Search News


Browse Archives

News

Standing Up to Bill O'Reilly

May 23, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many a guest has Bill O’Reilly intimidated with his verbal jab-hook-uppercut combos.

Dave Frohnmayer, president of the University of Oregon, however, was neither a guest nor intimidated.

Frohnmayer refused to cancel his appointments on short notice to drive 200 miles to Portland to appear on “The O’Reilly Factor” last week to discuss risqué cartoon depictions of Jesus.

The cartoons include one showing Jesus on the cross, with an erection, and another showing him kissing a naked man. Both ran in a March edition of The Insurgent, a progressive student publication. (That publication's Web site does not feature recent editions, but versions of the cartoons with some covering up are available on another site.) The Insurgent published the Jesus cartoons as a provocative response to The Commentator , a conservative student publication that ran the infamous Danish Muhammad cartoons, along with an editorial.

The furor was contained on campus, until “The Factor” got his hands on the cartoons and featured the hullabaloo on his show last week.

O’Reilly called out Frohnmayer, saying he was afraid to come on the show, and added that "that man needs to be fired.... The image of Jesus is disrespected in shocking ways."

Though Frohnmayer didn’t appear on the show, which he called “entertainment,” he didn’t hold back in telling various publications his feelings about O’Reilly. “Being called names by him is like being called ugly by a frog,” Frohnmayer told the Associated Press.

In response to O’Reilly’s call for Frohnmayer to shut down The Insurgent – O’Reilly said that, because the publication is paid for by student activity fees, the university can shut it down – Frohnmayer told the Oregon Daily Emerald that "Bill O'Reilly doesn't know the First Amendment from the back of his own hand, which is a shame because he takes full abuse of it."

Shortly after The Insurgent published the cartoons, Frohnmayer wrote a letter to the Emerald saying that “our media should not focus on creating controversy for controversy’s sake,” and should instead “promote campus debate rather than making individuals feel that they or their beliefs are unwelcome and belittled.”

Frohnmayer, in a statement, pointed out that there is no legal basis for him to censor The Insurgent, or to threaten to withdraw its funding. In 2000, in University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, the Supreme Court ruled that student activity money is student money, not institutional money, and that it cannot be allocated to or removed from a publication based on content.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that Frohnmayer handled the cartoon issue well, and added that cartoon debacles are hot this year.

One of O’Reilly’s guests was Tyler Graf, former editor of The Commentator. Graf wrote a guest opinion piece for the Emerald, in which he said the cartoons “contained nothing resembling measured analysis or satirical wit,” and called them “a sucker punch to Christianity.”

Graf added that the Muhammad cartoons in his publication, which were accompanied by an editorial that chastised President Bush and much of the American media for their hand-wringing approach to the Muhammad cartoons, were part of an effort to "put the controversy into context."

Some of O’Reilly’s critics have said that he is being hypocritical, and would not protest the cartoons if they attacked any religion other than Christianity. O’Reilly has, however, said on his show that he didn’t want to use the Muhammad cartoons. In February, O’Reilly said that Fox wasn’t showing the cartoons -- which he said have “a basis in fact” -- because “we're not in the business of offending for the sake of offending.”

In a statement, Frohnmayer said that “the best response to offensive speech often is more speech.” The Insurgent certainly thought so.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Standing Up to Bill O'Reilly

  • Standing Up? More like Standing Down!
  • Posted by JimInNashville on October 1, 2007 at 9:30am EDT
  • I'm always amused by the vitriol my Liberal friends muster against Bill O'Reilly. True, O'Reilly has slipped badly in recent years, and is becoming less of an interviewer and more of a blowhard every year (or so it seems). However, one only has to tune in Bill Maher or MSNBC to see conservative speakers routinely shouted down or abused in a situation where they are badly outnumbered.

    The OU president didn't "stand up" to O'Reilly, he avoided him with a bogus excuse. He could have easily insisted on the following ground rule which, I feel, every guest on O'Reilly should insist on: You are allowed to interrupt me one time, so long as my answers are less than 45 seconds in length. This gives O'Reilly the right to curtail filibuster artists, but also gives the guest the right to be heard without being shouted down.

    For the record, I have no problem with EITHER set of cartoons being published. Once again, however, we see our Liberal friends wringing their hands over an isolated case where offense to Christianity is being attacked. How about the people at universities throughout North America who have been threatened or fired for (real or imaginary) offenses to Islam? For example, a HR employee at Belmont College was fired last year for holding a "cartoon contest" on his blog. Where were you then?

