I have a coffee meeting with President Lariviere on April 7th.

If you have anything you’d like me to say/ask, either leave a comment here or email me at editor[at]oregoncommentator[dot]com.

Too lazy / perpetually hung over to keep up with what’s going on in our wonderful state over spring break? Let the OC do it for you. Here’s the first installment of news briefs from around the state (that we haven’t covered already).

UO News

– GQ magazine named fans of the Oregon ducks basketball team as being some of the worst in the nation, citing “numerous violations of the ‘Code of ConDUCKt.'” The Ducks came in at number 14, ranked as just slightly more annoying than fans of the LA Lakers.

“With a firm dedication to taking taunts too far, the Oregon Duck faithful have a storied history of degeneracy that can be traced all the way back to the days when someone beaned legendary coach John Wooden with a half-eaten apple.”

Storied history of degeneracy, or promoting healthy dietary choices for our most esteemed visiting members? You decide.

– A group of UO students alerted local media and stormed the beaches of the Jaqua Center yesterday, asserting their right as UO students to use lavish but otherwise unexciting services reserved for student athletes. The end.

– The Oregon Ducks football team has been chosen as grand marshal of the 2011 Spirit Mountain Casino Grand Floral Parade. Organizers cited “has brought unprecedented pride, spirit, and enthusiasm to the state of Oregon and the Northwest.”
(more…)

Oregon Concealed Handgun License holders may have further protections from public records requests, the Oregon State House of Representatives voted yesterday.

House Bill 2787, proposed by Reps. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, Newberg, St. Paul) and Jeff Barker (D-Aloha) by request of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, will only allow the names and registration information of CHL holders to be released for criminal justice purposes or pursuant to court order. The vote passed the Oregon House 42-18, with all but one of the nay votes from Democrats.

Under current law, a CHL holder’s application [link courtesy Oregonian] is open to public scrutiny. The application includes information on previous criminal activity, drug use and military history.

Some representatives are not pleased about the impending legislation, including our favorite Portland representative Mitch Greenlick. From the Oregonian:

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, voted against the bill, saying later that he thought it too restrictive. The proposal allows disclosure only by court order, license holder consent, or for criminal justice purposes.

“Handguns are what people use to kill people. I want to make sure citizens have a right to know if there is a threat,” Greenlick said.

According to a press release from Rep. Thatcher, however, the bill has support from the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association, the Oregon Firearms Federation and the National Rifle Association’s Oregon consultant. And, you know, 42 of the 60 members of the Oregon House of Representatives, including 13 Democrats.

From Rep. Thatcher’s press release:

“The Oregon House has just taken the first step in protecting the safety and privacy of the Oregon men and women who hold Concealed Handgun Licenses,” note Rod Harder, National Rifle Association Oregon Consultant. “We sincerely hope that the Oregon Senate and the Governor will make the same commitment to our law abiding citizens.

Kevin Starrett, Executive Director of the Oregon Firearms Federation added, “while this is just a step towards correcting a serious breach of privacy for Oregon’s most law abiding gun owners, it is an important advance in the process.”

From here, the bill moves on to the Oregon Senate, where, if passed, must be signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber.

Here’s how the Eugene/Springfield Representatives voted:
Terry Beyer (D-Springfield 12): YES
Val Hoyle (D-Eugene 14): YES
Nancy Nathanson (D-Eugene 13): YES
Phil Barnhart (D-Eugene 11): NO
Paul Holvey (D-Eugene 8): NO

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.

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…)

On Wednesday February 16th, 2011, University President Richard Lariviere did an interview with Professor Laufer’s J483: Journalistic Interview class. The Commentator‘s very own Melissa Haskin was in attendance and, like a good reporter, asked him why he has refused to do an interview with the Oregon Commentator.

The conversation:

Melissa Haskin: How come you turned down a face to face interview with the Oregon Commentator?
Richard Lariviere: I don’t see that that’s going to be of any use to the university in any way.
MH: How so?
RL: Well, I make my decisions about how to spend my time on the basis, almost all my time, on the basis of whether or not it’s going to be contributing in some manner to the fundamental mission of the university and that can take a whole range of activities with a whole range of groups, but I have to be able to take the group seriously.
MH: And why do you not take the group seriously?
Mr. Eddy (another student): Why not the Commentator, why this particular publication?
RL: Because when they asked me, I went and looked at their previous issue.
Mr. Eddy: And?
RL: And it was sophomoric and an embarrassment.
MH: How was it an embarrassment when the majority of the articles where academic? For instance, there was a several page article on why we need net neutrality.  So, how is that sophomoric? Would you like to see it?
RL: You asked me why I didn’t do it, that’s why I didn’t do it.

