Mr. University Senate President, Madame ASUO Student Senate Ombudsman:

I am not at all certain that you are the correct persons to contact, but as very few of us were allowed to speak at the ASUO Student Senate meeting when the topic was breeched, I am contacting you now with my concerns about the "Proposed University of Oregon Policy Statement: Pledge of Respect" that Senate Ad Hoc Committee is planning on discussing Thursday, March 2, 2000.
First and foremost, I believe that the policy wholy oversteps the bounds of authority that the University ought to hold as far as control over the values and standards of students that attend the University of Oregon, and thus I vehemently oppose any such statement being added to the policies of the University of Oregon. Here are some of the many aspects that I find fault with in the precepts of the proposed policy.

• (1) "I will respect the dignity and essential worth of all individuals." While this is admirable in theory, and while I hope indeed that all students will respect the worth of others, the Constitution of this Country and state are clear: I have the absolute right to believe and state that I believe certain people and beliefs are worthless. Not only that, I have to right to speak such an opinion. Would this rule attempt to take that sacrosanct right of mine away? Dignity is not a guaranteed thing under our Laws, and the Supreme Court of this land has long held that citizens do *NOT* have the right to not be offended. So long as my speech is not directly threatening, and so long as it is not lude or obscene, then I have a Constitutionally protected right to speak it, even if diminishes the worth and dignity of a person, or even offends them to the highest degree. This is, after all, a State/Public University, and as such it is bound by certain obligations to protect even hate speech. If we were to accept this rule, then we would in essence be saying that speech promoting or furthering a particular race or ideology or culture would be acceptable, while speech disputing or criticizing that ideal, in whatever form, would be banned. This University, much like the City of St. Paul in the infamous R.A.V case decided by the US Supreme Court, lacks the authority to ". . . license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." (R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 1992) In essence, if you state that people must respect the "dignity and worth" of others, according to the laws of this land you must also with as great a vehemence support and protect the right of students to dispute such a claim and rule, and to openly do so.
• (2) "I will promote a culture of respect throughout the University community." Once again, I am not mandated by law to respect anyone, and indeed I have the Constitutional right to *NOT* respect whomever I choose. I may not respect you, and I need not, outside of a classroom setting or University Senate meeting show any particular defference or respect to you, or any student for that matter. I am free -- and indeed protected -- in walking down 13th Avenue and proclaiming as many bigoted, racist remarks as I see fit. Indeed, were this University to attempt to take that freedom away on the form of a mandatory "pledge of respect", it would be in gross violation of both State and Federal Constitutional protection. Note here that I am not saying that I have any great desire to do such a thing, but merely that is my right to do so if I choose, and indeed it is a right protected for any other student at this campus. By instituting this rule, you are assuming to invoke a power that is not yours to invoke. You have not rightful authority as a University Senate to compel any student at this University to promote anything. As a conclusion, I will bring up a thought that perhaps no one bothered to consider. What if you were to apply this to one of the numerous homosexual student-groups on this campus? That is, what if you were trying to compel students to promote those programs, and a student objected under his/her First Amendment Religious Freedom rights? This in and of itself would be a colossal head-ache, I assure you, and the Courts could be called in to rebuff the University leadership. Just a counter to the belief that this is at all a good idea.
• (3) "I will respect the privacy, property and freedom of others" This is an excellent section and I believe that it would stand in any Court. As a student, then, I support it and would defend it.
• (4) "I will not tolerate bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation of any kind." Once again, this is extremely broad and not narrowly tailored to meet any manifestly pressing State interest, President Gilkey. I can of my own free volition and without fear of State reprisal support and tolerate any form of bigotry I darned well please under then US Constitution. I may also support violence in theory and in rhetoric, so long as I do not participate in it or support in directly. In other words, so long as I do not take part in the violence, so not harbor those who are involved in violence and do not provide knowingly the materials needed for the violence, I may speak on behalf of that violence, and in many cases may even support in theory via pamphletting etc that violence (See generally 505 U.S. 377 1992). What is "intimidation", exactly? Is "intimidating" using what many would label as "hate" speech? If it is, then you can scrap that section as being unconstitutional in its entirety. This is so broad as to fail any scrutiny placed under First Amendment Jurisprudence. It is facially unenforceable.
• (5) "I will practice personal and academic integrity and expect it from others." No real problems here, except that you have no right to expect anyone to demand such behavior out of others.
• (6) "I will promote the diversity of opinions, ideas and backgrounds which is the lifeblood of the University." Once again this is not a wise idea for the University Senate to be approaching. I have the Constitutionally protected right, no matter what anyone else thinks about it, to *NOT* promote other ideas or lifestyles or backgrounds, and this University has not right to compel me to do otherwise. Once you start getting into the game of compelling students who attend a State university to support or believe in a certain idea, you step into a realm that you really ought not be involved in.