Source: WorldNetDaily

It seems Art Robinson is at it again.

The former congressional candidate for Oregon’s fourth district is accusing Oregon State University of attempting to remove his three children from its graduate program in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics as a response to his candidacy in the previous election and his impending candidacy in 2012. He believes the appropriations awarded to OSU under DeFazio’s tenure are influencing the decisions of how to handle his children in the program.

According to Robinson, two of his children, Joshua and Bethany, are slated for removal from the Ph.D program, and a professor who is trying to help them has become the target of a defamation campaign:

Democrat activist David Hamby and militant feminist and chairman of the nuclear engineering department Kathryn Higley are expelling four-year Ph.D. student Joshua Robinson from OSU at the end of the current academic quarter and turning over the prompt neutron activation analysis facility Joshua built for his thesis work and all of his work in progress to Higley’s husband, Steven Reese. Reese, an instructor in the department, has stated that he will use these things for his own professional gain. Joshua’s apparatus, which he built and added to the OSU nuclear reactor with the guidance and ideas of his mentor, Michael Hartman, earned Joshua the award for best Masters of Nuclear Engineering thesis at OSU and has been widely complimented by scientists at prominent U.S. nuclear facilities.

Meanwhile, faculty member Todd Palmer notified four-year Ph.D. student Bethany Robinson (OSU grade point average 3.89) that he was terminating her thesis work and taking all of her work in progress for himself. Some of Bethany’s graduate work has already been used, without credit to Bethany, in the thesis of another favored student now recently hired on the department faculty. […]

My children and I attempted to counter all these actions against us as they unfolded, but were initially uncertain as to their ultimate intent. All became clear, however, when OSU faculty administrators abruptly took a further and very serious prejudicial action toward Joshua. At that point, OSU Professor of Nuclear Engineering Jack Higginbotham, who was privy to all of the meetings and actions, warned us and came to our defense. […]

Professor Higginbotham warned us that faculty administrators at OSU were working to make certain that Joshua, his sister Bethany and, if possible, his brother Matthew never receive Ph.D. degrees in nuclear engineering from OSU, regardless of their examination, academic and research performance. Professor Higginbotham then reviewed with us the details of the plan to destroy the education of these students and advised me to do anything I could to protect my children. […]

Now nearing success is a disgraceful effort to strip Professor Higginbotham of his faculty position and his research grants. His career now potentially in ruins, he is fighting back in hopes of saving himself and the positions of the students and staff who depend upon him at OSU and who may also lose their careers as collateral damage in these astonishing events.

In response to these claims, OSU has released a statement vaguely refuting Robinson’s claims, but because of the limitations with FERPA, the university is not legally allowed to disclose information on the grades or academic status of individual students. The release does, however, state that the information regarding individual professors mentioned in his editorial was “baseless and unfounded”:

Federal law prohibits institutions of higher education from discussing matters concerning our students with anyone other than the student himself or herself without the express consent of the student involved. Given that, OSU will not comment on any allegation regarding the Robinson students or share any personal information concerning them other than the limited “directory information” allowed by law to be shared.

Robinson’s material singles out several individual faculty members for criticism. The university has found no factual basis for the accusations made against those faculty members. OSU is proud of its education and research programs and faculty in Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics and of department alumni, many of whom hold leadership positions in government and private sector organizations.

OSU will not comment on other allegations made in the Robinson posts other than to say the claims made therein are baseless and without merit.

Whether or not Robinson’s claims are true remains to be seen, but it does bring up an interesting question about the relationship between administrators and students. Charles Martin at Pajamas Media points out this paragraph of Robinson’s diatribe in particular:

OSU administrators think they can violate ethical academic standards of professional conduct, break formal OSU rules and regulations, and even violate U.S. laws with impunity because, in any resulting litigation, they would be defended by lawyers from the Oregon Department of Justice, assuring that only students with huge sums of money and many years to invest in litigation can oppose them. The Robinsons do not have those huge sums of money, and, moreover, they want to complete their education – not receive money in exchange for the destruction of their education and opportunities.

With all this talk of restructuring, transparency, accountability and access to higher education in Oregon, it will be interesting to see how this manifests. As none of them have yet reported on the story, it seems the majority of Oregon media outlets are regarding Robinson’s claims as inane ramblings from a failed candidate trying to hang on to relevance. But if the claims prove to be true, it could mean a lot in regards to the state of Oregon’s higher education system.

