Here’s a run-down of the coverage on UO President Richard Lariviere’s employment situation:

November 22, 2011. Lariviere Out as U of O President. Willamette Week. Portland, Ore.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 10:40 a.m. University of Oregon President Richard Lariviere’s contract will not be renewed. Oregonian. Portland, Ore.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 12:53 p.m. Phil Knight on Richard Lariviere firing at UO: ‘an application of Oregon’s Assisted Suicide law’. Oregonian. Portland, Ore.

November 23rd, 2011, 12:23 a.m. President Lariviere asked to resign (contains original email to students). The Cool kids at the Commentator. Oh wait that’s us.

November 23, 2011. UO Students React to Lariviere Stepping Down. KEZI. Eugene, Ore.

Support builds behind UO president Lariviere.  Register-Guard. Eugene, Ore.

November 23, 2011. Was Donegan and Pernsteiner’s decision legal? UO Matters (blog). Eugene, Ore.

November 23, 2011. State Board of Higher Education to Convene a Special Meeting. Oregon University System (please note that while everyone is freaking out, this does not say, “hey kids, we’re firing Lariviere on Monday”)

November 23, 2011. State board decision sparks frustration in campus community. Ol’ Dirty. Eugene, Ore. (Yes, I know, I;m cringing sharing this but they have a video of School of Journalism and Communication Dean Gleason talking)

November 24, 2011, 12:43 a.m. Lariviere’s response to state board via email to students, faculty and staff (includes full email from President Lariviere). Oregon Commentator

Also, this blog was started in support of Lariviere and there’s a petition here to reinstate Lariviere, which has 2862 signatures as of 12:35 a.m. Thanksgiving Day.

According to an official statement by the OUS released earlier today, the board will be “[voting] in a public meeting on Monday, November 28, 2011 regarding the status of the employment agreement of Dr. Richard Lariviere as president of the University of Oregon.” In layman’s terms? They’re going to be voting on whether to fire him that day or not.

The blog We Love Our Pres, created yesterday in support of President Lariviere’s reinstatement, has posted the letter in full, which can be read here. Obviously, they’re not happy about it.

They’re not the only ones, either. In the twenty hours since Lariviere sent out the catalytic email announcing that his contract would not be renewed, support for the President has come flooding in the way only Eugene knows how to flood.

From the Register-Guard:

Thirty-six department and program heads of the UO College of Arts and Sciences signed a letter to the board and other state leaders to “express their unequivocal support” of Lariviere and to urge “he be retained.”

[…]

Leaders of the University Senate, which includes faculty, students and staff, met in an emergency session Wednesday.afternoon [sic] to plan action over the next week or two They [sic] immediately started a petition for Lariviere’s reinstatement — collecting 1,600 signatures in the first two hours — and shared information on Facebook and Twitter.

“The very people who obviously are directly connected with the president have had no voice, no voice in this matter,” said Robert Kyr, University Senate president.

[…]

“This is a terrible decision for the university and the State of Oregon that promotes mediocrity rather than rewarding visionary leadership,” said Julia Mee, the [Alumni Association’s] board president. “We urge the board and governor to immediately reverse their decision and reinstate him.

Portland Business Journal highlighted supporters even higher up the chain, with State Senator Floyd Prozanski (or, apparently “Senator Duck” as he likes to be called) coming to Lariviere’s defense:

“I didn’t fully agree with all of the perspective that he brought as president but I honored the man for being able to stand up and say what he believes in,” Prozanski said. “If he’s being canned because he showed some independence, that is wrong. We should be able to have this dialogue between reasonable people, especially in higher education.”

Even the esteemed academics Chip Kelly and Phil Knight provided their individual takes on the matter; Kelly told The Oregonian that he was “really surprised” to hear the news, while Daddy Knight got a bit more creative:

It deeply saddens me that some people in power in our state continue to drive Oregon into a death spiral with their embrace of mediocrity. [This is an] astonishingly bad decision…It’s yet another application of Oregon’s Assisted Suicide law. For the Chancellor and the State Board of Higher Education, a “team player” is someone who falls in line with their acceptance of mediocrity, and the one who strives for excellence does not fit in.

Lariviere is even getting support from people who arguably see him as The Enemy. The United Academics of the University of Oregon, the chief organization behind attempts at faculty unionization at the UO and no friend to Lariviere, said even they would prefer Lariviere over the devil they don’t know:

No one in United Academics expected that President Lariviere would be an ally in the move toward collective bargaining at the University of Oregon. On the contrary, we expected a tough and vigorous negotiation with him. But we would much rather negotiate with a president who understands our priorities and goals for the university’s future than with one who does not.

