Reply #163: Former Koala Editors: We Will Win This Fight [View All]

[Nikki Stone1]

Former Koala Editors: We Will Win This Fight

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/opinion/former-koala-editors-we-will-win-this-fight/
Posted on 04 March 2010

Tags: MEDIA ORGS, THE KOALA

By Erik Kapernick, Bryan Barton, Brad Kohlenberg, Nicholle Pierro and David Gregory
Erik Kapernick-Koala Editor, 2003
Bryan Barton-Koala Editor, 2003-04
Brad Kohlenberg-Koala Editor, 2005-07
David Gregory-Koala Editor, 2007-08
Nicholle Pierro-Koala Editor, 2008- 2009


An open letter to the Associated Students Council and the UCSD administration from the Koala Editor Alumni Association (K.E.A.A.):
You are going to lose.

We are going to beat you again.

It is just a matter of how badly we will beat you, and how much time it will take.

You have two options in your attempt to shut us down:

1) You can make the temporary funding freeze permanent.

2) You can attempt to rewrite the funding rules in such a way that will allow the other 32 student media orgs to receive funding and refuse funding to the Koala.

If you choose to go with option one and cut off all funds to all student media orgs, this would be appealed until all on-campus appeals are exhausted. Now, we realize that you will drag your feet on this and try to play games, but eventually, you will have to say that there are no more UCSD appeals. At which point we will go to real court, in the real world, with real laws. In a country where the First Amendment is what our civilization was founded on, and the “principles of community” hold less weight then a marsupial pouch. It will become clear that your intent for cutting funding was because of the content of one org. You’ll probably lose in court, and perhaps get an injunction against you that will forever guarantee Koala funding.

But for the sake of argument, lets say that you win, and manage to cut off all media orgs’ funds. They will all die. Except for one …

The one that has been around for 28 years. The one that has a self-sustaining sister publication at SDSU. The one with the most dedicated staff. The one with the most committed alumni.

Ironically, your attempt to silence the Koala will destroy every newspaper except the Koala.


Let’s say you go with option two and, using your bureaucratic wizardry, you manage to write up some rules that include funding for every media org but the Koala. How you will be able to do that, we don’t know. As the only objective difference between the Koala from the other media orgs is that the Koala is twice as popular as the second most popular media org, with a readership of 66 percent of the campus (based on a 2001 A.S. election survey). You may think that the Koala not being able to get a professor to sign on as an adviser would differentiate us … but you would be wrong.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say that for once, we are not able to beat you at your own game, and we get defunded. This would be appealed until all on-campus appeals are exhausted. Now, we realize that you will drag your feet on this and try to play games, but eventually, you will have to say that there are no more UCSD appeals. At which point we will go to real court, in the real world, with real laws. In a country where the First Amendment is what our civilization was founded on, and the “principles of community” hold less weight then an AIDS patient. In this scenario, you don’t just lose, you get crushed and humiliated by Foundation for Individual Rights and Education, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Student Press Law Center and of course … us.

You might even have to pay us for the pain and suffering you caused! Wouldn’t that be rich!


It’s like we are in the TV show “Lost”: We are Jacob, and you are the Man in Black. We are mortal enemies, but always play by certain rules. By cutting our funding, you just broke the rules.

We are currently working on contingent plans that are so out-of-the-box, your conformist minds won’t be able to comprehend them — even as we start to roll them out. We have by no means pulled all the strings in making your lives miserable.

Administration:
How about a Koala feature called “State Assemblyman of the Month”? How would you like to take calls from Sacramento asking why a UCSD newspaper has a picture of the Speaker with a *&^% in his mouth?

