President Lariviere addressed his supporters in an email sent out tonight at 7:44 PM. He thanked the students and faculty for their support but asked them to worry less about keeping him around and more about the need for an independent governing board for the University of Oregon, and all other OUS institutions.

So he’s asking for us to, instead of holding marches, signing petitions, and making Facebook groups to “make a difference” and right this wrong, we could, what’s that, instead ask for meaningful policy shifts to create real and lasting changes for future generations of students to come? Yeah, ship this one out, he’s totally full of shit.

Dear Faculty, Staff and Students:

Thank you for your support this week.  Jan and I are deeply touched.  More than anything I want the University of Oregon to flourish. Like so many of you, I love this university and all it represents.

I came here because the University of Oregon is a model for how public universities fulfill their mission in troubling times.  I came here because the state of Oregon is a place so often at the forefront of change, a crucible where innovators, dreamers, mavericks and fair-minded citizens devise new solutions to old problems. I still believe this is true.

The conflicts that resulted in my termination are a symptom of the broken system of governance and funding in Oregon higher education that desperately needs changing if the state of Oregon is going to achieve the greatness we all aspire to.   You know that.  This is why there has been the outcry—the genuinely amazing outcry—from so many of you.

I am humbled by your support, but your cause should not be my employment status. Your cause must be how Oregonians will be educated.  Your cause must be how institutions like the University of Oregon can be strong in a state with weak public resources.

I urge those of you who plan to rally or attend the state board meeting to focus your time, energy and efforts, not on questioning the wisdom or process of the decision.   Instead focus yourselves on the larger cause of meaningful policy reforms that will benefit the UO, the system of higher education, and the state of Oregon.  The Governor and Legislature already took actions this year to create a promising new governance structure for all education in Oregon.  It is possible for the state to take the next step and create a strong, independent governing board for an institution like the University of Oregon.

Universities in Oregon need to be differentiated based on their mission.  Strong independent boards should be guided by goals set by a statewide coordinating authority.  Each individual university must be able to best organize resources, serve the state and meet its mission.

A system approach that delivers conformity among institutions by applying the same fiscal and policy lens to all, regardless of mission, will continue to be costly to the state’s future.  It will not harness the unique strengths of each institution.  Such an approach has not and cannot deliver the fullest promise of higher education for Oregon’s future.

Work for a genuinely independent, genuinely powerful institutional governing board.  That is the doorway to a better future for the UO.  Stay the course.  Don’t let disappointment prevail.

Thank you for supporting the University of Oregon and for the honor of serving as the sixteenth president of the university.

Sincerely,

Richard Lariviere

When an “anonymous tip” was given to the Oregon Daily Emerald Staff, intrepid journalist and photographer Peter Parker was first to the scene of the crime. He arrived at 1:35  in the morning, in time to see the culprits sprint away from the hit and run deed in a sparsely populated suburban neighborhood not anywhere near where a reporter would be imagined to be at that hour. Hell, the photographer even reacted faster than the Chancellor and his family who were home at the time. After snapping a photo of the web-slinging vigilantes so clear he had to be standing to take it, and not running after the culprits who would have surely seen the bespectacled reported just gawking from where the crime scene was, he raced back to the Daily Bugle, where his boss Mr. Jameson had no clue how he was the only one capable of getting a clear shot of the radioactive renegades. Pausing a moment to clench his cigar in hand and declare that Spider-Man was a menace and that the city has no room for vigilantes like him, the meek Peter Parker stepped out with his payment, changed in a phone booth, and fought the Green Goblin on top of a building, because he was goddamned Spider-Man and only an idiot wouldn’t realize that for a photographer to get such a clear shot of the vandals in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, they would have to have been party to the valdalism and the vandals are a little less “unidentified” than the Emerald lets on.

Seriously, the photo snap is from behind, but the reporter knew that they were not only all wearing bandanas and masks, but that they were all male. How did they accomplish such investigative journalism? Because they were in the same group and are using the Emerald to give their boring, unimaginative vandalism the attention they crave by legitimizing it with a report. Seriously, either their stories have no editorial process or their editor missed some Blue’s Clues shit here.