They went on to note that, “President Lariviere’s termination serves as a reminder that in the absence of a binding contract, faculty, researchers, and teaching staff will remain confined to a limited and ineffectual role in shaping the university’s future.”

Lastly, The Register Guard reports that UO students have taken their own special brand of action: “Students started a Facebook page, Lariviere for UO president, that had more than 800 likes by 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, and was drawing messages of support from business people and UO employees.”

So there you have it. Faculty, the University Senate, the Alumni Association, senators, football coaches, billionaires, the AAUP, and a smattering of the student body want to keep Lariviere around, and are gnashing their teeth at the equally gnash-y OUS. It may all come to a head next week with the board’s vote and, shockingly enough, this shit might end up getting crazier.

As for the man himself?

“[After this] There is a very good likelihood I’ll be teaching Sanskrit,” Lariviere told The Oregonian. “That is a prospect that has a lot of appeal.”

The University Senate’s petition to reinstate Lariviere can be found here. The Lariviere for President facebook page, if you’re really that interested, can be found here.

Update: UO Matters has an interesting roadmap of reactions and motivations here.

Nearly a week after the passing of the Nov. 2 deadline for an appeal on the September ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals that invalidated an administrative ban of firearms by the Oregon University System, OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner has announced that they will not seek to appeal the ruling.

After the initial ban in September, University of Oregon president Richard Lariviere sent an email expressing veiled disapproval, but remained unclear about any attempt to appeal the case. ASUO President Ben Eckstein voiced his desire at the time to appeal the “flawed” and “dangerous decision.” Yet no plans to appeal ever surfaced, as Pernsteiner claimed that, “We do not want to go through a long and costly process that may produce the same outcome.”

In wake of the announcement, OUS Director of Communications Di Saunders noted that, “Instead we are putting our efforts into looking at polices already in place to limit gun use on campus.” The current focus for the OUS is ensuring that guns are kept out of certain buildings, already including dorms and sports arenas, but could be extended to classrooms and other buildings.

The announcement comes as no surprise to anyone who realizes that missing a deadline means you’re shit out of luck either way. My guess is that George knew an appeal was hopeless and hoped he could get by with his balls intact when no one noticed him pussy out on everybody. Either that, or he was a little wary of aggressively trying to take away the rights of citizens who choose to defend their liberties with lethal force. It will be a sad day when game day at Autzen will no longer allow the longstanding tradition of Puddles shooting off a round into the opposing team’s marching band section for every Oregon point scored.

Oregon Ducks cornerback Cliff Harris has apparently learned absolutely nothing from an 18-month suspension from driving, as evidenced by getting caught driving without a seat-belt, insurance, or a valid Oregon drivers license. While most people in this situation would be facing serious legal problems, one of our star athletes merely “could” lose his license for another 30 days.

Considering this is the 4th suspension in a 24 month period, can we just take away this retard’s license for a little longer than a month? I enjoyed the part where his family said they would contest the citations even though he was caught completely red handed. Coach Chip Kelley said that he would remain suspended from football play while they “gathered information”, a suspension which shouldn’t last much longer than when they need to field one of their star players. I realized that the majority of college football players are probably well rounded individuals, but the ones we tend to hear about are pampered racehorses who would only get suspended a few games for burning down city hall.

I realize that throwing a ball for a living is really really hard, but if you can’t balance that with your studies (without free breaks) and without breaking the law flagrantly (Jeremiah Masoli, anyone?) you shouldn’t remain on the team, even if you can run across a field really fast (Hey, LaMichael’s girlfriend!). Hell, I wish I could get a scholarship for playing Xbox. I could play Madden while not doing my homework, because my teachers totally understand bro. And, you know, maybe I accidentally commit a hate crime, but I was really sorry about it so it’s all good.

http://www.registerguard.com/web/updates/27084951-55/harris-oregon-suspension-driving-suspended.html.csp

In a recent study released by Condomania, Oregon was rated as the second largest state when it comes to penis size. Though this comes as no surprise to anyone who has a passing familiarity with the hulking lumberjacks who comprise our state (or the marble-cut hunks of the Oregon Commentator office), the news comes as a sick shock to neighboring states such as Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, which all ranked in the bottom ten.

