The Paper Trail

University of Oregon Continues Struggle With Controversial Group

February 1, 2010 RSS Feed Print

A controversial group at the University of Oregon has been feeling the heat from the Associated Students of the University of Oregon Senate and the university community for a while. There have been protests and ASUO Senate hearings trying to figure out the best way to handle the presence of the group—the Pacifica Forum—on campus. Last week, there was a new twist to the plot. 

The Pacifica Forum, a group led by Orval Etter, a retired University of Oregon professor, is a discussion group based in Eugene that meets on Oregon's campus but is not affiliated with the school. (School policy allows retired professors to rent space on campus to hold events.) The forum was recently identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Etter describes the group as a discussion-oriented organization designed to "generate intellectual dialogue about controversial racial topics." Yet the ASUO Senate has been arguing the merits of asking Pacifica to stop meeting on the school's campus for the same reasons the SPLC called the forum a hate group: Many of the group's regular members allegedly espouse anti-Semitic ideas. The group has also invited Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazi groups to campus. 

The university's student government has found one sticking point—freedom of speech—in the debate over whether it should ask Pacifica to meet elsewhere. On Wednesday, the ASUO Senate voted against a resolution that would demand that the forum leave campus, the Oregon Daily Emerald reports. The resolution was voted down 11 to 7, with one senator abstaining. A raucous crowd of more than 100 students and community members watched the debate. 

Many students and community members are opposed to the group meeting on campus for safety reasons. "I am a student who likes to pull all-nighters in the library," student Kierra Fantroy-Harrison, who testified on the resolution's behalf, said at the meeting. "But I don't feel like I can be safe doing that." 

Others are wary of the appropriateness of the state's flagship university allowing the forum on campus. 

"I do understand that banning someone from meeting on the campus would infringe on free speech. I just find it hard to believe the administrations think allowing such groups to operate on campus is appropriate," German Prof. Jeffrey Librett told the Daily Emerald in 2009. "I am not terribly worried about the group being dangerous, but it certainly is not a good thing to have them meeting" on campus. 

Nonetheless, for now, the ASUO Senate won't be asking the forum to go. And the contentious debate will rage on.

"I voted 'yes' last week [on whether or not to vote on the resolution] and had a very emotional moment," one student senator said at the meeting. But "I realized my conscience would not let me vote against free speech."

Tags:
University of Oregon,
colleges

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I have long found it curious that people feel that the right to free speech means that you are entitled to say anything you choose anywhere you choose. That is not free speech but anarchy.

Organizations’ not only have the right to determine who uses their facilities and for what purposes but also have a civic responsibility to do so. What an individual or group says within its own property should be subject to few restrictions unless the way they are doing it physically harms another person or another’s property.

There is an appropriate balance to be struck between property rights and freedom of speech. I can’t restrict what you stand in the street and say but that privilege is not unlimited.

Chuck Chastain of OK 6:16PM February 02, 2010

There is no legal definition for the term "Hate Group", which is why even the FBI does not track "hate groups". So what exactly is the SPLC tracking?

The SPLC is a private fund-raising organization. It has no mandate and receives no external review. The SPLC has no legal or moral authority to designate anyone as anything. The reason the SPLC hides behind the smear "hate group" is because if they actually accused these groups of actual "hate crimes", they would be sued for libel.

In March 2008, the SPLC's PR Director Mark Potok summed up their own whimsical definition of what exactly constituted a “hate” group by stating that “…a “hate group” has nothing to do with criminality… [or] potential for violence...” Rather, as Potok put it, “It’s all about ideology.”

No criminality, no violence, but if you don't agree with the SPLC's ideology you must be a "hater" or at the very least, a "wrong thinker". This doesn't SCARE people?

(http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=301)

The SPLC's "Hate Map" (http://wp.me/pCLYZ-K) is a fund-raising tool that brings in tens of millions of donor dollars each year. Of the 926 alleged "hate group" on the map, 127 of them are not affiliated with ANY location. They merely float in space, padding the numbers.

For states like Maine, New Mexico and Wyoming, 100% of their alleged "hate groups" are homeless. We know that they are really out there because the SPLC tells us so in their never-ending fund-raising propaganda. And not one legitimate news outlet will call their bluff and ask to see the proof, including US News.

Currently the SPLC is sitting on top of more that $153 MILLION donor dollars, yet every month the pleas for more donations go out like clockwork.

According to their own auditors, in 2008, the SPLC spent hundreds of thousands more donor dollars on fund-raising postage than they did on actual "legal case costs." They spent more on office supplies and twice as much on fund-raising printing costs than they did on "legal case costs". (http://wp.me/pCLYZ-34)

And in conclusion, why is it that an organization that purports to be a bastion of civil rights is run exclusively by Whites? Not ONE of the SPLC's top ten, highest paid officers are minorities. (http://wp.me/pCLYZ-3r)

The last remaining "Whites Only" sign in Montgomery must be hanging in the boardroom of the SPLC. Some "experts".

All of these facts are readily available from the SPLC's own web site. I can understand some local Mom and Pop newspaper swallowing SPLC fund-raising propaganda without performing even the most rudimentary fact checking, but US News???

Are there no editors left there who can assign even a lowly intern to investigate the SPLC's spurious claims? Where are the professional journalists when you need them?

Richard Keefe of VA 11:38AM February 02, 2010

The Paper Trail

Nobody knows a college better than its student newspaper. And nobody knows campus newspapers better than this blog. We sift through thousands of student newspaper headlines every day to bring you the latest, most important, or just plain weirdest news from campuses across the country. Heard bigger news or a crazier story? Send tips to papertrail@usnews.com.