EDIT: Overnight the story, along with the images in question, was pulled from the ODE’s website. Luckily, the Register Guard still had a copy of the good one, because you can’t just upload things online and erase all traces of them.

http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27240641-41/lariviere-state-university-board-oregon.html.csp

So here’s what we’ve got:

Governor Kitzhaber calling bullshit on Lariviere, saying it’s about “trust,” and standing behind the state board. From his letter:

First, let me say that the situation involving the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and Dr. Richard Lariviere has nothing to do with an “ongoing difference of opinion over the future of the University of Oregon,” as Dr. Lariviere suggested in an email sent out to faculty and students last Tuesday.

There have been a number of well-publicized incidents involving Dr. Lariviere that have eroded trust and confidence with the Board of Higher Education.

Dr. Lariviere unilaterally granted substantial salary increases to his administrators and faculty. Unlike every other university president in the state, he disregarded my specific direction on holding tight and delaying discussion about retention and equity pay increases until the next biennium to allow for a consistent, system-wide policy on salaries.

Full text of the letter here.

The UO Deans calling it as they see it, urging for reconsideration:

We are unanimous in giving the president an A+ for his vision, his leadership and his unwavering commitment to public higher education. We are confident that an evaluation of his performance based on appropriate metrics would lead to a similar grade. We can only conclude that the state board and the governor gave him an F in “plays well with state bureaucracies.”

President Lariviere was hired by the board and supported by the UO community because he promised to lead us in finding a new model for excellence in higher education in Oregon. The UO community challenges the board, the governor and our president to forge a new path so that we can continue to build a great university for the benefit of all Oregonians.

Full text at the RG

State Board Prez blames it on the trust too. Story here.

& A letter from the senate executive committee:

(more…)

The UO, with the consent of the abutting property owners, applied for the vacation of a portion of Moss Street extending from East 15th Avenue to East 17th Avenue. Moss Street is located just east of campus, but you’re probably not familiar with East Campus, because it’s opposite West Campus—the area in which you either live or party or both. You can find Moss Street in the shadow of Matthew Knight Arena, and along it you can find the site of the new East Campus Residence Hall, an exquisite gravel parking lot, a couple of houses converted into UO offices, and the sad, displaced Moss Street Children’s Center.

The Eugene City Council held a public hearing Monday night with the Moss Street ordinance first on their agenda. Four people stood and spoke on behalf of the ordinance, three of which were a tri-part UO tag team: the VP of Finance and Administration, the assistant VP of Student Affairs, and some landscape architect. They each presented a few reasons why vacating Moss Street was in the “public interest.” They claimed that the purchase of Moss Street is part of the UO’s “strategic effort to steer parking away from its surrounding neighborhoods,” allowing the UO to transform Moss Street’s 60 parallel parking spaces into 107 head-in parking spaces. The benevolent UO also says that they really just want to “lessen the burden” on the city, repair sidewalks, add better lighting and maintain the landscaping themselves.

At the hearing, the public produced only one person in opposition, a certain Zachary Bishnoff, “former” UO student and concerned citizen. Zachary moved us all with some of that lukewarm, quintessentially Eugene, stick-it-to-the-man rhetoric we all know and love: this will turn the historic Fairmount Neighborhood into a suburban office park, how does UO know what is in the public interest, I have a ponytail and a mustache, blah blah blah. Well to mine and the UO tag team’s surprise, and I think to Zachary’s as well, the council responded to this plea and voted to delay the vacating another two weeks, giving time for further deliberation and for anyone else to submit their concerns to the council.

Adjourned, bitches. Democracy at a local level throws an eensy-weensy wrench in the inexorable gears of the University of Oregon and its malicious encroachment upon the city of Eugene. Well, you can bet that I’ll be submittin’ nothin’ to the council in my allotted two weeks. You know why? Not only does the UO already own all property adjacent to this portion of Moss Street, but the UO’s gonna fork out a cool 1.8 million to the city of Eugene for those ugly 1.35 acres (58,729 square feet). I just know that number makes Mayor Kitty Piercy purrrrrrrrrrr. Today I walked down Moss Street myself and I couldn’t even tell I was off campus. Call me indifferent, but I hereby conclude that the UO’s motion to purchase part of Moss Street is not that big of a deal. But read the ordinance and form your own opinions here.