According to the survey, the tumescent curve falls between 3” and 10”, falling into a normal Bell curve between 5” and 6”. This data is supported by a 1996 UCSF study, a 1996 German report and a Brazilian study that places average penis size between 5.1 and 5.7 inches. No significant discrepancies were found between African-American males and Caucasian males, although the rankings seem to refute this (New Orleans, Washington D.C. and San Diego are all in the top ten.)

I’m personally bursting with pride. Way to penetrate the top ranks, Oregon. I know the ride was hard, but we shot to the top of the heap. So keep on struttin’ that Cascade cock lumberjacks and don’t let anyone tell you different.

Unless you have micropenis.

The University of Oregon community has been no stranger to death over the past couple of years.

In March students mourned the loss of University of Oregon student, Alexis Pennington. As reported by the Oregon Daily Emerald, Pennington died of meningoencephalitis. At her memorial service on March 30, students and teachers, teammates and family spoke of how Pennington had touched their lives.

Pennington’s death was barely a year after that of David Chai, who lost his life in a head-on car crash. When the story first broke, KVAL reported that nine people had been injured in the accident which happened on Highway 101.

Brandon Schooley of Eugene was believed to be the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident. The three passengers in Schooley’s vehicle and all of the other vehicles occupants were treated at various hospitals: Sacred Heart at Riverbend, Good Samaritan in Corvallis and Peace Harbor in Florence.

Chai’s family was able to make it to Oregon from Korea, before his death a week after the incident.

According to KVAL and KATU, Schooley is now facing criminal charges, a year and a half after the accident.

On KVAL’s website, the big question is why the 18-month delay and why the driver is being charged with assault? One user, YouBetccha, asks “7 counts of assault? what did he beat up the survivors? “

Oregon is the 8th freest state in the union, according to a recent study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The study, which ranks New Hampshire and South Dakota tied for #1 and New York #50, ranks states based on their social and personal freedoms, analyzing a number of public policies specific to each of the states and taking care to ensure that fiscal policies are analyzed based on cost to the taxpayer.

Oregon, specifically, is ranked #24 in economic freedom and #1 in personal freedom (believe it or not).

Despite the low taxes, government spending in Oregon remains much too high, resulting in relatively high state debt. Public safety, administration, and environment and housing look particularly ripe for cutting. Gun control laws are a bit better than average. Marijuana possession is decriminalized below a certain level, and there is medical marijuana (cultivation and sale are felonies, though). […]

The state’s cigarette taxes are higher than most, and its smoking bans were recently tightened. Oregon’s spirits tax is the highest in the country and quite extreme (though interestingly, its neighbor, Washington, is the only other state three standard deviations above the national average).

The study also outlines some policy recommendations for Oregon in order to reach an optimum freedom ranking:

1. At the state level, spending on the inspection and regulation bureaucracy, natural resources, and government employees’ retirement is well above national norms. We recommend cutting spending in these areas and reducing public debt.
2. Eliminate occupational licensing for massage therapists, funeral attendants, pest-control workers, elevator installers and repairmen, boilermakers, fishers and related fishing workers, agricultural product graders and sorters, farm-labor contractors, and other
3. Maintain, if not reduce, the minimum wage, even in the face of future inflation.

Oregon’s storied history of high property/income taxes and nonexistent sales taxes probably also contribute to our relative ranking, but from where I’m sitting, we’re doing fairly well. The full study can be downloaded here.

(Hat tip to the Oregonian for pointing us to this study.)

Hey guys, tuition is going up. Again. By 9 percent.

The increases would leave the University of Oregon with the highest annual tuition and fees of $8,879. The university estimates that tuition and fees combined with room, board, books, supplies and other costs would put the total price tag for next year at $21,846. For an out-of-state or international student, tuition and fees would triple to $27,700, pushing the annual price to about $40,700.

Oh, so that’s why we have so many Californians on campus.

Still think the status quo is a good idea?

Under the governor’s proposed budget for 2011-13, the Oregon University System is expecting to get about $743 million from the state, $222 million less than it had requested. The proposed tuition increases would raise an additional $60 million next year, bringing the system’s total tuition revenue to $803.6 million for 2011-12.

Oregon needs solutions. Put down your picket signs and start thinking outside the box.

Today’s Ol’ Dirty has a letter to the editor tackling an issue that has been oddly absent on this blog as of late: concealed carry on campus. In a letter titled, “Students should have wider gun liberties,” undergraduate student Andrew Saldana attacks the Oregon University System’s illegal policy on firearms on campus while outlining the importance of students and faculty being able to protect themselves.