Additionally, if any of our OSU readers know anything about the story, the professors or the Robinson kids, don’t hesitate to email: editor AT oregoncommentator DOT com.

Hat tip to Owen over at Pajamas Media for the tip.

UPDATE 10:22PM:

UO Matters points us to this website in support of Robinson’s claims, and says the news will be all over it tomorrow. I suppose we’ll see what the Oregon media can uncover.

I took it upon myself to help one of our fellow publications get an A+ on their next Writing 121 assignment and doled out some advice, grammatical and otherwise:

I think I might have been too late, though. This one’s about a meeting about five weeks ago; he must have turned it in late.

Peter Wong of the Statesman-Journal writes about possible amendments being made to the state constitution allowing law enforcement officials to set up roadblocks and the measure that would call checkpoints to a vote :

It was law enforcement against civil libertarians Monday on the issue of whether voters should be asked to change the Oregon Constitution to enable police to set up checkpoints to deter drunken drivers.

Along with Washington and Idaho, Oregon is among the dozen states that do not allow such roadblocks. The state Supreme Court, by a 5-2 vote in 1987, disallowed them as a violation of the state constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures without “probable cause.” The other 38 states do allow them.

House Joint Resolution 25, sponsored by Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany — a retired state police lieutenant — and others, would put the issue to the voters. Previous attempts to do so have not made it past the Legislature.

Drivers in Oregon wanting to drink on the road may have to become more clever than popping breath mints to evade DUII citation and arrest.  State voters have not wanted checkpoints in the past, but the latest bill announcement of House Joint 25 not only calls personal liberty into question but also driver protection.  Rep. Andy Olson is presenting the proposal  along with House Bill 3133 (HJ’s sister bill), which would change Oregon constitution to allow sobriety checkpoints throughout the state.

(more…)

Editor’s Note: Yes, there are images. I’m on assignment this weekend and will be unable to post images until Sunday. This also explains why this story is so late. Sorry.

News:

EUGENE – Student program budgets often create tension amongst those passing them. Senators have been known to yell, cry, and lob epithets like grenades over small sums. There’s a certain craziness that takes over during the last few weeks of Winter Term, the time when major program budgets come before the Senate.

With the exception of OSPIRG, this year’s process has been relatively smooth thus far. It came to a gentle, efficient conclusion as the Programs Finance Committee’s budget was approved for next year, and while it looked like the body might get snagged on the prickly Over-Realized, even this hurdle was taken with relative ease as the committee’s recommendations were followed. Not all was smooth as a request from the African Student Association led to some harsh remarks and a near revocation of the $3,240 the group had been granted to attend a national conference and a couple of students expressed vocal displeasure at the process through which over-realized funds were allocated.

After some brief special requests, some rules changes and the approval of a ballot measure clarifying who is eligible to serve as freshman senator, the members of the PFC stepped into the well to deliver their budget. Despite resignations, recalls, and some exceptionally long hearings, the committee was proud of the figures they were able to present the committee with. “We made sure to give as much growth as possible,” said Committee Chair Noah Wolf-Prusan.

The only point of contention was the salary of the Sustainability Coordinator position, which PFC referred back to the Senate after a recall hearing produced no consensus. Sen. Kerry Snodgrass said that, “I am in full support of this line item being fully funded.” The Senate seemed to share this consensus and approved the PFC budget at $1,842,890, in increase of 5.41 percent.

Following the PFC budget, ASA returned to argue their case again after they did not receive funding to attend a national conference last week. . Members were not convinced. “If you want to go to this conference, we need to see you put in the effort to go to this conference…. We haven’t seen any demonstrated effort,” said Sen. Kaitlyn Lange. Despite this, the groups request was granted.

Things then took a turn for the odd. Kamal Ararso, presenter for ASA, lambasted the Senate for their stinginess, saying “I’m not asking for any of your money.” Ararso’s voice grew louder as he said “We have never had a conference off campus.” Ararso said that the money Senate provided would not be sufficient to send the group to the conference, and remarked that the group did not want funds they felt were insufficient and stormed from the room.

Lange took Ararso’s words at face value and issued a motion to rescind the previous motion, which passed. A runner was promptly sent to retrieve Ararso and his co presenters, who were grilled by the Senate again before receiving the same amount again. This time, Ararso and the other presenters quietly left.

The Senate then moved quickly along to allocating the Over-Realized Fund. A number of groups made presentations as to their plans, followed by a presentation by the Over-Realized Committee. The Senators began discussing the committee’s recommendations one by one, voting on each in turn.