An email sent out by Julie Palanuk today at 2:17 PM shares the University Senate’s plan to fight for Lariviere’s reinstatement, and they’re not going down without a fight:

Dear UO community:

The Senate Executive Committee met yesterday and formulated the following plan for the upcoming week:

1) YESTERDAY (WEDNESDAY): The Senate Executive Committee issued the petition on reinstating President Lariviere that many of you have seen and signed. As of 11:50 pm this evening, 2,890 people have signed the petition.

Please consider signing it if you haven’t and if you have, please forward the web address of the petition to your colleagues and students (http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/petition-reinstatement-president-richard-lariviere).

We also strongly encourage community members to write letters to the Governor, State Board and local legislators.

2) FRIDAY: The Senate Executive Committee will issue a strongly worded public statement on behalf of the university community denouncing the State Board decision with an explanation of why the decision is so detrimental to our university.

3) MONDAY: The State Board will hold a hastily scheduled meeting in Portland solely on President Lariviere’s contract. It is expected that the Board will follow the lead of the Governor and Chancellor and terminate his contract.

The Senate President Robert Kyr will be allowed to speak at that meeting. We are asking as many faculty, students and staff as possible to attend the meeting to show support for President Lariviere. We have been told that the meeting will likely commence at 3 pm (check State Board web site on Friday for an official announcement; http://www.ous.edu/state_board) and will be held in PSU’s Academic & Student Recreation Center, Suite 515 (1800 SW 6th Avenue, Portland).

The Senate Exec will help set up carpools if anyone has space in his/her vehicle or if someone needs a ride. Please contact N. Tublitz at [email protected].

4) TUESDAY: The Senate and CAS Department Heads will sponsor a teach-in/rally here on campus. Senate President Kyr will report on the State Board meeting. Several faculty from across campus will also speak.  There might also be a march. This will be the first campuswide community gathering since the President’s firing. Time is likely to be noon to 2 pm. Location TBA.

5) WEDNESDAY:  2:45 pm  University Senate meeting for the purpose of calling a Statutory Faculty meeting.

3:00-5:00 pm  Statutory Faculty meeting. All community members are invited to attend. Governor Kitzhaber, Chancellor Pernsteiner and State Board Chairman Donegan are to be invited and will be given an opportunity to speak. Following their presentations, there will be an extended question and answer period.

At around 4:30 pm there will be two motions presented to the Statutory Faculty for adoption. The first will be a motion in support of retaining President Lariviere. The second will be a motion of no confidence in the Chancellor and the State Board. The location of the Senate and Statutory Faculty meetings will be determined and announced as soon as possible.

Updates on these activities will be posted on the University Senate website (http://senate.uoregon.edu/). Additional events will be scheduled depending on the outcome of the events in the next week.

Our heartfelt thanks to all of you who have contributed to this important effort.

Senate President Robert Kyr and the Senate Exec Committee

 

“There may also be a march.”  This is Eugene. Of course there will be a march.

Wednesday, the current home of University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication, Agate Hall, was adorned with a giant banner stating, “WE STAND WITH THE HAT.”

Apparently, the decision was made at a SOJC faculty and staff meeting Wednesday afternoon.

In hanging this banner, the SOJC is speaking not just for SOJC staff and faculty but for its students as well. That building represents the SOJC as an entity and the banner is an official stance in support of President Lariviere.

Yet, as far as I am aware, students weren’t consulted. As far as I am aware (and I checked, but I admit, I got upwards of 25 emails Wednesday about Lariviere via grad list emails), I did not get an email inviting me to the meeting. If the SOJC was going to take a stance,  they should have been transparent and made sure there was clear and thorough communication with students. Furthermore, students should have had a voice in the matter.

There seems to be an argument that we should trust the people that attended that meeting and SOJC Dean Gleason to make that decision for us but I find it invalid.