People should be able to be in charge of their own protection. If an individual wants to take precautions to protect themselves, they should be able to do so as long as it is in accordance with the law. Nobody else is obligated to come to your aid if you’re in crisis — not even the police, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling stating that the police are in place to protect “society at large” not any one individual(s). Even if it weren’t the case, as demonstrated above, the response time of police is too slow to prevent people from dying.

The current policy restricts those who wish to protect themselves from doing so in an effort to stop those who do not follow the law already. Gun-free zones are indeed only gun-free because good-natured people who wish to obey the rules abide by them. Many, if not most, mass shootings take place on areas deemed “gun-free.” In reality, all gun-free zones accomplish is the disarming of those who do good and leave them at the mercy of those who wish to do harm. I implore you to view the testimony of former Texas Rep. Suzanna Hupp in relation to the effects that policy and legislation restricting carry can have.

The reality of the state of concealed carry on Oregon university campuses is that it is legal, according to state law (See ORS 166.370). It is only the Oregon University System that doesn’t allow concealed carry on campus — that is to say, you will get suspended, expelled or face other disciplinary action if you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun and do so on campus.

Oregon Commentator editor emeritus CJ Ciaramella wrote a blog post for The Weekly Standard on May 5, 2010 regarding this topic, and conducted interviews with representatives from the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus and the Oregon Firearms Federation. Which team is ahead?

Currently, 26 states ban handguns on campus, even by those with concealed carry permits. Twenty three other states leave the decision to individual colleges. Only Utah explicitly prohibits public colleges from banning licensed handguns on campus.

Pro-concealed carry individuals and groups, like Saldana above and representatives from the Oregon Firearms Federation, argue that allowing individuals to carry on campus adds another level of protection for students, allowing them to defend themselves with more rapidity and agility. Those against concealed carry on campus argue that campuses are already relatively safe, and introducing guns on campus will serve to create more dangerous environments.

But let’s not forget the reason that Saldana wrote the letter in the first place. On May 26, the Emerald printed a story called, “University, law enforcement prepare for campus shooting scenario.” The story focuses around what DPS, the Eugene Police Department and SWAT can do in case of an on-campus shooting. As our favorite anonymous professor points out, the story serves to prop up the mission of the Department of Public Safety, which is to get more money to create an on-campus police force (maybe he and we are both too cynical, but whatever).

The SWAT team will be activated in such a scenario, but SWAT officers might not necessarily be on duty at the time and may have to travel from their homes to the police department to gather their equipment before heading to the scene of an incident. Klinko said this process could take up to 40 minutes, depending on where an officer lives.

Eugene has no full-time SWAT officers; the team members have regular duty assignments in addition to their SWAT duties. Additionally, there are not enough vehicles to allow SWAT officers to take their cars and equipment home with them. Despite the department’s efforts, financial constraints prevent the department from being as prepared as it would like to be.

This predicament was expressed to the Oregon House Judiciary Committee by EPD Chief Pete Kerns during testimony earlier this month.

This is where Saldana’s point peaks: in order for Eugene to accurately prepare for an on-campus shooting, a significant amount of money and time would need to be poured into the creation of an on-campus SWAT team. Students would still need to rely on the Department of Public Safety and the Eugene Police Department for their protection. That’s the ultimate disconnect between pro- and anti-concealed carry on campus: those who favor concealed carry on campus believe students should be able to defend themselves, while those who are opposed feel that students and those with concealed carry licenses are somehow not equipped to handle the magnitude of that task.

This files well into the next common argument, which is the blunt, flat, “guns are dangerous” slogan that is heard over and over from anti-gun advocates. In order to receive a concealed carry license in this state, it requires not only a class and a test, but also a willingness to follow the law in order to carry a weapon. It’s not the individuals who have gone through the process of receiving a concealed carry license that universities need to worry about — it’s those who don’t have the training, those who come onto campus with malicious intent, those who got their guns illegally, or who don’t have the training or credentials to carry their weapons on their person. The responsible individuals who sought out their concealed carry license are by definition equipped to handle the magnitude of their own safety. That’s the point.

Finally, these are our rights. These rights, just like all other rights we are legally entitled to, are granted to us from the United States Constitution. These individuals already have the right, through the same process, to carry their weapons almost anywhere else in the state. University campuses should be no different. Ciaramella hits the nail on the head here:

Indeed, if students’ First Amendment right to free expression does not end at the school gates, as the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines, why should they be denied their Second Amendment right to self-defense?

