It seems that the lifeblood of the ASUO is the language and hot-topic phrases debated each year by the student government. Last year it was “institutional racism” and this year it is “viewpoint neutrality.” Here is a good, concise explanation of viewpoint neutrality from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). As noted below by Neil Brown, two major court cases defined the role of viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of student fees at state colleges and universities.

Together, the rulings show clearly that (1) any student organization at a state school that is denied funding because of its views can sue claiming viewpoint discrimination; and (2) students may opt out of funding an objectionable group only if that state university does not distribute its money in a viewpoint neutral manner. (more…)

Today from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Focus the Nation, a “national teach-in on climate change,” was held on the UO campus, mainly focused in and around the EMU. There were a multitude of panels, lectures and booths to help assuage your horrible, consumer guilt … I mean, uh, ecological footprint. Lectures were held every hour on the hour by university professors, and a sustainability fair was set up on the first floor of the EMU.

Here’s ten ways you can fight climate change, according to a poster board at the sustainability fair (and some helpful additions from me):

1. Recycle (or let hobos recycle for you)
2. Reduce, re-use
3. Buy green energy
4. Replace your bulbs
5. Ride bikes and buses (I would have suggested something classier, like “Save the earth. Ride me.”)
6. Go vegetarian
7. Turn things off (including other people’s computers and televisions)
8. Use less heat (the earth’s warming up anyways, right?)
9. Don’t use plastic (which is why I only use condoms made from sheep intestine)
10. Shop eco-friendly (as opposed to eco-ambivalent)

More of my experiences in sustainability land after the jump.

(more…)

On Tuesday, the Emerald featured a front page article and a two-page spread inside on the Oregon Students Public Interest Research Group, titled, “The OSPIRG you can’t see.” One could certainly receive better insight into the program by perusing through the OC archives, but the ODE hits the main points. The Ol’ Dirty mentions the “Nader Raider” beginning of the group, the Emerald’s 1971 editorial calling the group “the most powerful weapon ever held in the hands of students,” and the opposing forces through the years, which includes the OC on numerous occasions and recently Portland State’s student government.

“It’s just not fair,” [former Portland State OSPIRG member Claire] Tripeny said. “We’re paying people’s salaries who are not on campus … I just haven’t seen any of the results affect my campus, and if we’re paying for it I’d like to see it.” …

University of Oregon members say the funding model is fair. Wih the professional conglomeration that comes from paying salaries off campus, OSPIRG is able to “run with the big dogs,” and “magnify the voice and impact of the average student,” according to papers filed to the PFC.

Two letters to the editor were printed this week in favor of OSPIRG, so I wrote this guest commentary, which was in the Emerald today:

If you go to the Web site of the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group and the Oregon Students Public Interest Research Group, you will notice that contact information for the two groups, which claim to not be tied together, are the same: 1536 SE 11th Ave, Portland, OR; (503) 231-4181 … For all we know, the rent could be a convenient way to launder money to the state OSPIRG, which could then use student funds to lobby its campaigns in the state agenda. …

Don’t worry, students. If you don’t like OSPIRG’s history of political tactics, it does not mean you hate the environment (they will probably tell you that to get support).

Despite a little negative press here and there, however, UO OSPIRG chapter received a 2.89% budget increase, the executive recommendation, last night by the Programs Finance Committee. The group’s 2008-09 budget will be $117,244.

I would have an in-depth coverage of the hearing, but I was doing research on the atmosphere of Mac Court during the Oregon-UCLA basketball game. The Emerald’s Robert D’Andrea told me the discussion was tabled once and took about three hours total. Several PFC members were not supportive of OSPIRG’s funding, but ASUO Senator Nick Meyers was the most outspoken. He was harshly told by ASUO President Emily McLain and ASUO Accountant Lynn Giordano to leave politics out of the discussion and focus on the numbers. Leave politics out of an OSPIRG discussion? That’s like leaving booze out of an OC staff meeting.

The opposition mounting at Portland State could lead to a huge blow to OSPIRG. The campus chapter there received $128,235 this year, about two-fifths of OSPIRGs budget. With this type of momentum, it may be time for another vote at the U of O to decide if students still believe they should be paying for OSPIRG.

Speaking of everybody’s favorite money-grubbing, off-campus political group, OSPIRG will be screening Michael Moore’s “Sicko” at 7 p.m. tomorrow in Willamette 100. Guess who has two thumbs and isn’t going? (Hint: I’m pointing at myself with my two thumbs right now). According to the poster, the movie is “a shocking look into the United States health care system.” I don’t feel the need to say too much about this, since the good folks at Reason already gave the film a proper thrashing.

P.S. Who wants to bet the movie will be followed by a high-pressure sales pitch to join the OSPIRG army?

P.P.S. If anyone wants to go for the chuckles, let me know how it turns out.