There was some contention surrounding the  Riverfront proposal, which would channel $56,238 to Connecting Eugene, a local group, to help foster a student-led process for creating a new Riverfront development plan. “I don’t think this is the correct avenue or the right funding model,” said Lange. Despite concerns, the Senate approved the Riverfront proposal, as well as a $50,000 subsidy of student theater tickets, which will be free to student next year, and $45,000 the implementation of OrgSync, a computer system which will integrate and organize programs’ calendars and event planning, among other functions.

After approving these three proposals and starting in on a fourth, Sen. Evan Thomas, chair of the Over-Realized Committee, yielded to Lidiana Soto, a presenter for a proposed symposium on the Middle East. The symposium had not received the recommendation of the committee, and Soto explained that she felt like the Senate had ignored the idea. “I am very upset,” she said.

She continued to address what she felt was an unfair process of allocation, and specifically criticized the OrgSync, until Thomas took the floor back, saying, “I don’t want you to undermine the Senate’s decisions.” Lange moved to appropriate funds to the symposium, but the vote was seven in favor and 11 opposed.

The discussion went on into the night. When the dust finally settled, the Senate had followed the committee’s recommendations to the letter. In addition to the aforementioned appropriations, two appropriations of $21,000 each, to Premier Bike Network and ZimRide, a national student ride sharing network, and an $8,000 appropriation to the Pedal Power initiative, were approved.

With this process over, budget season had finally come to a close. Wolf-Prusan was relieved that his committee’s budget had finally been approved. When asked how he felt having concluded the process, he said “Wonderful. Like taking a really big poop.”

After agreeing to an internal redistribution plan for academic senate seats, as opposed to the plan proposed last year by the Constitution Court, the Senate’s last regularly scheduled meeting of Winter term came to an end as well.

CORRECTION: In a previous version of this article, ASA Presenter Kamal Ararso’s name was misspelled. The Commentator regrets this error, which has since been corrected.

Notes, Stats, and Opinion after the jump. (more…)

“On the other hand, if you’re a 3.9 student, why the hell would you apply some place that only requires a 3.4?”

Question— (in the Spirit of Lariviere) Why the hell would a University President say something like that?

Yes, yes, this is part of a larger quote talking about the inadequacy of the automatic admissions policy (as covered below by Alex), but the statement in itself is astounding. Having a requirement of a 3.4 GPA does not signal that certain students don’t belong at a University. Besides, prospective students don’t just look at the GPA requirement they look at our culture, our sports and our highly ranked programs (like the Business School).

Perhaps we are not an Ivy League college, but that doesn’t mean that 3.9 students don’t belong here. Nor, does it mean that only 3.9 students belong at Ivy League schools.

As Lariviere noted elsewhere in his interview, the 3.4 GPA is NOT A REQUIREMENT, but rather an automatic acceptance for Oregon students. It says, “hey, y’all did OK in High School, so we’ll let you in.” Not “Unless you have higher than a 3.4, you must find another college to attend.” Moreover, if Penn, Cornell, Princeton& Dartmouth don’t have minimum GPA requirements, should 3.9 students write-off those colleges? If Columbia is looking for students with a GPA above 3.0 should 3.9 students write those off as well? Most definitely, out of state students with said GPA should not even bother to apply to Berkeley, for they only require a 3.4.

I appreciate that President Lariviere stepped outside of press-releases and scripted answers and had an honest conversation, but in questioning why 3.9 students would apply to the the University of Oregon, he is telling the very students he leads that the UO is just a consolation prize. He completed the statement by saying “So we’re just sending the wrong message to everybody.” Perhaps the automatic GPA needs to be cut, but having a GPA requirement or an automatic admission’s GPA cutoff doesn’t say anything about the competitiveness or worth of the University. 

Also, yes, I have a coffee date set with the President, and yes, I probably just threw away all chances of that happening but I am not going cease writing for the next two weeks, or skirt around important issues- I work for the Commentator, not the Pussy Daily.

Northwestern Professor John Michael Bailey has been put in a compromising position after his recent post-class demonstration was met with explosive reactions. Bailey’s Human Sexuality class, like many others, covers topics ranging from transexuality to masturbation, but unlike the course you can take here at UO, he has after-class “educational addendums,” the most recent being a live demonstration of a woman being penetrated by a this:

Fucksaw

It’s called a fucksaw, and for around $170 you can get your very own. The after class special was a discussion on kink and sexual fetish, where students could touch clown wigs, feel the “titillating” sting of an erotic electric shock device, and watch as Faith Kroll (pictured below) stripped naked and was penetrated by the toy, wielded by her fiance, Jim Marcus.

