Guilt by association.

Byline: The Register-Guard

There's confusion on both sides of the dispute over whether KUGN-AM radio should continue to be allowed to bill itself as "The Voice of the Ducks." Nobody's trying to censor anyone here, contrary to what University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer says. And the UO's relationship with KUGN does not imply any sort of endorsement of the station's intemperate talk-show hosts, despite the fears of some students and faculty.

This issue was raised by people on campus who don't want the University of Oregon associated with the likes of talk-show host Michael Savage, who pitches his rants to listeners who think Rush Limbaugh has gone soft. Sprinkled throughout KUGN's programming schedule, including Savage's broadcast, are station identification spots proclaiming KUGN to be "The Voice of the Ducks." KUGN's contract with ESPN Regional, through which the UO sells broadcast rights to its athletic events, gives the station the right to promote itself in that fashion.

KUGN's decision to air Savage's program raises questions about its standards and judgment - one day, before we pushed the button to change stations, we heard him suggest that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved in the death of John F. Kennedy Jr. The station's critics claim such programming is in conflict with the university's commitment to tolerance and respect. They're right - but having Savage and the Ducks on the same radio station doesn't make Savage the voice of the Ducks.

In a letter to the UO student body last week, Frohnmayer brushed aside the complaint against KUGN. The UO "cannot engage in any form of attempted censorship on this issue or any other issue," the letter said. "Freedom of thought and expression is the bedrock principle on which university activity is based. We must hold that principle inviolate."

Well, sure - but no one was calling for censorship. There was no demand that Savage or anyone else be kicked off the air. The students and faculty asked only that the UO disassociate itself from Savage (and from a far less offensive talk-show host, Michael Medved, who distinguishes himself by actually entertaining opposing points of view). That's not an assault upon freedom of thought or expression, but rather a request that the UO exercise more discretion in choosing the company it keeps.

At the same time, Savage's critics are wandering into swampy territory when they attempt to say that some programming isn't good enough to be on the same station as the Ducks. Drawing the line is tricky - first Savage, then Medved, and who's next? What about the television stations that broadcast Duck games? Should their programming be reviewed for conformity to the UO's standards of tolerance and respect? It might be possible for everyone to agree that al-Jazeera should not be "The Voice of the Ducks" - but beyond that, the effort to disassociate the UO from objectionable programming begins to look less like an attempt to protect the university's image and more like a campaign to impose the UO's values on others.

It's likely that Savage's critics take him more seriously than his listeners do. Besides, everyone knows that Jerry Allen, not Savage, is "The Voice of the Ducks."