The audio of the full interview can be downloaded here. The part above occurs around 27:20. (The conversation continues to some ridiculousness, as I will mention in a moment.)

The best part about Lariviere’s explanation of his interview refusal is that there was no warrant. He gave no specific reasons as to why the Commentator is not worth his time. The president of the University of Oregon told a group of students involved in an extracurricular activity that their time was not only worthless, but an embarrassment, and seemingly didn’t think it was important to explain why, or how, or to empower these students in any way.

One problem here is how the Unviersity president is treating student programs. Could you imagine if he were to call any other student group an embarrassment? The LGBTQA? The Women’s Center? I love Jennifer Busby, but she walks around in a giant vagina costume and sings a medley of pop songs on behalf of the ASUO Women’s Center. As compared to the Commentator, is that not sophomoric? (Editor’s note: For the record, in my opinion, neither the vagina costume nor the Commentator is an embarrassment. Just illustrating a point.) If Lariviere had made this sort of comment about almost any other student group, the whole campus would be up in arms.

There are ~24,000 students at the University of Oregon, and only around 1 percent of them are involved with student programs. What business does the University president have demonizing those who care about their collegiate experience enough to try at something, anything?

Additionally, Lariviere is refusing to communicate with a student publication, a very clear way to communicate with the greater student population. (Yes, believe it or not, people actually read the Oregon Commentator.) Later in the interview, when asked how he intended to communicate with students, Lariviere mentioned how he was impressed with the Oregon Daily Emerald, how Higher Education Reporter Stefan Verbano is doing a great job, and how he would be happy to speak with him.

When I talked to Stefan later that evening, he mentioned the fact that he had been trying to interview President Lariviere in person for about a month regarding the Riverfront Research Project, and had that day received this email from UO Media Relations Director Julie Brown:

Hi Stefan,

I checked with the president about talking with you for the Riverfront Research Park story. He’s unavailable and recommended that Rich Linton can provide the administration’s point of view on the project. Rich is traveling quite a bit and would prefer if you contact him by email. You can reach him directly at [email protected].

Let me know if you don’t hear back from him promptly and I will follow up on your behalf.

Thanks,
Julie

Just to point out, this is going from an in-person interview with the president of the university to an email Q & A with the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies — a significant step down. Stefan came back to Ms. Brown to clarify that he still wished to speak with Lariviere in person, and asked if there was another time he would have time to talk to the Emerald (he also scheduled an interview to talk to VP for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke, just to explain the top part of the email). Brown’s response [emphasis mine]:

Hi Stefan,

I have you scheduled to interview Frances Dyke next Friday, Feb. 25 at 1 p.m. She has up to 30 minutes available in her office.

For the Riverfront Research Park story, the president isn’t available and doesn’t have additional information to provide. Because the RRP is within Rich Linton’s research portfolio, he is the most appropriate source for you from administration.

Thanks,

Julie

First of all, the administration should not be directing traffic for journalists. But the problem, here, is that if the president doesn’t talk to us, he is not accountable to us. President Lariviere’s constant reluctance to be accountable to the body that he was made representative of is nauseating and makes us consider what it is that he is hiding.

This is basically what I wrote to him in my interview request later that day, which I also sent to Senior Assistant to the President Dave Hubin and Vice President of Student Affairs Robin Holmes:

From: Lyzi Diamond
To: Richard Lariviere
CC: Dave Hubin , Robin Holmes
Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Oregon Commentator Interview Request

Dear President Lariviere,

I have just spoken with one of my staff writers, Melissa Haskin, about an interview you did with her journalism class this afternoon. She told me that when she asked about you declining an interview with the Oregon Commentator, you called our magazine a “sophomoric publication” that wasn’t worth your time.

As I wrote in my last letter to you, it is my opinion (and, I believe, your opinion) that every student in the University community benefits from being involved in extracurricular activities. I feel it was unprofessional of you to speak about a group of students who are involved in an extracurricular activity in such a flippant manner, especially when that activity has been continuously recognized and funded by the ASUO throughout its decades-long existence.