Kroll and finace Marcus

It is yet unclear as to what, if any kind of repercussions this will have for Professor Bailey, but of course some critics are already spurting with disapproval. The demonstration “troubled and disappointed” Northwestern University President Morton Shapiro, who also called for an investigation. The addendum was an optional part of class, no credit was given for attending, and because the act was performed in a classroom setting it is considered legal. But was it necessary for student comprehension? Yes, says Bailey, Kroll, and Marcus. During the lecture the class watched a video depicting a female orgasm which both Kroll and Marcus found to be inadequate and thought they could give a much more realistic example right then and there. Kroll and Marcus are self-proclaimed exhibitionists, meaning they derive their sexual pleasure from being watched during the dirty deed.

“Both Professor Bailey and myself gave [the students] five or six warnings about what was about to happen and it would be graphic,” said Ken Melvoin-Berg, who was the main guest lecturer and who is also co-owner of Weird Chicago Tours. The most important precaution taken, in this writer’s opinion, was the towel that Kroll made sure to lay down beneath her before the love session began.

So far no lawsuits have been filed, so it seems that none of the students were severely traumatized by watching the 25-year-old get totally reamed by a fucksaw.

“It is probably something I will remember for the rest of my life. I can’t say that about my Econ 202 class and the material that I learned there,” said Justin Smith, a Northwestern senior.

But the real question at the heart of this controversy: did Kroll actually climax for the class, or was she just faking it? That is a mystery we may never be able to answer, or at least not until the cell phone videos begin surfacing.

UO Vice Provost of Enrollment Development Roger Thompson says the policy will help push high school students to succeed.

High school students with grade point averages of 3.4 or higher will no longer be admitted automatically to the University of Oregon starting next year under the OUS’ new admissions policy.

The UO has been gradually tightening its admissions standards in recent years — students were automatically admitted with 3.25 averages until the 2009–10 school year.

University President Richard Lariviere and Vice Provost of Enrollment Management Roger Thompson cited various reasons for the change agreed that the automatic admissions policy creates problems of perception among high school students. “If you’re a 3.3 student or a 3.2 student and you’re in one of those subsets that we really want to apply to the place — if the message is that if you don’t have a 3.4, you’re not going to get in, you diminish the likelihood that that student will apply,” Lariviere told a group of journalism students on Feb. 16. “On the other hand, if you’re a 3.9 student, why the hell would you apply some place that only requires a 3.4? I’m smarter than that. So we’re just sending the wrong message to everybody.”

Thompson said the current policy may dissuade Oregon students from applying themselves academically in high school. The vice provost’s job includes visits to Oregon high schools to talk to students about their college choices.

“One of the most common things I hear is a lot of those students don’t push themselves academically because they know, if they get a 3.4, they’ll get into the University of Oregon,” he said.

OUS spokesperson Di Saunders said the UO’s new admission standard was approved along with a new, system-wide change to the OUS’ policy on automatic admissions. Previously, the UO was the only school in the system that admitted students with high GPAs automatically. Now every school in the system will have the 3.4 standard except the UO.

The change to the UO’s policy appears to have escaped notice in the announcement of the OUS’ new standards. Thompson was not aware when he spoke to the Commentator Wednesday that the policy had already been changed.

The plan will first take effect for students applying to attend the UO in the 2012–13 school year.

When the UO decided to tighten its rules to admit students automatically only with 3.4 averages in February of 2009, it estimated that 70 percent of its students had been admitted automatically because of their GPAs. The mean grade-point average of high school students admitted to the UO for the fall 2010 term was 3.52, indicating that most UO students still gain admission automatically.

elissa Haskin contributed reporting to this article. It will be updated as I learn more.

ASUO President Amelie Rousseau has officially vetoed the Atheltics and Contracts Finance Committee budget due to its lack of inclusion of a contract for the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group.

Her veto letter to Senate (which can be found below the jump) cites support for OSPIRG, including mention of its winning ballot measure in the 2010 ASUO election and how the outcome shows widespread support for the contract. She also mentions that OSPIRG teaches students to be “leaders of social change.”