As more and more policies are put into place to create a campus bubble, an ivory tower where only certain ideas and practices are allowed (smoking ban, Pacifica Forum, the Bias Response Team), the future for concealed carry on campus seems fairly grim. Students and administrators need to realize that universities are supposed to prepare students for the so-called “real world,” where people smoke cigarettes, say things not everyone agrees with and, yes, carry concealed weapons. It’s time for us to wake up and realize that we shouldn’t be sheltered from the realities of the world outside the gates of our university. It’s time for us to demand that we be able to exercise our rights.

It’s time to stand up.

Senate Bill 764, which has made its way through the Oregon Senate and has been referred to the House Business and Labor Committee, allows the OLCC to adopt a new rule: municipalities with over 50,000 residents can, through a petition from a representative, declare alcohol impact areas. As it stands currently, the only municipalities that can petition for an alcohol impact area are those with over 300,000 residents, of which there is only one: Portland.

In September 2010, Portland filed one such petition, which was approved in December. The alcohol impact area in that case included that licensees in portions of downtown and northwest Portland and had many stipulations regarding malt beverages and wine, including that OLCC licensees cannot sell malt beverages of over 5.75% alcohol by volume (ABV) and wine or cider over 14% ABV.

From what I understand, these impact areas are designed to cut down on public intoxication and general disorderly conduct in public places. Eugene has experimented with this before, over in the Whiteaker neighborhood: Commentator contributor Ben Maras has a great post about those over on his blog. On the Whiteaker experiment:

With the Whiteaker experiment last year, three stores were asked to participate by removing high content (8% alcohol by volume) hooch from their shelves, and one agreed to participate on its own.

After 90 days, advocates looked at crime statistics and decided that yes, correlation was as good as causation. They declared it a runaway success, comparing it to similar experiments in Washington that yielded a drop in alcohol related crime – shockingly – where people couldn’t buy their booze of choice.
The response from business owners who rely on these products for much of their revenue has been less than enthusiastic. Of the 43 businesses the OLCC spent months courting to voluntarily join the “alcohol impact zone” only nine were game. This was in part because of the amount of their reported sales that malt liquor and bum wine comprise (30%, according to some), and part in fear that if they complied and other businesses didn’t, they would lose business. The OLCC’s response: Force everyone to comply.

The forward movement of the bill likely has to do with the success of the experiment, which, if passed, would definitely impact Eugene and its 156,185 residents.

The question then comes to, as it often does on the Commentator blog, at what point are we sacrificing our personal choice for a “greater goal” (perceived safety, in this case)? One of the OLCC’s stated goals is to prevent over-saturation in the state by regulating the 143 liquor stores in Oregon (yes, all of them are state-run) and owning/distributing every drop of liquor in the state. But when do post-prohibition policies run their course? When do we trust Americans to make their own decisions?

Depending on the passage of this bill, only time will tell. For now, I’m going to buy a 40 of Mickey’s and enjoy it while I still can.

(P.S. Serious hat tip to the Oregonian for Your Government, which allows Oregonians to keep track of their representatives and the pieces of legislation they sponsor.)

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that qualified medical marijuana card holders can also apply for and receive a concealed-carry license. The case goes back to a retired bus driver in Grants Pass, who made the mistake of admitting that she was a cardholder in the state-run medical marijuana program when she went to renew her concealed carry license. Officials branded her as a drug addict and said that her medical treatment program barred her from the right to carry a concealed weapon under federal law. But the Supreme Court of Oregon reminded cleared things up for them.

The ruling issued in Salem, Ore., upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court in finding that a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.

“We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses,” Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote.

In other words: states’ rights, bitches. Labeling law-abiding medical patients as dangerous criminals because their treatment is “wrong” in the eyes of authoritarian lawmakers is not only petty and childish, but also downright dangerous when real criminals come into the picture.

The more innocent people get caught up in the prohibition mentality, the more ambiguous the justification for these laws becomes. If the goal is merely to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders (who are less likely to follow concealed carry laws anyway), it’d be difficult to find anyone less violent than a stoned medical marijuana patient. Oregon has nearly 40,000 registered marijuana patients, who don’t fit the Cheech and Chong paradigm, and have had their medicine prescribed for any number of reasons. Their rights, as well as the rights of the states to make their own policy on guns, drugs, etc., should trump federal meddling of how things “ought” to be.