Associated Students:

Do you know that you are considered “public figures” on this campus? Do you know what that allows us to do to you? No, you don’t, because us watching you debate First Amendment rights is like Socrates watching a debate on “Jersey Shore.”
We consistently beat you in your games with the rules that you wrote.
You have been trying to shut us down for 28 years and you have failed for 28 years. There is no reason to think it will be any different this year. We are smarter then you. We are slicker then you. We are quicker then you. We are defiantly funnier then you. And believe it or not, a large percentage (if not a majority) of the student population supports us.
Look, you guys are in a lose-LOSE BIG situation here. Just bite the bullet; apologize to us and tell us privately that our funding will be restored after everything blows over. This way, you still lose, but just not as badly.
Share and Enjoy:

« Mar. 04, 2010Under Frozen Funds, Divided We Stand »
26 Responses to “Former Koala Editors: We Will Win This Fight”
OtherSchool says:
March 4, 2010 at 10:42 am
As an alumnus from a university on the east coast, I am horrified at this letter. We have our own, extremely conservative, student-run publication on campus. They have done some offensive things in the past, but they have never put out a letter as atrocious as this.

The writers of this letter do not seem to recognize the importance of mutual respect for the other people in your community and sound utterly immature and ridiculous. The taunting tone and counterproductive message you send are an embarrassment to UCSD and to the editors who have signed their names onto this document.

While I think defending your right to free speech and to funding as a college publication is perfectly fine, I am truly disgusted as the way you have crafted this letter.

Steve York says:
March 4, 2010 at 10:56 am
For the record my name does not appear on this letter and for very good reasons; Grammar Cop Man’s head is going to explode if he sees this.

Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 10:56 am
Mutual respect should always be encouraged, but can never be mandated in a context where the First Amendment applies.

Besides, in terms of the outcome, the authors are exactly right. AS has no hope of winning this encounter. The only question is whether the university wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars (easily) to hear a federal judge lecture them on free speech and smack them down.

Inez says:
March 4, 2010 at 11:14 am
@ OtherSchool:

Please don’t call the Koala conservative. They are most definitely not. You’ll hear protests from both sides, the Koala and conservatives. Neither wants to be identified with the other, because they have completely different, and, on many points, totally opposing ideologies.

Thanks.

Person says:
March 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
Looks like nobody before 2003 wanted to contribute to this letter. Isn’t 2003 also the year that Lost started? I would say the Koala is more like Miles, the Asian guy on the show who doesn’t really serve much of a purpose except to occasionally ridicule the feature cast of Lost and communicate with ghosts. He is one of the less attractive characters, but not as bad as Hurley. Bryan Barton is like Horace.

Lisa Seiler says:
March 4, 2010 at 11:51 am
Lisa,

I’m sure you were a hot piece of ass back in the day, but are you really
so daft as to not notice that you just made fun of US for who WE ARE?

Man, I’m glad UCSD has come a long way since the olden days of silly
rhetoric. Were you too busy sucking cocks to recognize that we live in
an entirely different world where the kind of OMG IT’S RACISM metrics
don’t apply? I guess you don’t.

All the best,
Kris Gregorian
Editor-in-Queef
The MOTHERFUCKING Koala

p.s. You’ll be glad to know I’ve personally put my penis in numerous
SigKaps and they’re definitely the tightest at UCSD. Good job! You
must be proud.

Lisa Seiler wrote:
>
>
> I am one of the charter members of Sigma Kappa Sorority and an alumna
> of the Class of 1979, Third College presently know as Thurgood
> Marshall. I am ashamed to have even brought the Greek system to UCSD
> after all of these recent racial tensions. We fought so hard back in
> the 1970’s to pave the way for equality for all, regardless of
> religion, race and gender. And to what avail? So that this present
> generation of spoiled students could destroy the strong foundation we
> built for you?
>
> Get your heads out the sand and stand up and fight for what is right.
> At this point of our history, NO ONE should be made fun of or
> demeaned for who they are. Focus on making the world a better place,
> that’s what we did and we’re proud of it.
>
> Lisa DeLucchi Seiler
> Class of 1979

nice touch says:
March 4, 2010 at 11:55 am
The was a nice touch.

otherperson says:
March 4, 2010 at 11:55 am
“based on a 2001 A.S. election survey”

that survey is kind of old. a decade is a long time.

