The Daily Emerald has the latest on the administration’s removal of the Divest UO banner, from reporter Max Thornberry here:
… [UO Strategic Communicator Tobin Klinger], on the other hand, praised the university for creating an environment that fosters discussion and debate about the issues of the day.
“It comes down to the concept of an active protest,” Klinger said. “This is not an issue that relates to any kind of specific messaging. It has everything to do with facilities use.”
I may not agree with Klinger, but I’ll defend his right to collect a UO paycheck while saying nonsense like this – although $117,300 seems a bit high when we’re laying off humanities faculty.
Meanwhile it sounds like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is going to defend the right of UO students to use a bush outside UO’s administration building to raise public awareness about their CO2 Divestment campaign.
If you want to understand the real history of Klinger’s facilities use argument, go here and page down. In brief, here’s the language former UO General Counsel Randy Geller wanted to include in the facilities use policy, to restrict banners:
The UO Senate rejected this language, along with the entire idea of limiting First Amendment rights to “free speech zones”. UO President Richard Lariviere did not agree to this language either. The language above is not UO policy. To the contrary UO debated it and rejected it. The Facilities Use Policy that the Senate agreed to, and which Lariviere signed, and which is current UO policy, does not restrict our students’ right to use banners to encourage vigorous debate about matters of public importance.