There is much debate in the state of Oregon about Senate Bill 742, which “Provides that certain students are entitled to exemption from nonresident tuition and fees at state institutions of higher education.” These “certain students” are illegal immigrants and children of illegal immigrants who went to high school or achieved a high school diploma (or the equivalent) in Oregon, and “exemption from nonresident tuition and fees” means in-state tuition.

The legislation has passed the Oregon Senate, making its way to the Oregon House Rules Committee. A public hearing was held this week, where a large group of people came to testify on both sides of the aisle. From the Oregonian:

The hearing drew a packed crowd that spilled into two other hearing rooms and the Capitol hallways, where they could watch it on television. A total of 23 people testified in support of the bill, including Susan Castillo, state superintendent of public instruction; Jim Francesconi, vice president of the State Board of Higher Education; business owners, students and several legislators.

Francesconi said all of the university presidents and the entire state board support the bill. Based on a study of other states with similar laws, university officials project the bill would bring only a handful of illegal students into Oregon universities – about 33 to 39 a year, climbing to about 60 a year by 2016-17. […]

Another 22 people spoke against the bill. They included members of immigration reform groups, retired military men, and many Salem residents. Many of them argued the law would cost the state thousands, even millions, of dollars in lost tuition.

“I’d like to dub this bill the feel-good flop for this session,” said Cynthia Kendall of Salem. “Everyone wants to feel like they are doing something good for the children of illegal aliens. …The Oregon citizen, the Oregon college student and the Oregon taxpayer are getting the shaft.”

There have also been a slew of letters in the Oregon Daily Emerald in support of and in opposition to the bill, including ones written by UO administration and ASUO officials. The first one, co-signed by University President Richard Lariviere and ASUO President-elect Ben Eckstein (yeah, probably the last time that’ll happen), shows strong support for the bill:

Students who would benefit from this legislation are successful and high-achieving students who have inherited circumstances outside of their control. Just as we are working toward a brighter future for Oregon, students who would benefit from SB 742 are working to build on the investment the state has made in them. With affordable access to higher education, they will strengthen Oregon’s communities and contribute to the state’s economy.

ASUO Vice President-elect Katie Taylor also gave her two cents, drawing on her personal experience (which, in my opinion, is fairly unrelated, but so long as it makes her feel good):

As an undergraduate student and incoming vice president of the ASUO, I think it is absurd that a person can live in the state of Oregon practically their entire life and then be charged out-of-state tuition. I myself was not born in Oregon; I became a resident before I attended college and was charged in-state tuition.

As a working-class student, I am thankful that I am able to more easily afford to go to school, and undocumented students that have grown up in Oregon deserve as least this much. Furthermore, I know my college experience is enhanced by the diversity of students who attend my school. We should be working towards finding ways to increase this diversity, not decrease it. So with that, I am calling out to all students and community members to support SB 742 and call our representatives to ask them to do the same.

The only letter in opposition to the bill was written by UO undergraduate Adam Marcus, whose opposition — focused on the financial burden on the state — seems only a tiny bit misguided, but makes a good point:

In what namesake is this a level of equality? The in-state tuition is supported by the taxpayers of this great state, so it essentially boils down to the rest of us to carry the fiscal burden of another classification of students.

And did no one read the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996? It clearly states that “no U.S. state entity will offer benefits to Illegal Aliens not available to all legal residents of the United States.” This means that if there should be an exemption of in-state tuition to this illegal populous, it would have to allow a student-resident of Iowa in for the same price. Call me crazy, but that is a rather big mistake there.

I find this proposition of equality a clouded bias towards a temporary fiscal spike that would end up dragging the Oregon economy even further into recession. The clause of these applicants “demonstrating their intent to be permanently domicile in Oregon” is a conglomeration of fancy words intended to take away from the real issue. Illegal immigrants pay no taxes because they are exempt from the system. Why should we citizens support those who don’t contribute their portion to the society?

He does have a point. In a state with no sales tax — somewhat of an equalizer in determining who is paying taxes compared to Oregon’s current state — those who own property and have higher (taxed) income are paying a greater portion into the state coffers, the situation exists where legal citizens are bankrolling the lives of illegals. The federal DREAM act seems to be facing similar opposition.

Anyone who wants to be a citizen of the United States should be able to become one. Legal immigration should be much easier than it is. But should we really give greater allowances to illegal immigrants that United States citizens? In order to become an Oregon resident and achieve in-state tuition, an American from another state needs to work for a year (taxable income) and establish a home in Oregon. He or she cannot be a full-time student. And even when he or she has achieved this year of working in Oregon, there is no guarantee that he or she can become an Oregon resident for tuition purposes — it’s up to UO Admissions.

