the protest” or “taken a side” as protestors like Devon Schlotterbeck and others have advertised. The Student Senate, the UO Administration, and all other like-minded thinkers stand unified and prideful in an objective, legal and neutral stance. For those of you balancing on the extreme stances, for or against the protest, the neutral stance can often look like an opposing attack from your point of view. I, like the administration and Senate, have received displeasure and aggression from both sides of the Pacifica issue; when one is so far to the extreme, even the middle ground seems far away and contrary. Our neutral stance legally recognizes and promotes all forms of thought. We morally reject all forms of intolerance, including intolerance directed toward the beliefs of neo-Nazis and vice-versa. We respect the laws that allow the protest itself to occur, the very same laws that allow the Forum to continue. We condemn and prosecute the poor behavior. We celebrate and acknowledge speech in all forms, even if we don’t agree with it.

Friends, there are some things we cannot change. I cannot convince some of you that the information I have provided above is absolute, regardless of Senate ruling or protest. I cannot convince some of you that Pacifica is not affiliated with the University. I cannot convince some of you morally that there is a place for flagrant ideologies in our society, whether we agree with them or not. But if we strip away our legal disputes, our political affiliation, our implementation of policy… you will find that we are, each of us in our own way, all correct in what we advocate for. There is no right or wrong ideal to employ, no policy on high that proclaims Judaism over Islam, Communism over Fascism, Democracy over Republic, even Hate over Love. We cannot accuse another of fallacy or smear them because of their ideology! We cannot pass ideological policies and bills so that we would all adhere to the same principles within our institution! We cannot fight the intolerant by promoting further intolerance! (It should be noted of the three previous exclamatory statements that: yes, we could. I just happen to think doing so would be really inhumane and hypocritically corrupt, not qualities I want of my University).

Do  you know what happens when we have a large collective of intelligent, opinionated persons who are all correct in their own perspective is? The foundation of compromise. I recognize that for many of you this issue has become more about the fight itself than it is about the solution; again, perhaps I cannot convince you. But I implore you to turn your back on fighting; the fight is not going to change the outcome. I implore you to find education in this situation, so that we may be better armed people in the future for events such as this. None of us, from Pacifica or the protest or otherwise have even talked with one another. None of us know if Pacifica is willing to invite speakers from opposite perspectives, or even house thoughts that are zealous from within the protest itself. None of us know if Pacifica is willing to reject the speakers that make us feel unsafe. Inflammatory dialog is what created this problem, realists, and respectful dialog is what will end it. Without dialog, this issue will never resolve.

This is not about hate. This is not about safety. This is not about eradication. This is not about crime. This, all of this, is about fundamental ideals: the privilege that each of us is granted as United States citizens. Does the concept of disputing intolerance between the factions of “I don’t like Judaism” vs. “I don’t like people who don’t like Judaism” seem just as unproductive and ironic to you as it does to me? Shouldn’t we be striving for productivity, within the confinements that our legal system and University policies allow?

Maybe I’m jaded. Maybe I’m tired of the blind accusations and smear tactics and propaganda. Maybe I’m worried that another peaceful campus office will be vandalized. Maybe I’m upset that the conduct of the protest has lead to more misinformation by the general public than it has lead to success (the very fact that many students are speculating that the vandalizing of LGBTQA was a political stunt by the protest, regardless of who the perpetrators actually were, is a testament to the predominate amount of ill behavior exercised during protesting). Maybe I’m sympathetic with the stress and frustration that I know our senate and administration have dealt with. Maybe I’m just a crazy idealist.

Maybe I refuse to believe in a community that exists without conciliation.

This swastika was spray painted on the carpet of the LGBTQA on Sunday

There has been a candlelight vigil. There has been a march. As DPS continues to investigate the spray painting of a swastika in the office of the LGBTQA, we still have yet to find any answers. And, looking at the happenings going on in the Daily Emerald columns and their comments section, many people are jumping to rather rash conclusions.

Members of the LGBTQA have already tied the swastika directly to the Pacifica Forum, as seen in today’s Emerald, “LGBTQA Co-Director Alex Esparza linked the Forum’s rhetoric to the incident and criticized the ASUO’s decision. ‘I would like to see a student government that takes a stand against acts of hate like this,’ he said as EMU staff were removing the pieces of carpet upon which the symbol was painted.”