I’m pretty sick and tired of the Executive”s marginalization of student groups and students in general. She came into office, guns blazing, throwing around all the things she wanted to do with no regard for who they might affect.

For instance, the Sustainability Coalition, a brand new student group with first year funding for 2011-12, already has its own office (Sustainability Center) and its own full-time staff coordinator (Sustainability Coordinator). How did they receive such coveted space when there are many student groups that are operating with zero space? They moved eight student groups into temporary offices in the Break, with no opportunities for other student groups to apply for that space.

(The smoking ban also fits in here, but we’ll leave that for another time.)

I understand that the Sustainability Center will encompass many student groups on campus, but so could any arbitrary grouping of programs. Rousseau’s aid of a certain section of student groups while marginalizing another section is bothersome, and shows through with her support of OSPIRG.

My opposition to the PIRG has nothing to do with the issues they choose to fund. If the University of Oregon had been funding a CFACT chapter for 30 years, I would be fighting to get it zero-funded as well. These programs pull from a pool of mandatory student fees to send money off campus to lobby/advocate/whatever for political causes. Whether or not I agree with the particular cause is not important. It’s about the management of my student fee and the student fee of many other students.

The individuals in power right now (and it is the ASUO, so that power has the opportunity to run rampant) seem to believe that raising the fee to exorbitant levels is just A-OK. The growing fee in the face of rapidly rising tuition presents a barrier to students, and until the ASUO has effective outreach mechanisms in place, most parts of incidental fee are going to affect the same 2,000 students who are already involved. The growth of programs (especially when they are not necessarily being efficient or effective with their money) is not necessarily beneficial to the majority of incidental fee-paying students.

Whatever. Anyone who reads the Commentator blog already knows our opinion on OSPIRG — if not, do a quick search. It’s not about a pervading conservative ideal trying to stifle activism and progressive viewpoints. It’s about proper management of funds and using logic to make financial decisions. The PIRG has received its fair share of hearings — more than any other department, program or contract — and has still been allocated zero funding. For the third year in a row. Maybe it’s time for the PIRG die-hards to listen and make changes to their funding structure if its presence is so needed and beneficial on campus.

Rousseau’s letter to Senate after the jump.
(more…)

For those of you that follow along at home, this will make Senate much more enjoyable. This is of course applicable to any Senate meeting. Cheers!

ASUO Drinking Game Rules:

Drink every time

• There is actually a meeting
• OSPIRG shows up to said meeting
• Someone abstains from voting

Take a shot when:

• President Amelie Rousseau
• Rousseau leaves
• Senate hands out $10,000 or more.
• There is a lone “nay”

Upend your homemade four loko when:

• Kamal yells at senate or
• Senate goes over their estimated end time by more than 2 hours

Last night the Programs Finance Committee, a number of ASUO senators and a boardroom full of audience members all sat down with the student fee-funded Sustainability Coordinator to discuss her salary. After about half an hour of relevant conversation, a 5-1-1 vote ended discussion, leaving the ASUO Senate to talk about it tonight.
Highlights:

• Executive budget is actually $4,000 shorter than previously thought
• PFC budget is $9,000 in excess, a 5.8% increase for next year
• Sustainability Coordinator originally to be part-time first year, full-time after that; they started her at full-time and can’t really demote her now; her salary is currently set at $40,000
• It’s kind of funny to watch somebody sit while a bunch of students debate their income
• Sen. Kerry Snodgrass and the PFC chair bicker back and forth in amusing fashion
• Everybody in that room popped a worry-boner when somebody mentioned how if they cut the SC’s salary the survival center wouldn’t be completed for years and years

Will the SC lose half her salary? Will anybody care about the sustainability center when it’s completed? How many more senate resignations will this kind of duty-shoving cause in spring term? All these questions answered and more, on tonight’s episode of “ASUO senate: Haha, that stipend probably isn’t worth it!”

EDIT: PFC is actually ~$100 under benchmark. Spreadsheet in the works.

UPDATED LINK

Follow along here. I’ll be on for a while, then my esteemed colleague Rockne Roll will take over.

Update 7:48pm: Things of interest on the menu tonight (updated because they’re ahead of schedule): Allocation of a little less than $200,000 in over-realized funds (collected from students) to various one-time projects (and potentially OSPIRG?!?!?), the PFC budget hearing (they’re about $9,000 over benchmark and recalled the Executive last night), and currently they’re having a discussion about a ballot measure regarding the freshman ex-officio member on Senate. Enthralling.