Is this legislation fair to the hard-working non-resident UO students who would now not only be footing the bill for in-state residents but also illegal immigrants? I’m going to say no. That’s not tuition equity I can believe in.

Friday’s RG had an interesting Greg Bolt article about the upcoming EMU and Student Rec Center renovations. The Oregon Commentator has covered this issue sporadically throughout the year, but Mr. Bolt has more information on how the project is moving forward, and how it is going to be funded [emphasis added]:

The University of Oregon could soon launch a huge overhaul of student recreation and activities facilities if it can win quick state approval of a $160.5 million plan to expand two key buildings.

The plan, which faces some challenges, would demolish and rebuild a substantial portion of the Erb Memorial Union, the central gathering space on campus for students and student groups. It also would add more than 100,000 square feet to the Student Recreation Center, including adding a two-pool swimming center.

Money for the project — which would get under way next year if approved by the state university system and legislators — would come from several sources, including private donations and funds already set aside for the work. But the largest amount would be raised through bonds backed by a substantial new fee on students, including students who would graduate before ever getting to use the new buildings.

For comparison, the most recent renovations to the Student Recreation Center happened in 1997, and current students are still paying them off, to the tune of $43.25 per term. This fee has been flat since Fall 2009, but was rising before it reached that plateau. It seems that the new fees will have a similar structure:

The work would be financed using $13.5 million the university previously set aside for the project, $35 million in private donations and the rest through bonds repaid with the new student fee. The fee would start at $30 per term in 2011-12, rise to $60 per term in 2012-13 and after that would remain at $100 per term — that’s $300 for an academic year — until the bonds were repaid.

$100 per term? Tack on the aforementioned $43.25 for the 1997 Rec Center renovations, the $45 building fee (for students taking 9 credits or more), $140.75 for the health services fee (regardless of how many credits you’re taking), and the $191 incidental fee, and you’re looking at $520 in fees per term (at least — we all know the incidental fee is going to keep rising no matter what). That’s $1,560 per year in fees, on top of tuition. That’s insane.

Now, the bonds and the subsequent student fee will still have to be approved by the state legislature, and never before has the legislature approved a fee for a building before it was built (for obvious reasons). Leave it to the University of Oregon to try and rock that boat.

What will we be getting for this exorbitant cost to students?

The newer wing of the EMU, built in the 1970s, would be demolished and rebuilt, creating 107,000 square feet of new construction.

With renovation of the older, Ellis Lawrence-designed main building, the EMU would gain a 1,200-seat performance venue, conference facilities, a 300-seat theater, expanded food court, space for 15 student unions and scores of student organizations, a computer lab and other features.

The original plan also included underground parking, but that was eliminated to save money.

[…]

The Student Recreation Center would gain a swimming center with connected lap and leisure pools, double the space for weight and fitness equipment, a three-court gym, expanded indoor jogging track, new racquetball and squash courts, new outdoor synthetic turf fields and more.

I completely understand the reason for the renovation, especially to the EMU, which is to bring more students to their student union. The biggest problem with the union, however, and any EMU board member will tell you this, is that the building is not financially self-sufficient. There are not enough revenue-generating services in the building to sustain itself, so students are subsidizing the cost of the building to the tune of $5,091,532 for 2011-12 (that’s for programs, services and building operations), plus additional funds from elsewhere in the university.

I have yet to see the official renovation plans, so I am unsure as to what exactly the new EMU will entail, but one worthy upgrade would be an actual kitchen (the one currently being used by food services is makeshift). Ideally, the performance venue and theater will create some revenue generation, or at least bring students to the union to make it a central part of campus. (Side note: did you know that the Grateful Dead once played in the EMU Ballroom, as well as many other worthwhile acts including Mudhoney?)

But the elimination of parking was also an interesting choice. And the (in my opinion, ridiculously extravagant) upgrades to the Student Rec Center seem frivolous and unnecessary, especially considering the state of disrepair of many other campus buildings.

Another issue that has not been addressed here is the fact that, from what I’ve heard, student programs will no longer have individual offices once the building is renovated. When I spoke with Vice President of Capital Projects Gregg Lobisser this past fall, he mentioned that the “space for 15 student unions and scores of student organizations” mentioned in the article would mean 15 satellites for student groups, including the Student Sustainability Center, the Multicultural Center, the ASUO and the Women’s Center. Within these satellite spaces, individual student programs would have their own work stations with lockers, but would likely not have their own office spaces.