Trusting Dean Gleason to speak for us is the same as trusting the CEO of a big company to speak for its employees (note: I very much respect Dean Gleason and the SOJC staff, they are all very thoughtful people who wouldn’t take something like this lightly). He’s not necesarily in tune with my interests, he hopefully doesn’t think exactly the same way as I do, there is a possibility that he could be wrong and I didn’t elect him to represent me. This isn’t a normal, write-it-off kind of event, this is the President of the university and a banner on the front of our building. We should be encouraged to do as journalists do and explore all sides of the story. We should be presented with information from both sides. We should have a discussion or a talk with several guest speakers. We should sit down and talk with the President. We should be independent thinkers, and having our leaders stand behind an issue discourages that and encourages us to jump behind the cause rather than thoughtfully defend our positions.

Let’s stop and think, what has Lariviere done that’s bettered the university? And equally,  how has he hindered progress? Honestly, at this point, I can’t tell you, I have a lot of research to do. But it is quiet curious that this just popped up, it makes me think that we might be missing some information.

The jury’s out for me on Larieviere’s reinstatement, but I reject the idea of  let those in power speak for the masses. Every voice is important. The SOJC mobilized too quickly to get a comprehensive feel for the reactions of its students.

Here’s the question I’m left wondering–where did the money for the banner come from? Even if it was a small amount, it still matters. If the banner was paid for with student fees then if there are students who oppose President Lariviere’s reinstatement, they should be allowed a banner as well.

The Commentator is working on securing a photo of Agate Hall. 

Update December 4, 2011: UO SOJC Dean Gleason said in an email that the banner was paid for with faculty money. He also said that he made it clear to the faculty that he was not directing the project.

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.

There’s been a bit of a debacle with President Lariviere here at UO. In an email to students, faculty and staff this morning, President Lariviere announced he intends to finish out his contract which ends on June 30, 2012.

Full email here:

Dear Faculty, Staff and Students,

Earlier today I informed the chair of the State Board of Higher Education of my decision to not resign my position at the University of Oregon. Instead, I am committed to serving as president through the end of my contract on June 30, 2012.

As you know, on Monday I was informed by the State Board of Higher Education that my contract as president will not be renewed. In the hours since news of the State Board decision became public, I have been heartened by the outpouring of support I have received for the work we are doing to reimagine public higher education in Oregon. While the positive comments from members of the campus community and beyond help to galvanize my commitment to this outstanding institution, I hasten to remind you that this is not about me. We must all redouble our efforts to bring about positive change to the governance, funding and accountability of Oregon’s public universities.

Again, I want to thank you all for the excellent work you do. I am, indeed, fortunate to be able to call you colleagues.

Best regards,

Richard Lariviere

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.

The story of Stephen Glass goes a little like this:

Man has great story idea, works for awesome publication. Man makes up story even though it’d be pretty damn easy to just get the story. Actually, man does this a shit-ton an embarrasses himself, his publication and the world of journalism. Man loses job.

This is of course the children’s book version, sorry I didn’t have time to draw it out. There’s also a movie version called Shattered Glass (excellent film).

So, the moral is that this kid gets kicked out because he isn’t being ethical.

His next choice of careers? What better than law?

Glass is currently waiting for approval from the California Supreme Court so that he can start practicing according to this article.

Source: http://www.blippitt.com/23-of-the-worlds-greatest-lawyer-jokes/

Yep. You read that right. As of 4pm today, Lariviere has been handed his pink slip.

According to the Williamette Week, Kitzhaber affirmed the decision alongside the OUS, sounding the death knell for President Lariviere tenure. Elaborating on an email sent early Tuesday to UO students, staff, and faculty by the man himself, The Register-Guard has noted that it is “[Larivere’s] intention is to remain in his position until the end of his current contract.”

It’s not news that Lariviere isn’t the OUS’s favorite man: they were none-too-happy about the faculty and administrative raises he helped institute back in September, and practically blew their fancy curled wigs (or whatever the fashion in Salem is these days), when Lariviere bypassed them and took the New Partnership plan straight to the state.