Justice says:
March 4, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Seriously, this is the best response that a group with their own published ‘paper’ can come up with? Beyond the events that your ‘work’ (and I use that term with a very large amount of sarcasm) caused and the rightful indignation/hurt that should then be felt from your remarks, sits the truth this letter shows:

You are piss-ants. You speak large and loftily, hiding behind what is simple effluvia. I won’t speak toward the larger situation. I will only state the obvious, that your position is tenuous and you are missing the wider scope… you are guaranteed the right to publish stupidity, but the University does not need to fund that.

In closing, if you are going to make a retort on an untenable position at least come off as having greater than a fourth-grade reading level.

Person says:
March 4, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised to know if the Koala is still the most popular newspaper on campus. People tend to enjoy the easiest jokes that one can make. If you look at back issues, the jokes have remained the same, but the the events and people made fun of have changed. UCSD students eat it up. But it’s like trying to tell someone that Family Guy is a retarded show. You can’t convince someone that something they enjoy is not funny when it’s plainly funny to them.

Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Justice,

Legally, their position is not only tenable, but manifestly correct. The delivery was childish, but the law is clearly on their side.

i dont have a name says:
March 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: “The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: “The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane.”

Justice says:
March 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I think you’re missing the point of what I’m suggesting. The law is indeed on their side. If the University, or for that matter anyone, silenced them that would indeed be against the law (the letter and intent of). That does not mean that there is any legal obligation of the University to financially support them.

Indeed, if you look at the first page of the AS constitution:

The Council shall have the power to:
(a) control all ASUCSD funds and appropriate those funds as they see fit…

And further, if you want to get a bit more broad and say that isn’t exactly what they meant:

§1.1. Structure, Powers, and Responsibilities of the Office
(a) President
(1) If a situation arises that is not provided for in the rules of the Associated Students, the President has broad authority to make any decision that is consistent with the spirit of the rules.

So again, just so we’re clear the law (US law) is on the side of their ability to print, regardless of the worth of the content. The A.S. ‘law’, which is the people letting them have money, is not (unless you’re able to find some evidence I am overlooking).

Bryan Barton says:
March 4, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@ Inez
Thank you for clearing that up! The Koala is not a Right wing or Left wing political organization. (It’s members often hold very different political views.)
However, it is frequently involved with UCSD politics.
Interesting article about the difference between national politics and UCSD politics:
http://www.ucsdguardian.org/focus/ucsdsvariedpoliticalspectrum/

@ Person
Horace… what the hell?!? Can’t I at least be a main character? Miles on the other hand; is important… he talks to dead people for crying out loud! I am sure this will come into play again before the end of LOST.

@ nice touch
Could not decide whether it should have been: muhahaha or bwahahaha.

@ other person
Yes, that survey is pretty old. But it was the only official tally of readership of UCSD’s newspapers. After they saw the results, they chose not to do it again.

@ Justice
Give us a break! This our first step up the big league of the Guardian.
About the university not needing to fund the Koala… the courts will decide that, not you or I. The letter was just us saying how we strongly predict the courts will rule.
Also, since we write at a fourth grade level how do you expect us to know what “effluvia” means?

Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 2:16 pm
No. The Supreme Court has addressed this issue. In Board of Regents of the U. of Wisconsin v. Southworth (Decided in 2000), a unanimous court said that if student groups are funded through student fees, funding decisions and policies must be content-neutral. That is, they cannot be based on the organization’s opinion on any political or social issue. That means that if the government can’t punish you for saying it, then the University can’t de-fund you for saying it.

RB says:
March 4, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I can’t stop laughing at how the writing in this article sounds like an 8th grader bickering.

“You are going to lose.

We are going to beat you again.

It is just a matter of how badly we will beat you, and how much time it will take.”

LMAO

Bryan Barton says:
March 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm
@ RB

Looking back at it, you do make a good point!

The Koala has never been accused of being mature.
But for this article in particular we wanted to be as simple and clear as possible.