  • U of Oregon does NOT have a uplink?
  • Posted by Bart J. on May 23, 2006 at 6:45am EDT
  • As a former Oregonian, I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that the university did NOT have an satellite uplink that could connect with FOX-NYC. What if CBS News had called? Or NBC News?

    About Mr. Bill -- hey, it's theatre, it's a game. Goldie Hawn goes on with Kirk Russell, Mr. Bill thanks them for their appearance, and life goes on. "Now, a few words about tommorrow's show .."

  • Posted by Ezra Gilgh on May 23, 2006 at 7:00am EDT
  • Hurray for Frohnmayer!! Many others should take note. Yes, it's show business. But one doesn't have to be part of the act.
    Ezra Gilgh

  • Quick...
  • Posted by Nate at Lehigh University on May 23, 2006 at 7:55am EDT
  • He sounds totally rational. Cut his mike.

  • Posted by Larry on May 23, 2006 at 8:15am EDT
  • Bart, And so what if it does? Nobody has any obligation to go on a TV-show, and be abused and have their uplink or mic cut. Appearing on that show is like fighting with a skunk: if one “loses” the skunk is a hero; and if one “wins” everyone knows that the guest has been fighting with a skunk.

  • Censorship at U of Oregon
  • Posted by John K. Wilson on May 23, 2006 at 8:40am EDT
  • The uncensored cartoons are available at:
    http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2006/04/21/electronic-insurgent/

    I am surprised that this article omits one part of the controversy where the U of Oregon administrators did seek to censor the Insurgent. The Insurgent had been using the university's nonprofit permit to mail out copies of its newspaper. Suddenly, with this issue, the university declared that the policy had been changed a year ago and the Insurgent could not mail out this issue with the permit. (Strangely, the university didn't actually tell anyone this--it took an anonymous phone call for the Insurgent to find out that the issue hadn't been mailed and was sitting in Mailing Services.) The University's explanation is bizarre, to say the least: student groups are not part of the university. This, of course, is ridiculous, as a quick reading of Southworth will prove. And oddly, the ASUO (which the Insurgent and all other student groups are organized under) is still able to use the permit. So the U of Oregon prevented the national distribution of this issue for more than a month (the Insurgent is now getting its own mailing permit). They deserve some credit for refusing outright censorship of a student newspaper, but certainly not complete praise.

  • U of O @ NYC
  • Posted by Bart J. on May 23, 2006 at 9:40am EDT
  • This is odd. No satellite uplink .. from a university whose sports department spent mega-bucks on a billboard in Times Square ..

    "Times Select: Content: Sports of The Times; Oregon Likes The Visibility Of Broadway: By WILLIAM C. RHODEN: July 25, 2002:

    Oregon's Keenan Howry is on a billboard in Times Square to put the university and its football program on the national map.

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_oregon/index.html?offset=20&&

    Well, at least they spelled everyone's name correctly.

  • O'Reilly
  • Posted by Christine on May 23, 2006 at 10:30am EDT
  • Whatever one's opinion of the flap at Oregon--and personally I don't have a problem with publishing either set of cartoons--I'm always amused by the coverage of Bill O'Reilly and his show. Over the years I've watched O'Reilly debate, in a reasoned way, any number of people with whom he totally disagrees, all without screaming or cutting anybody's mic. It is the rare exception, not the rule, to shut a guest down. O'Reilly does ask tough questions and doesn't accept non-answers, which I certainly welcome. Frohnmayer didn't have to "cancel his appointments...to drive 200 miles." He could have done a remote interview (many guests do), or he didn't have to appear at all, which was his choice. But it's hardly courageous to call O'Reilly names to the AP or the local press. I would have found it interesting and perhaps instructive to hear Frohnmayer "stand up" to O'Reilly on his show. Sure, the show is part entertainment (isn't Chris Matthews?) but it's mostly informative, unless one can't bear hearing any side of an issue right of Al Gore, and O'Reilly's campaign to protect children from sexual predators is both worthy and effective. Just shining the spotlight on NY's Sheldon Silver and his ilk is worth an occasional shouting match.

  • Posted by rk on May 23, 2006 at 10:30am EDT
  • Although I disagree with the inflammatory nature of the cartoon, there is nothing wrong with smoking Bill O'Reilly out of his right wing hole and exposing him for the true hypocrite he is. For this I thank the U. of Oregon President wholeheartedly.