As I mentioned before, the Oregon Commentator exists to provide an alternative viewpoint to campus politics and discussion, and has done so for nigh on 28 years. Our blog has won multiple awards, and being involved in the magazine has provided amazing opportunities both for current students and OC alumni. To speak of an activity that is so important to so many students in such a negative manner is shocking, especially coming from a university president.

I would like to sit down with you and talk about the state of student affairs in the University of Oregon community. I am available at any time that is convenient for your schedule. We believe an interview with you is definitely worth our time, and that of our readers — and that talking with students should be worth your time, too.

Sincerely,

Lyzi Diamond
Editor-in-Chief, Oregon Commentator

As of 3:00pm on Friday, February 18th, I have heard no response from Hubin, Holmes or Lariviere. As I said in my email, his conduct was incredibly unprofessional, and to speak of a student group in such a manner is abhorrent. It’s outrageous. It should outrage you. Any university administrator that does not even put up the veil of trying to communicate with students is probably not a student administrator you can trust.

Editor’s note: Melissa Haskin will be posting a longer piece on the full range of answers Lariviere gave during his interview in a few days.

Frances Dyke

One of the University of Oregon’s most powerful administrators will step down in Jan. 2012, she announced today.

Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke controls the university’s budget, giving her wide authority over the school’s affairs. Her performance has been widely criticized, to the extent that UO Matters says she has to have been effectively fired (and UO Matters it was who broke this story first).

Critics have blamed her, in part for, among other things, the secrecy of the university’s financial affairs, giving large contracts and golden parachutes to high-ranking administrators, creating financial relationships that put the university at the mercy of large donors, dwindling faculty pay, and the Mike Belotti handshake agreement.

Yesterday’s town hall meeting regarding the new partnership proposal — which some people know as the “OMG I hear Phil Knight is gonna buy UO” proposal — featured President Lariviere, Professor John Chalmers (from the college of business, finance is his deal), as well as a veritable mob of students and other faculty. The meeting began with an overview of the proposal, what it hoped to accomplish and what changes would be made, aided by many pretty graphs.

Lariviere stated that this proposal has three main goals: governance reform, increased accountability, and a new funding agreement with the state. The governance reform would come in the form of a new board that would feature government-appointed members as well as a student and a faculty seat, all with voting powers. This is also alleged to be at least as accountable as the current system, with hopes it will improve accountability.

While those aspects will have some impact, I am willing to bet the key question here that the majority of people who care are asking is, “How will the change in funding affect the UO?” I have heard a good deal of speculation on the subject, although most of it has been from people who heard the words “private funding” and began screeching about how some company will bankroll the UO on the condition it becomes, “Phil Knight’s Football-Tossing Learnatorium” and all non-athletes will be forced to study in the rain while they bulldoze the residence halls to make room for more stadiums. While I suppose that is technically possible, come on; it’s not like that sort of thing can’t kind of happen now, especially if the school receives less and less funding from the state due to budget cuts. According to the figures presented at the meeting, UO has about the same level of funding as it did 20 years ago, which adjusting for inflation means roughly 43% less. Allegedly the tuition hikes as of late are because of this level of state funding, and if this trend continues, similar increases are on the way.

The new proposal would have the state take the money they would normally give as funding to the University and instead use it to fund bonds that the University would match with private donations, and all of these proceeds would go to an endowment estimated at $1.6 billion. The University would use the interest on this endowment to fund its operations in addition to further state funding, the end goal being reduced reliance on state funding. The state would not hand its money over until the University produced matching funds from private donors, and there would be no impact on state funds until 2013 at the very earliest.

The main reasoning behind this is aside from private donations, what the University does not receive from the state it must gain through tuition costs. This proposal would, in theory, alleviate what Lariviere called, “an unfair burden on our students and their families,” and allow the University to more accurately predict its funding each year. Based on fancy presentations from aforementioned finance professor, predictions show that with this proposal, even a good amount from the expected mean would be slightly above expected state contributions. Basically, if this goes as planned, it would almost certainly be at least a minor improvement, with the expectation being roughly twice the state funding UO would receive.

The proposal going as planned will involve two bills passing — Senate Bill 559 and Senate Joint Resolution 20 — as well as fundraising going well. The one concern that surfaces repeatedly is that private fundraising would indenture the UO to some corporation, and indeed, our beloved Cimmeron Gillespie raised this question during Q&A, asking if there had been, “any thought put to the ethics [of fundraising]?” Lariviere pointed out that many public institutions, even without proposals such as these, are presented deals that are not in their best interests, and so they simply turn them down.