This is a slippery slope, legally speaking, as the organizers of the Forum exercise no control over what speakers say.  So even if a speaker got up and incited the crowd to immediately go break into the LGBTQA with spray paint only the speaker would be guilty of incitement.

Of course, now from the other side (quoting here from the Emerald’s comments section) there has been much discussion as to whether or not the LGBTQA, “may have painted it on their own office floor.” Again, this is a serious allegation, one of political violence as a means to an end.

Before we go any further, let’s discuss the nature of the crime committed. Clearly, no matter what the outcome, the individual or group who perpetrated this act of vandalism is, in some way, mentally unstable. A person of such poor judgement that they are unable to see what such an act means to the whole of society and to the larger discussion that centers around the Pacifica Forum. Additionally, this has not been the first time the EMU has seen such an attack.

During the Summer of 1997, Oregon Commentator staffers returned to their office, room 205, to find the door broken into, open and with swastika stickers all over it. Further, once they entered the room, they found that the Commentator’s computers had been stolen, more swastikas had been placed all around the room, and the room itself had been destroyed–papers, cabinets, books and other items were violently hurled across the office. Further, a menacing note was left on the desk in the office that was directed towards the members of the Oregon Commentator. The perpetrators were never found.

Having said that, the issue at hand raises some fairly interesting questions, ones we will have to wait to see answered until DPS and eventually EPD (with which a report has still not yet been filed as of this post) finishes their investigation and, hopefully, brings the perpetrators to justice.

1. Why the LGBTQA? Yes, Rojas is a noted homophobe, but the conversation at the Forum itself has not centered around any gay, transgender or other associated topics the LGBTQA advocates for. When the Jewish Student Union and the Black Student Union are right down the hall, don’t they seem like more appropriate targets for Nazis? Or what about the Survival Center, easily the area with the highest concentration of anti-Pacifica protest organizers? And if you were a homophobe, wouldn’t you spray paint some of the things that were more offensive to you in the LGBTQA office (other than the carpet)?

2. Did someone pick the lock? If not, how did the perpetrator get a key to the LGBTQA office?

3. Why would they spray paint one computer screen and one television, but leave everything else in the room untouched?

4. If you are a member of the Pacifica Forum, or a supporter of some of the speakers’ more radical, Nazi ideals, you most likely understand the fight the Pacifica Forum is going through to stay on this campus. The conversation has turned, lately, to the issue of campus safety–one in which Pacifica Forum members have vehemently denied any attacks on students. If the Forum and its supporters are trying to convince people they are not attacking students, why would you, then, attack students (the LGBTQA)?

This situation was out of hand weeks ago. At this point in time, we need answers. And we needed them Sunday.

FIRE Article

The Pacifica Forum was started in 1994 as a way to debate two sides (or three) of an issue. As the years have gone on, speakers at the Pacifica Forum have started to push the envelope of topics discussed. Here, we should make an important distinction: The Pacifica Forum has no members per se, but an open call for its organizers. Indeed, the premise of a Forum is just that–an open discussion or debate. Instead, its protesters have been acting as if the Pacifica Forum is one, solid group with a single mindset.

Contrary to what many may think, the Pacifica Forum is not all Nazis. Instead, the organizers of the Forum have invited Nazis and debated back and forth with them about certain topics–the swastika, the Sieg Heil etc. The problem lately, however, is that the two sides of the debate haven’t been far apart enough in their arguments. Instead of a debater that is far to one side and another that is far to the other, the debaters at the Pacifica Forum have been far to one side with the other somewhere in the middle.

This is where our beloved protesters come in. Although protests were initially meant to be “silent” they have strayed far and away from that premise. Effectively, the anti-Pacifica people want their voices heard. What Drew proposed–and what I think is an exceedingly good idea–is that those protesters join the debate on the other side of the table, as speakers. Instead of holding signs and shouting, or waiting for your turn to speak at the microphone, why not sit on the other end of the table as a third party, a third side to the debate about Nazism or what have you?

I find it harder and harder to find any support within myself for the anti-Pacifica protesters. The Forum itself is not perpetuating Nazism–idiots like Jimmy Marr and Anelauskas are. Why not stand up, take charge, and take back the Forum for yourselves?

Amidst this conflict, somebody told me, “The proper reaction to bad speech is not less speech. The proper reaction is more speech.”

If only this campus could grasp that concept.