While restraints have previously been placed on Lariviere’s ability to act without board approval, the decision not to extend his contact whatsoever is an unexpected move–and not one that has universal approval. State Representative Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene), for instance, spoke to his worries about the matter in an interview with The Register Guard:

It’s of great concern to me that his contract is not being renewed … he was a great fighter for students, and his proposals would have raised up to $1 billion to support the university long-term…I’m very concerned about our capacity to get a topnotch president in here, who will pursue good policies and initiatives.

It is yet unknown who, if anyone, has been selected to take up the President’s position at the end of the academic year. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that not much of anything is known right about now. The only certainty is uncertainty.

In the meantime, UO Matters has summed up their ideas on this bombshell, and what we should all do about it, in a refreshingly non-sanitized manner:

Dr. Pernsteiner wins. UO loses. My first thought is there is no way in hell I want to work for George Pernsteiner without a strong faculty union on my side. So let’s start one – where and when can I sign that card check?

Williamette Week has their take on the story here, and The Register Guard has an even more detailed analysis here.

Personally, I’ll miss the hats.

The University of Oregon announced yesterday that it has asked the Occupy Eugene camp situated along the Millrace to vacate by the end of the weekend. DPS will be monitoring the move. Many are speculating as to where the next shantytown of democracy will sprout up, but possible locations include the Saturday Market drum circle, Knight library bathrooms, or their ex-girlfriend Tammy’s garage.

(Insert lame joke about controversial rulings vis-a-vis pizza here)

This is what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said about deep-dish pizza (link courtesy of Death and Taxes):

“I do indeed like so-called ‘deep dish pizza.’ It’s very tasty,” the Italian American justice told the crowd, reports the Chicago Sun-Times. “But it should not be called ‘pizza.’ It should be called ‘a tomato pie.’ Real pizza is Neapolitan [from Naples, Italy]. It is thin. It is chewy and crispy, OK?”

Important point. One that needed to be said. But if a case involving Pizzeria Uno ever makes it to the Supreme Court, its most conservative justice could find himself regretting his words.

You might have fun with how much the blogger in that link overthinks the issue.

I am thinking of dressing as dead Muammar Gaddafi for Halloween. But I want your opinion. Would it be too soon? What about dressing as slutty dead Muammar Gaddafi?

On June 6th, Eugene City Councilor Mike Clark proposed a relatively simple idea to the Council: schoolchildren are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in class, so the Eugene City Council should be required to say it at the start of its meetings, too.

What ensued was a month of debate, controversy and notoriety, the likes of which most Eugenians were not prepared for.

Clark’s initial mention of the proposal, which was brought to the council officially on June 20, was met with minor support, but mostly skepticism from his fellow Councilors. The proposal would allow for the recitation of the Pledge at the Council’s regular meetings, where the eight councilmen could recite if they chose, and the audience would have an option to join in if they were so inclined. But those in attendance accused Clark of political posturing.

Clark, who represents north-central Eugene on the council, may run for the North Eugene seat on the Lane County Board of Commissioners next year, [Lane Community College Political Science Professor Steve] Candee said.

“That’s the beauty of what Mike is proposing,” Candee said. “Nobody wants to be against the American flag and apple pie.”

“My suspicion is that (Clark’s pledge idea) is more political than legislative or deliberative,” he said.

The next week, when the idea again came before the council, there were worries about the implications of a mandatory pledge — worries that were stated by Mayor Kitty Piercy. She believed that the pledge would be a divisive measure, making those who chose not to recite seem as though they were not patriotic. So she proposed a compromise.

[Piercy], along with Zelenka, suggested the council recite the pledge at the five meetings each year.

Piercy said she recalled a Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting last year where “an angry crowd” of residents upset with proposed land use regulations along the McKenzie River “took over the meeting and forced the (saying of the) Pledge of Allegiance.”

At last week’s council meeting, Piercy said, a resident “demanded that every patriotic person stand up and take the pledge. And the implication was clear that not saying it was supposed to mean one did not honor our country and our troops.

“We do not have a history of saying the pledge on our City Council,” Piercy said. “But we have all given our oath of office and, in doing so, our allegiance to this nation, state and city.”