Seriously, guys, think about this for a minute: if the University was going to sell itself into some faceless corporation’s arms it probably would have done so by now. The whole reason for this partnership is to generate more funds. The school has had to jack up tuition to pay for things, and if there had been an unscrupulous way to get tons of funding before they would have taken it. They haven’t before, it’s not like the proposal presents some new opportunity to do so. The only question is how much more will the new partnership would generate compared to staying with the current method of funding, and all of the numbers seem hopeful.

TL;DR: This is probably a kinda good to really good thing to happen, and tuition will get really shitty if things stay the way they are. Unless somebody really screws something up, we can probably put faith in the fact that if Lariviere is telling us things rather than clamming up, he’s telling the truth.

Probably recognizing they will be unable to receive a contract for the 2011-12 fiscal year, the Oregon Students Public Interest Research Group is on campus collecting signatures for a ballot measure to appear during the ASUO election during weeks one and two of spring term. The text of the ballot measure is as follows:

Should the ASUO fund the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) at a level that allows OSPIRG to hire professional staff to advocate on behalf of students locally, statewide, and nationally in places like the State Legislature and Congress?

OSPIRG is a statewide, student-directed and funded organization that strives to fulfill the public service mission of the University by combining student activism and professional staff to do advocacy, organizing and research for the public interest on campus, statewide and nationally to lower healthcare costs, stop global warming, protect public health, make textbooks more affordable, and increase public transit. OSPIRG is controlled by an all-student Board of Directors.

A YES vote is a non-binding statement that the ASUO should fund OSPIRG at a level that allows OSPIRG to hire professional staff to advocate on behalf of students locally, statewide, and nationally in places like the State Legislature and Congress on issues such as those described above.

A NO vote is a non-binding statement that the ASUO should not fund an OSPIRG program, as described above.

First of all, this is the exact same ballot measure that was on the ballot last year. Word for word.

(more…)

Dear President Lariviere,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Oregon Commentator, the twenty-eight year old student fee-funded journal of campus and local opinion. Throughout its existence, the Commentator has provided an alternative viewpoint on campus, providing news and editorial content that differs from other publications — student and otherwise — in the campus and Eugene communities.

The Oregon Commentator strives to be an educational organization, teaching interested students about journalistic writing and reporting regardless of degree program. Since becoming editor-in-chief of the Commentator, I have instituted a draft process for writers, allowing them the opportunity to turn in their pieces a week ahead of deadline in order to receive feedback from our managing editor, a master’s student in the magazine journalism program in the SOJC. Additionally, we have students who do work for us ranging from ad sales to art to operations management to layout to copy editing, providing the unique experience of working in every part of a news room.

The Oregon Commentator provides a relaxed environment where students can learn and work on longer-form reported pieces. While the Oregon Daily Emerald does an excellent job reporting campus news and opinions, students participating in that program are operating under much more stringent guidelines. With a news article due every day and a paper to produce every night, long-form opinion and reported pieces often end up going by the wayside in favor of more informative news briefs and condensed opinion columns.

Current students from the Oregon Commentator have had their work featured on the Student Free Press Association (a national news organization focused on independent campus journalism) and as such, have been linked to by such prestigious news organizations as the National Review, Fox News and The Atlantic. Indeed, a piece written by an OC staffer received the most traffic on the SFPA website in 2010. The Commentator is also a proud member of the Collegiate Network, an organization bringing together conservative student journalists from around the country. Alumni from our magazine have gone on to successful careers in journalism. 2006-07 editor-in-chief Ted Niedermeyer, is the editor-in-chief of a well-read automotive industry blog called The Truth About Cars, and 2007-08 editor-in-chief Philip Ossie Bladine is the editor-in-chief of an alternative weekly in Vancouver, WA called the Vancouver Voice.

I understand you have denied our request to conduct an interview with your office, citing our “lack of serious content” as a concern and worrying about appearing not suitably “presidential” within our pages. The issue in which your interview would have appeared, The Interview Issue, will include printed interviews with Dean of Students Paul Shang, Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy, Oregon University System Vice-Chancellor Sona Andrews, University Health Center Gynecologist Colleen Jones, and various other notable members of the campus and Eugene communities. If you don’t feel that appearing next to these individuals in the magazine is presidentially suitable , I would appreciate a list of individuals we should be interviewing instead.