Additionally, when we spoke, he said there were not yet plans for accommodation of student media services — that is to say, none of these “satellite unions” will be a Student Media Center, or even anything remotely similar.

Granted, the current model does not adequately serve the hundreds of groups that a student union should be able to accomodate. There are over 160 fee-funded student programs and less than half of them have offices, but those who do have offices have had them for a long time and use them to the fullest. Ask a program like the Oregon Voice, who was displaced from its office earlier this year to a much smaller space in The Break. Noah Dewitt, editor-in-chief of the Oregon Voice, said that the new space is much smaller than the previous space, does not have any storage space, is much louder than their previous space (The Break has a multitude of pool and ping-pong tables), and is open subject to The Break’s operating hours rather than the EMU’s operating hours, which means they can’t access their space as frequently. The storage space is likely the biggest issue, because they can’t access their archives themselves — they need someone from EMU Facilities to let them into their own storage.

Some student groups, the Oregon Commentator included, use their spaces for myriad activities — in our example, we hold meetings and work sessions in our office, as well as producing our magazine. I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to undergo production with a Student Insurgent desk five feet away and a Siren workstation five feet behind. It would be near impossible to do what we do under these circumstances.

Again, this all has yet to be approved by the legislature, and frankly, I’m not sure it will. But it’s something to start thinking about now, during the planning stages when large decisions are being made.

The rumor mill says that most members of the EMU Board have signed a letter in support of this student fee. That makes sense — most of them won’t be around when the fee is incurred, so it won’t affect them. But it’s sure as shit going to affect most students on this campus, most of whom will never see the finished products.

Student fees are rising constantly, tuition is skyrocketing out of control, and to charge students who will no longer be around to experience the new buildings is asinine, especially for a building that is going to devalue the experience of being involved in student organizations. Maybe a new EMU theater and a Rec Center swimming pool are going to be awesome, but at the cost to students, it seems like an unworthy investment.

Apparently just learning how to show up on time and do what you’re told isn’t good enough anymore. The front page of today’s Ol’ Dirty featured a story about Oregon House Bill 2732, which would withhold a graduating high school senior’s diploma until they “showed proof of application to college, the U.S. armed forces or into an apprenticeship program.” Sound like complete bullshit? Apparently not enough bullshit for the majority of the Oregon House of Representatives.

The vote was split 33-26. Two thirds of the House Democrats voted for it, and while the Republicans weren’t so keen on it (only one third voted for it).

So in addition to forcing young adults kids to enlist in the military or take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt in hopes of a brighter job market by the time you’ve hit legal drinking age, it will also create a new breed of dropout for students who don’t want to do either, or don’t know yet. That’ll be great for the already-shaky state of the Oregon educational system. But Rep. Tobias Read (D-Beaverton) sees it another way:

“This bill does not intend to tell anyone what the right choice is for them. It merely seeks to prompt consideration of that question,” Read said on the House floor. “Think about the student who intends to work in the family business. Wouldn’t he likely benefit from some accounting or bookkeeping classes at the community college.”

Yes, yes he (or she) would. But does he really think that there’s anyone on the face of the earth who’s thought about that more that the student has? After all, they’ve had a long time to think about it, and by that time probably had to answer to the incessant “So what are you going to do next?” from the family about 470 times. Maybe he knew exactly what he wanted to do at 18, and never spent most of his twenties wondering if what he was doing was really what he should be, (unless everyone else feels that way, too; if so, ignore that last sentence).

Next it moves on to the Democrat-controlled Oregon Senate (60% Democrats / 40% Republicans), where it will likely fester for some time before being passed along party lines and then blocked by the courts.

The Oregon Daily Emerald reported today that the family of a university alumnus, Kerry Lewiecki, who committed suicide with a firearm are now pushing the legislature for a waiting period for handgun purchases. From the article:

“People get the idea that they can’t go on living and they act on that within minutes or even hours of having that thought,” said Lewiecki’s father, E. Michael Lewiecki. “If (Kerry) had not been able to purchase a handgun so easily, I think there’s a good chance it might not have happened.”

I sympathize with the family’s  loss, but I don’t see any logic to the argument that people who decide to kill themselves are regularly purchasing firearms at the time of their decision for the express purpose of doing so, even if Lewiecki did. Sad as it may be, I’m fairly confident that, had he not had access to a firearm, Lewiecki would have found another way to kill himself. Unless we as a society are intent on putting 14-day waiting periods on sleeping pills, too, then let’s be careful to not confuse method with motivation.