Besides we only got the education that UCSD gave us right:-)

Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 2:30 pm
And if the school enacts a new policy that finds a way to exclude Koala on some technicality, a Federal Judge will see that they are trying an end run around the First Amendment, and will

1) rebuke them harshly for trying to subvert the First Amendment,

2) grant the Koala’s request for a permanent injunction,

3) award the Koala attorney costs,

and 4) possibly assess exemplary damages.

That’s after the school spends several tens of thousands of dollars on its own attorneys (at least). The University has no hope of winning. Southworth is binding precedent and it’s directly on point.

Justice says:
March 4, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@Michael: I’m fairly certain that is incorrect. While it speaks to the idea of viewpoint neutrality, the basic statement of the ruling simply says that the university can charge the fee to students, even if they don’t like where the money is going. This would of course be pointed toward the idea that you cannot sacrifice or abridge the view/speech of a group by the will of the minority or majority (referring to viewpoint, not race here). The viewpoint neutrality portion of the ruling shows me no wording which would suggest that it is a REQUIREMENT of an AS organization to fund whoever comes calling.

Justice says:
March 4, 2010 at 2:56 pm
One other point to mention would be that an easy out in regards to the situation (because yes, certainly the ruling can and perhaps will be argued in court for this whole situation)… would be for the AS to continue to not fund any organization (going back to the AS constitution). The Koala could then continue to complain about not receiving funding from the school until the end of time, but it would be impossible to prove then that the removal of funding was directed at them. This would be regardless of if it indeed is a directed measure.

Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 3:01 pm
They don’t have to give money to everyone who asks, obviously. Of course there can be criteria according to which funding (which is a limited resource) is awarded. But whatever criteria are used must be content neutral. If the University decides, based on content, to change the rules with the purpose of denying funding to a particular group, then then no matter what reason they claim for their action, the real reason was the content of the viewpoint. If the University’s purpose in acting was to silence a publication for engaging in speech protected by the first amendment, then it is unconstitutional.

If the Koala can prove that the motivation for the change in rules was the content of its expression, then the action is unconstitutional. Given Ustav Gupta’s public statements, they can prove that easily.

Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 3:34 pm
From Southworth:

“When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others.”

This means that the Koala’s offensive speech may not be the basis of a decision to deny or withdraw funding. Social and political commentary fall under the term “viewpoint,” as do satire and comedy (however tasteless or poorly executed). None of these can be the basis of funding decisions, including a decision to change the rules for the sole purpose of denying funding to the Koala.

Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Making the current funding freeze permanent might work, because in that case the university isn’t creating a forum, and you can’t require viewpoint neutral funding policies if there isn’t funding.

But then again I wonder if only de-funding media orgs is good enough. I mean, they fund other student groups that haven’t been de-funded, and those groups have lots of opinions about lots of things. AS may have to stop funding any student groups of any kind in order to avoid breaching a duty to viewpoint neutrality. Maybe not. Either way, they’d be throwing out the baby with the bathwater and greatly limiting the free exchange of ideas. I wouldn’t want to go to a school that willingly chose to shut down so much expression just so one offensive jerk could be silenced.

i dont have a name says:
March 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@Koala dudes. I love your shit, as long as you keep writing it, i will be reading it!

This bitch is reading Koala at a CHURCH! You got to put it into your next issue:


Michael says:
March 4, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Last one, I promise. From Rosenburger v. University of Virginia:

“deologically driven attempts to suppress a particular point of view are presumptively unconstitutional in funding, as in other contexts”

Justice says:
March 4, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Michael, I am still of the personal opinion that it’s not violating the intent and wording of the judgment to just stop funding an org ‘as they see fit’, much like how in California, work is ‘at will’. Going further would be the point at which lawyers from both sides get involved, etc.

Regardless, the point I made earlier about simply removing funding to all organizations, is completely valid legally speaking (verified this with the company lawyer who was going to go into education law… an aside, but anyway). Basically, everyone seems to want the Koala shut down, it’s an easy out for the school should they chose to take it. I’m not judging the ‘correctness’ of doing so one way or the other.

And… spent too much time on this, moving on now!