You know just as well as I do how integral student programs are to student success in university communities. Students who are engaged in extracurricular activities tend to do better both in school and beyond graduation insofar as grades, job prospects and career development. But students are busy. We take classes, we have personal lives and many of us have jobs in order to cover the rent (and consistently rising tuition). It is much more likely for a student to join an extracurricular activity that will assist in career development with such limited time, and we at the Commentator believe we provide that career development for aspiring journalists. As part of the OC, students receive access to internships and fellowships across the country (by virtue of our relationships with the Collegiate Network and the Student Free Press Association) that they would not have access to simply by being a student in the journalism school. While we as a student program are eligible for stipends, we choose not to receive them. Students work for the Oregon Commentator because they care about what we stand for and are interested in learning about what it means to work for a publication.

Your comment regarding our editorial content insulted a publication that is written, produced and read by many students. Students appreciate the Commentator because it provides alternative viewpoints to the pervading culture on campus, and we feel those alternative viewpoints should be respected and given space to exist. Based on our (almost) consistent funding from the ASUO, student government representatives agree.

At this point, you have returned to us with a counter-offer: we send you questions ahead of time, and you(r public relations staff) answer(s) them for us. This is not a legitimate counter-offer (ask anyone in the SOJC about this and they will agree); if we wanted to read a press release, we would read a press release. Mr. President: when you entered your office a year and a half ago, you stated that transparency was going to be a priority for your administration. What could be more transparent than sitting down with the students you are charged with serving to answer our questions?

We are forced to wonder whether your reluctance to be interviewed has more to do with a desire not to be questioned by the very people whose futures you hold in your hands than with the editorial content of our magazine. Since you came into office, we at the Commentator are not the only ones who have been impressed with your forthrightness and honesty. It is my opinion that if you continue to refuse our interview requests we will likewise not be the only ones whose faith in that honesty is diminished.

Sincerely,

Lyzi Diamond
Editor-in-Chief
Oregon Commentator

Photo courtesy Oregon Daily Emerald

[Author’s note: I have been employed by both the Assault Prevention Shuttle and the Designated Driver Shuttle during my tenure at the University of Oregon, but I am no longer employed by either organization (or the incidental fee at all).]

From Friday’s Ol’ Dirty:

Students and faculty members who have used the Assault Prevention Shuttle lately probably noted a recent change to the program: It’s [sic] name.

According to a press release from the program, students and faculty members will soon begin to see the name Safe Ride replace its former one on its e-mail address and Web site. The name change has already begun to take the form of new signs that are visibly marked on the program’s vans.

Rachel Graham, Safe Ride’s co-director, said the program decided to change its name from the Assault Prevention Shuttle to Safe Ride amidst confused responses from students who did not know what the program’s purpose was.

“The name Safe Ride better exemplifies the mission of the program — to provide members of the University of Oregon community with a safe ride home,” Graham said in a prepared statement.

According to its Web site, Safe Ride currently uses four minivans and a 97-person staff base to provide an average of 70 people per night with a free ride to a destination near the University.

As I’m sure the APS co-directors know, the Assault Prevention Shuttle started as Project Saferide, a volunteer-based organization committed to preventing assault by employing female volunteers and staff members to give women free rides home. Indeed, Project Saferide stickers (which you can still see plastered in McKenzie Hall and EMU bathrooms) bear the motto, “Women Helping Women.”

(more…)

From the Oregonian:

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger announced today that he will draft legislation that will make it illegal under state law to look at child pornography on the Internet.

Kroger plans to propose his draft to state lawmakers some time after their latest session starts in February. Kroger’s announcement comes one day after the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that state law doesn’t make it a crime to look at child pornography while surfing the Internet if the viewer doesn’t purposefully download the images, print them out or pay for them.

Most obviously, the explanation for this is that one of Attorney General Kroger’s interns/assistants “misplaced” all forms of current news for amusement purposes- you sir, I applaud.

From the Oregonian:

House Bill 2228 introduced by Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), would amend an Oregon statute that bans unlawful passengers on a bike by making it illegal to carry a child younger than 6 either on the bike or in a trailer. The bill includes a fine of $90. […]

A former director of public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Greenlick said the bill was prompted by an OHSU study on injuries among serious bikers.

“It indicated that about 30 percent on average had a traumatic injury each year and about 8 percent had one serious enough to get medical attention,” Greenlick said, “so it really got me thinking about what happens if there’s a 4-year-old on the back of that bike when a biker goes down.”

