Editorial

Missing the Point

The unofficial motto of campus activists: when in doubt, overreact.

Such is not the case with the controversy ignited by two supposedly racistand threatening comments made in a Planning, Public Policy, and Management(PPPM) class during the Ides of May. Though these incidents sparked arally and a sit-in at UO President Dave Frohnmayer's office at JohnsonHall, the outrage was anything but worthwhile.

The first comment, a casual assumption by student Thomas "Scott" Bones thatHispanics have an inferior work ethic, was later dubbed (by a faction ofthe English Department) in a June 4th letter to the Emerald as "anappalling incident of hate speech." Hate speech? Like Hitler's 1939address to the Nazi Reichstag? The phrase "hate speech" is usuallyreserved for the most offensive of statements, or those that constitute ahate crime. Bones' comment was ignorant, as Bones himself now admits, butdid they really mean to claim that a hate crime was committed in a PPPMclassroom? Or was the English Department having a bit of trouble withtheir own area of academic study?

The second comment was the e-mail that directly sparked the sit-in, and itscontent was inarguably more inflammatory. It contained words like "bitch"and "cunt," and phrases like "fuck you up the ass," and was sent from amale student, John Convy, to his female classmate, Sandra Spoor. But wasit truly a threat of sexual assault?

These questions have, to date, been dealt with more by emotion than byreason. As the details of the situation have become clouded and deemedirrelevant, so have a number of other issues that should be brought up bythe swift and damning reaction here. These issues require analysis andintelligence-which may explain why the majority of people involved have yetto pick up on them.

Issues of free speech, the teacher's role in the classroom, and the misuseof technology have all been greatly overshadowed by the standarddenunciation of "racism, sexism, and homophobia." The phrase comes fromthe protester's list of demands as well as from the ASUO Executive (seeYear in Review, page 12), and on a campus so politically charged, thesewords can be just as divisively emotional as the ones that began it all.While racism, sexism, and homophobia are all undesirable traits of society,are they actually evident in the situation at hand?

The racial comment, while indeed seeming to advance stereotypes, was metwith strong objection by the professor, Elizabeth Rocha. According to amember of Bones' group, the professor called members of the groupracists-in front of a class of seventy students.ASUO President and PPPM student Wylie Chen disagrees. "She never said'racist.' But, for the situation, she did all she could do. She waspissed and I'm sure she wanted to say a lot more, but she never used thatword."

But another student in the class, who participated in the protest atJohnson Hall and wished to remain anonymous, contradicts Chen's claim."She definitely said 'racist,' but I don't believe it was in reference toany members of the group. I think she was referring to the content of theproject."

More than anything, this incident questions the ethics that teachers use inthe classroom-especially with regard to how they treat students whoseviewpoints differ from their own.

Ignorant or not, Bones had a right to his beliefs (which, to be fair, havechanged), and while this situation should inspire discussion, hissubsequent harassment (via the class e-mail listserve) was unfair. As thediscussion degenerated into finger-pointing, a frustrated John Convystepped in and fired off an angry reply to Spoor-a message most of theclass took as a rape threat.

"I thought it was a rape threat, though I highly doubt that he would havefollowed through with it," said Chen. "But I didn't receive it, so I can'tsay how she perceived it. Other women in the class received similarmessages, though not as vulgar, and he did it through his girlfriend'saccount so as to remain anonymous."

Was it a rape threat? The wording of the message (which can be found infull on page 11), though profoundly distasteful and crude, is nottechnically a threat. If a reference to assault replaces that of sodomy,it no longer sounds like a threat. Yet the sexual innuendo is so highlycharged that it seems that way. Consider: "you suggested a kick in the assfor Mr. McCulloch, well what you need is someone to beat you to a pulp, akick would not be enough!" Without the emotional reactions wrought by thesexual connotations, one can plainly see that the message was not a threatat all. This fact has been wholly overlooked, though it is readilyapparent to anyone willing to look at the situation objectively.

Objectivity? In the People's Republic of Eugene? Don't count on it.Either the four English professors and two co-signers (and the multitudesof protesters that share their opinion) have a warped idea of what theterms "hate speech" or "rape threat" mean, or they were not accuratelyinformed. Regardless, this manner of overreaction that the campus left isso eager to indulge does more harm than good. Exaggerating thecircumstances only obscures the facts and polarizes those involved.

Jump to page 9 and decide for yourself.