student incidental fees pay for all student programs on campus. the fee is regulated by the program finance committee, charged with determining whether a group contributes to the cultural and physical development of the students. If they find a group to be deserving of the student incidental fee, they are responsible for approving a mission and goals statement as well as setting a budget for the group.
The Commentator, a libretarian, conservative paper is funded by the incidental fee. The PFC is not allowed (as determined by the supreme court) to determine funding for the commentator based on content. Rather, they are only allowed to use the paper's impact on campus as a determining factor.
The issue has become heated, because the Commentator (which publishes an annual issue titled "The Hate Issue", among others) has printed hateful remarks targeting women and the LGBQT community on campus. I will not reprint the remarks here, but point you to the Oregon Daily Emerald's web site if you wish to read them. In summary, the remarks include open support for rape, in fact they go so far as to encourage rape, as well as comments targeted at a transgendered student, suggesting that heirs genitals should be removed by force ( a gun was the suggested method) and then go on to suggest that other violence would be appropriate if it were targeted at this particular student (who they included a picture of). The editor of the commentator claims these were satirical remarks.
The targeted student brought the issue to campus administrators, who all turned him away, suggesting he turn to the PFC with his complaint. He still holds the option of pursuing the issue through a court. The PFC is arguably not the proper forum for this issue. However, with little recourse left at heirs disposal, the student chose to bring the issue to the PFC. Fortunately, the PFC recognized the unique nature of the situation, and students on the committee saw that they were responsible not only for mindlessly approving fiscally responsible budgets, but for once they were given the opportunity to stand up for someone who was otherwise ignored. The PFC has now voted twice on the issue, and both times they have refused to pass the Commentator's mission and goals statement, citing no particular violation, simply that they did not want to fund hatespeak with student dollars.
The other side argues that this is a violation of the first ammendment. It is not, they are still allowed to publish and distribute the paper, just not on student dollars. they also claim that the PFC is overstepping its bounds and making decisions based on content. they are not, they are making decisions based on the paper's ability to benifit the cultural and physical development of the student body, which is well within their bounds.
At the end of the hearing, when a stalemate was reached, with the committee unwilling to pass the mission and goals statement (they can't do anything else until the issue is resolved and an acceptable mission and goals statement is based), one memeber of the committee resigned from his duties.
The student who brought the complaint to the PFC, and several members of the PFC have effectively jammed a stick in the gears of our student government, a stick that will not be removed until not only the issue of the individual student's complaints, but also of hatespeak on the student dime are resolved.
comment on the commentator