  • business as usual
  • Posted by Larry on May 23, 2006 at 10:30am EDT
  • John, For what it’s worth, this is a pretty familiar pattern. Lower or mid-level administrators try to censor something (or something else unconstitutional or illegal). By the time the lawyers, or senior-level people hear about it, a wise college president or dean tells them to give it up, and manages to convert himself into a hero for free speech (just by obeying the law.)

    Bart, Give it up. The guy just didn’t want to appear on the show. There could have been a satellite uplink in his office, and he still wouldn’t appear. I wouldn’t, either, without strict groundrules that are enforced by someone else. (Apparently Johnny Cochrane managed to do this, once.) O’Reilly, by being a blowhard, has shown that he is just looking for punching bags and doesn’t want to debate or discuss issues even if he had the intellectual capacity to do so (since he doesn't read the court decisions he talks about, I think he lacks such capacity.)

  • Disrespectful Cartoons
  • Posted by Linda on May 23, 2006 at 11:05am EDT
  • Had this been a cartoon depicting Muhammad, I believe everyone would be taking a different position. Indeed, everyone would be running for cover, the University President would have apologized and the Mea Culpas would be spoken endlessly around the globe. Just an observation--but Christianity seems to be such an easy target for academia and everyone else.

  • response to Linda
  • Posted by Larry on May 23, 2006 at 12:10pm EDT
  • Linda, You offer no support for your beliefs. None at all. I think that most people think that religions are fair game for parody and mocking. Instead, you seem to conflate a political belief that Islam, with its dalliances with terror is getting a free ride from some people. This partisan belief seems to be part of a grander strategy in which various people assert that others are “soft on terror” by not mocking Islam.

    This is different then actually analyzing the president’s actions.

  • Posted by Samwise on May 23, 2006 at 12:30pm EDT
  • The comments section at Inside Higher Ed is pure entertainment, and sometimes includes intimidating rhetoric.

    If I stop commenting here will I get an article on how courageous I am?

    I don't think anyone really means to suggest that the fellow had an obligation to appear on Bill's silly show. But it does seem odd that we are reading about it here.

  • Freedom of the Press & U of O
  • Posted by Arthur Ide on May 23, 2006 at 2:05pm EDT
  • Censorship is wrong. It is never acceptable.

    No one is ever heard by what he or she reads, sees, or listens to; instead, ignornace and censorship breed wars and intolerance, and allows the least educated to be presidents of nations.

    The myth in Christianity is that Jesus was never a "true man": without sexual interest or functions. Such an absurdity is nonsense, for chastity and celibacy are unnatural sex acts. Early Christian iconography portrays Jesus to have penis. What was it for? Decoration?

    I support, whole-heartedly, the publication of any cartoon, be it on Moses, Mohammad, Jesus, Buddah or any other fictional or historic figure. Cartoons are educational, both in soliciting comment as well as inviting research into authenticity.

    We need more leaders like the U of Oregon is most fortunate to have.

  • Frohnmayer's response
  • Posted by UO social science prof on May 23, 2006 at 2:35pm EDT
  • I have disagreed with Dave about various issues over the years, but he got this one exactly right. Why should he waste his time being pummelled by O'Reilly on O'Reilly's turf? If O'Reilly wants a real public engagement or debate over the issue, let's have one with a neutral moderator. I'd pay good money to see Dave work him over and leave him squirming on the rug like the pusillanimous little worm he is.

    The Commentator published offensive speech. The Insurgent published additional offensive speech. The students were handling it very thoughtfully among themselves by working through the university's process and addressing the cartoons in their own forums. Even some of the students who were initially offended are now horrified at the way the right-wing echo chamber is exploiting this event.

    O'Reilly should use his big mouth to address something that really matters, like, say, Darfur.

  • O'Reilly is fortunate
  • Posted by Drex on May 23, 2006 at 3:15pm EDT
  • I've known Dave Frohnmayer for three decades, since I took a class from him while a student at Oregon. He possesses a rare combination of intellect, pragmatism and decency, which is why he has served the university so admirably.
    It is also a reason that O'Reilly should count his blessings that Frohnmayer chose not to appear on his show. Dear Bill would have pummeled in a deceny/intellect smackdown.
    Go back to saving Christmas, Bill. Leave constitutional rights to better men.

  • More cartoon controversy?
  • Posted by Andrew Lent on May 24, 2006 at 11:50am EDT
  • It is good to see that more people are standing up for their first amendment rights when it comes to publishing controversial cartoons. This last semester, I found myself in the middle of a similar controvery when a cartoonist for the magazine I used to run (http://www.ruwhim.com at Radford University) began publishing a Christ on Campus cartoon. The cartoon was created by a toonist ironically named Christian who grew up in a pentacostal church. Many of the cartoons either were simple jokes are actually had some deep-rooted philosophical meanings to them, including issues like the problem of evil and questioned the sincerity of televangelists and whether commercialism was winning out over Christianity at Christmas time.