And even at the next meeting, most Councilors seemed skeptical. Councilor George Brown even suggested to Clark that he should say the Pledge in ceremony in the privacy of his own home. Clark seemed disappointed.

“In my heart, I would like to pass my originally intended motion,” he said. “But I recognize that a majority of the council doesn’t agree with me. I also recognize that compromising will likely bring a majority of councilors to agreement.

“I think it’s a good first step toward us being willing to value those in our community who would like to celebrate more traditional things.”

The compromise that Mayor Piercy proposed at the June 13th meeting eventually made its way into law last week, passing by a vote of 6-2. The Pledge will be said at the four meetings closest to “patriotic holidays of Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Flag Day and the Fourth of July.”

But that’s not even the interesting part.

In hearing about the story, Fox News sent a crew down from Seattle to cover the story. And in their coverage, the meeting was characterized completely differently. From the Register-Guard:

By midafternoon, more than 200 e-mails and 140 phone calls had been received at City Hall. Such a response to a City Council decision in such a short period of time is unusual.

City spokeswoman Jan Bohman said 90 percent of the e-mails and 99 percent of the phone calls were from residents outside Oregon.

Bohman said many of the comments were generated by the Fox News reports, which she called misleading.

“We are hearing from people who think we are banning the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance,” Bohman said. “That’s not accurate or even close to the truth.”

To be fair, Fox’s coverage leaves much to be desired.

Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice, sees the Eugene case as political correctness trumping American values.

“It vindicates all of us who say our Judeo-Christian heritage is under attack,” Sekulow says, “sometimes it’s in the courts, sometimes it’s elected officials and sometimes it’s the media.”

In Eugene, the opposition was less about religion than anti-establishment.

Resident Anita Sullivan summed up a common viewpoint: “So you say I pledge allegiance and right there I don’t care for that language,” Sullivan says. “It sort of means loyalty to your country; well, I feel loyalty to the entire world.”

What did the vote accomplish, really? And what would the harm have been in allowing those who wish to pledge allegiance to the United States of America that right at the beginning of a public, government meeting? One of the main oppositions to saying the Pledge was that Councilors already swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when they took office, as the Register Guard notes:

In the oath of office outlined in the city charter, elected officials “solemnly swear” to support the U.S. and state constitutions and to faithfully perform the duties of their office to the best of their ability. They have the option to conclude the oath with the words “so help me God” or to affirm their intentions “under the pains and penalties of perjury.”

Another is that saying the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings could be a divisive force — potentially, those who choose not to recite it could be deemed anti-American or some other such nonsense. This was Mayor Piercy’s main opposition, and a sentiment that seemed to echo throughout both the Council and the community.

By allowing Councilors and those attending City Council meetings the option to say the Pledge of Allegiance at a public meeting in which government employees are conducting official business would serve to both remind those in attendance and decision-makers why the processes in which we make community decisions are in place (hey, thanks for democracy, America) as well as — and this is arguably a more important point — allow legislators the choice to express their freedom of speech in a forum that is supposed to protect that right for the rest of the community (among doing other things, of course).

In any community with one predominant viewpoint, regardless of attempts from individuals, a pervading idea is generally more highly respected than the ideas of the minority. The best decisions come from discussion of differing viewpoints, from individuals feeling empowered and inspired to express their opinions — even if that opinion is love of flag and love of country.

For example, for the first time since 1911, Oregon actually passed a redistricting bill that was signed by Governor Kitzhaber without major revisions or the need for the task to be handed to the Secretary of State. The bipartisan bill passed overwhelmingly in both the Oregon House and Senate — comprised of 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans, and 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans, respectively.

The conversations that occurred in the creation of what had the potential to be a highly political action actually helped to create a solution that has the ability to benefit all Oregonians. Being able to express opinions and share different beliefs can be beneficial to a society. Cities are birthplaces of innovation precisely for that reason — having your viewpoints challenged is inspiring.

The City of Eugene would do well to keep this in mind when deciding how to organize their meeting proceedings. A city that claims to be so tolerant and accepting of new ideas should probably start being tolerant and accepting of the old ones, too.