Pacifica resolution rejected

The ASUO Senate voted down a resolution asking the Pacifica Forum to leave the University campus Wednesday night, but Senate debate surrounding the group will likely continue in the weeks ahead.

Wednesday’s meeting drew an audience of more than 100 students and community members, most of whom were there to support the resolution. Three University Department of Public Safety officers were present to watch over the meeting.

As audience members reacted angrily to opponents of the resolution, Senate Vice President Nick Schultz said he would continue introducing resolutions opposing the group until the Senate passed one.

“I’m not going to let these people be silenced,” Schultz said of the crowd, which responded with a standing ovation.

Supporters of the resolution said that opposing it could compromise political futures. Citing signatures on the petition that opposed the group, one of the resolution’s co-signers, Sen. Zachary Stark-MacMillan, suggested that those in the crowd could play a role in the Senate’s future.

“As you said, there are more people who signed this petition than voted for us in the last election,” Stark-MacMillan said. “I would encourage you to run for office. You can change who’s on this body.”

The Pacifica Forum has drawn criticism because many of its regular attendees espouse anti-Semitic ideas and because it has invited Holocaust deniers and members of Neo-Nazi groups to campus.

The resolution’s supporters said the Forum made them feel unsafe on campus. Many were members of minority groups who said they had been targets of hate by Pacifica Forum members or those allied with them. Others said having the group on campus made them fear violence.

“I am a student who likes to pull all-nighters in the library,” said University student Kierra Fantroy-Harrison, who testified through tears on the resolution’s behalf. “But I don’t feel like I can be safe doing that.”

The resolution’s opponents said they were nervous that passing the measure would violate Pacifica Forum members’ First Amendment rights. Some said they had changed their minds since the Senate unanimously put the resolution up for a vote at its Jan. 20 meeting.

“I voted ‘yes’ last week and had a very emotional moment,” said Sen. Demic Tipitino, adding, “I realized my conscience would not let me vote against free speech.”

The meeting grew more and more emotional as debate raged. Senators speaking against the resolution were frequently interrupted by audience members, and two senators began crying during the meeting.

The Senate’s first attempt to vote on the resolution failed, and the meeting appeared to have reached a breaking point when Anti-Hate Task Force member Michael Williams, a longtime Pacifica Forum opponent, stood up and began speaking while a senator was talking. However, Williams’ speech implored audience members to remain quiet and allow the Senate to vote.

Shortly thereafter, just before midnight, the Senate was able to vote on the subject, rejecting the resolution by a vote of seven for, 11 against and one abstaining.

The Senate then voted to adjourn, despite having nearly an hour and a half of business left on the agenda. Senate President Nick Gower said that, emotionally, the senators were not capable of finishing the meeting.

atomchak@dailyemerald.com

• Facebook Comments
• Site Comments

7 comments

Anonymous

Mon Feb 1 2010 18:50

Not to take the whole swastika thing lightly but I would not be surprised if there was video proof that an anti pacifica forum person was seen doing this in order to achieve their agenda. Furthermore, the pacifica forum has been meeting at u of o for a while...why is this the first time it's been brought up?

False flag

Mon Feb 1 2010 16:45

Yes indeed. How convenient that a massive swastika magically appeared after the Senate refused to boot the Pacifica Forum off campus for "safety" reasons. It's almost like someone was going out of their way to prove that the "anti-hate" protesters were right about the Pacifica Forum, or something.

I give it less than a week before another motion to ban the PF from campus is introduced in the ASUO senate, citing exactly this incident as further proof that Pacifica is a threat.

Anon

Mon Feb 1 2010 16:08

What have you wrought, worthless student government of ours? Look at what this morning brings (it's in your uoregon email):

"Dear University Community:

Early this morning, we discovered a large swastika had been painted on the carpet in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning Alliance (LGBTQA) Student Union Office in the Erb Memorial Union. It is reprehensible that such a hateful, cowardly act occurred on our campus. When one group is targeted, it threatens all of us and must be addressed directly and swiftly."

Anonymous

Sun Jan 31 2010 16:02

Hmmmm.
Why do supporters think that opposing the resolution could compromise certain Senator's political futures?
Was it student-protesters or 'Anti'-"hate" Forcers who threw this into the mix?

"Supporters of the resolution said that opposing it could compromise political futures."

It seems to me, that it will be more politically debilitating, for those that voted IN FAVOR of the whole farce. That the Forum people pose absolutely no threat to ANYONE'S safety, is obviously missing from these deliberations.

SC

Fri Jan 29 2010 16:26

agreed as well. as long as the university doesn't have a rule about groups inviting contentious people to campus their presence is legal.

protesters, a better way to fight this is to target the clause that allows amirite professors to have groups on campus. add a line in there about not bringing "potentially threatening people to campus" and you're golden. "potential threat" would give the university jurisdiction to say no at their discretion AND to have penalties. This would be a lot easier to combat then having to prove threatening language under the Oregon Constitution.

Nick

Fri Jan 29 2010 14:51

Thanks, Vincent. I agree. Great job everyone.

Vincent

Fri Jan 29 2010 14:33

Congratulations to the ASUO Senate for doing the right thing, even if in this case it meant supporting the Constitutional rights of people who are, by any standard, repugnant.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out