    His detractors thought that he was portraying Jesus in non-Biblical ways, which was true, Jesus was put into a modern context. There was even one that showed Jesus on bed with another woman about to have sex, wondering if he had the necessary equipment to do so (it turns out, he didn't). That's a rather crude way to demonstrate divinity vs. humanity in Christ, but hey, it is a free-thinking college publication and I don't see crude being excluded from the First Amendment.

    Again, this comes down to a simple question. If it wasn't Christianity, would their be an uproar? It is really easy for people to say no, because they aren't faced with the dilemma of having to confront it. I've heard citations referring to the violence in the Middle East, but in the same breath, those people also say, "Guess that proves those cartoons were right, but you still shouldn't publish something that offends someone's faith."

    I just don't buy that. I believe in not starting controversy for the sake of controversy, but debate is another thing. No one in these cartoons is trying to prove something right or wrong about Jesus. What about articles that condemn homosexuality based upon a Christian's interpretation of the Bible? Well, I know a lot of homosexual Christians, do you not think that offends them? Should that not be published? What about articles that say Christianity is the one-true religion and therefore all other religions are wrong. Naturally that offends other religions, should it not be published?

    I don't see why religion should be held to any higher standard than any other belief a person holds on to. If I were to be an atheist and therefore religion is not sacred to me, am I allowed to then say my politics cannot be made fun of, because that is where my beliefs lie?

    Good job, Oregon, for not backing down. I only wish I would have had to opportunity to go toe-to-toe with that bully O'Reilly. Funny enough, the Christ on Campus issue did generate some attention from conservatives in the mainstream 24-hour "news" culture. However, Tucker Carlson said if the university tried to remove the cartoon from Whim, he would get involved. Now that is a conservative opinion I can stand behind.

  • lent comment on cartoon
  • Posted by Joseph Chabot on May 25, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • Recently I read I believe it was Mr. Lents response to the cartoon controversy regarding Jesus....much to say....one statement that he made was that he said he had homosexual Chritian friends...sorry to tell you this but homosexual and Christian do not, and can not go together. It is impossible for a true follower of Jesus Christ to continue in a homosexual lifestyle.

  • Pope Chabot
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on May 25, 2006 at 9:50pm EDT
  • Thank you Pope Chabot.

    Now I, Pope Gump will also pronounce heterosexual fornicators "non-Christian"

    and gamblers, and prostitutes, and . . .

    Ooops, can't cite any biblical evidence on judging the latter.

    Nevermind.

  • Based on...?
  • Posted by Cranky Media Guy on May 29, 2006 at 4:40pm EDT
  • Joseph Chabot said:

    "sorry to tell you this but homosexual and Christian do not, and can not go together. It is impossible for a true follower of Jesus Christ to continue in a homosexual lifestyle."

    And that, of course, would be based on the many teachings of Christ on the subject of homosexuality. Oh, wait, there aren't any of those, are there? So, Joe, you actually have the temerity to think that you can read Jesus' mind? Is arrogance a sin?

  • UO blew it
  • Posted by Sharon on June 9, 2006 at 2:50pm EDT
  • I am appalled at what is done in the name of "free speech." From what I understand, the University of Oregon continues to support this student paper, financially and otherwise. Oregon just lost the financial support of a long-time donor.

  • Standing up to Bill O'Reilly
  • Posted by Danny Jaffer , LCDR at USN on September 15, 2006 at 8:25am EDT
  • I was at sea when this "controversy" was brewing last spring, so I didn't know it was going on then. I happened on it today by chance, and it seems to have quieted down. Obviously O'Reilly gave it up and moved on to other make-believe issues when he realized the caliber of man he was dealing with in President Frohnmayer. As an alumnus of UofO, as a life-long resident of the Great State of Oregon, and as someone who has dedicated his life to "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States", I stand firmly behind Dave Frohnmayer. He is one of the smartest and most conscientious people I have ever met. President Dave Frohnmayer has done more good for more people than the self-serving Bill O'Reilly ever will. Shame on O'Reilly for disparaging Dave Frohnmayer, the man Bill could never be, and the University of Oregon, a school Bill could never understand.

    Related to this story, someone named Sharon commented on June 9th that because the University allowed the publication of the controversial cartoons, it has lost her as a financial supporter. If someone can tell me what her last donation was, I will cover it this year.