He knows of no studies about the risks of carrying children in cargo trailers or on the back of a bike. But he said he wants to fire up a conversation in the Legislature.

“This is how the process starts,” he said. “We have hearings. People start testifying. You start getting the information to find out whether there is a problem or not.”

But, of course, Portland loves its bicycles and bike-friendly residents. Naturally, people are pissed, including the good folks at BikePortland.org:

“The bill itself is just ridiculous,” said Jonathan Maus, editor of the popular blog, bikeportland.org.

Other avid bikers got more personal, calling Greenlick “an idiot” in angry emails.

“I’ve got about 100 emails this morning,” Greenlick said. […]

Maus said the bill is misguided.

“We have massive transportation safety problems,” Maus said. “Transporting a child on a bicycle is no where near the top of anyone’s priority.

“I think it is a terrible miscalculation to start a debate with something so one-sided that prohibits the use of a transportation option by a large segment of the population,” Maus said.

He and his wife have raised their two daughters — now 8 and 5 years old — on bikes, carting them around the city in baby slings when they were tiny and then putting them in a cargo trailer at 3 months.

“We never had a problem,” Maus said.

In fact, he says drivers take more care when they see a kid on a bike or trailer, giving the bicyclist extra room.

“Everybody’s really careful,” Maus said.

He worries that the bill could curtail family biking — a popular activity in Portland and elsewhere — and hurt businesses in the state.

Here’s the thing: every activity is associated with risks. Literally every single activity. It is the job of the general public to identify those risks and make decisions about how to proceed. If bicyclists feel uncomfortable biking with children knowing the risks of doing so, they shouldn’t. If they feel comfortable knowing the risks, it is up to them to decide if it’s something they want to do.

It’s that simple.

Extra credit: Mia Birk’s letter to Greenlick asking him to withdraw the bill, saying he misinterpreted the study.

Here is Altman’s resignation letter, being all ballsy and shit:

Dear Senators and ASUO,

Having the opportunity to work with such bright and motivated people in the ASUO has been a highlight of my time at the University. Unfortunately, I must conclude my service for the ASUO Senate and Programming Finance Committee.
After much thought and internal struggle, resignation from Senate Seat 3 has become unavoidable. As a financially independent student, there is a necessity to maintain a job other than my Senate seat. Working a minimum of 25 hours a week for Senate and PFC has made it impossible for me to work enough hours at my other job to meet my financial needs.
My commitment to the ASUO has grown since I was elected last Spring, but it would be unfair for me to maintain my Senate Seat when I know that I cannot give more of my time to the position. I hope that whomever is appointed to Senate Seat 3 can dedicate themselves to Senate and PFC for the amazing amount of time that is demanded.

I would like to mention, also, that I do not approve of increasing stipends to better compensate ASUO members. Serving the University should not be encouraged monetarily, as students are not yet professionals. Because we are initially students, I also think that the hours necessary for being a part of the ASUO could be decreased through furthered efficiency in meetings, and a reevaluation of committee responsibilities.
From the perspective of PFC, for example, I feel that the Controllers do most of the budgeting work for the Programs, and the executive recommendations are commonly the best option for Program i-fee allocations. Because of this, I feel that Executive Recommendations could be the initially allocated amount, which would create necessity for Budget Hearings only when the PFC recalls a group, or when the group would like to appeal the Executive Recommendation. This would eliminate Budget Hearings that are unnecessary (inefficient).

Thank you for the educational experience, and I wish you the best of luck through Budget Hearings, and in to Spring term.

Respectfully,
Erin Altman

What you’re saying, Erin, is that as elected officials you should shirk your responsibilities and let the ASUO Executive — nay, the ASUO Finance Coordinator (the one who sets the executive recommendation), an APPOINTED INDIVIDUAL — make budgetary decisions. You are saying the finance committees should bend to the will of the ASUO executive and not make any of their own decisions based on individual research.

From what I’ve seen thus far, the PFC hasn’t done any individual research. As such, I can see why you would say the exec recs are the way to go — it seems you don’t know any better.

Every budget hearing is necessary because you, as PFC members, are supposed to know the ins and outs of every budget. If you didn’t have hearings, you wouldn’t have a chance to talk to programs about what they’re spending and why they’re spending it. You wouldn’t be the safeguard between my money and people spending it poorly. Honestly, you haven’t been doing much of that yet anyway (save for the Insurgent and I applaud you for that), but regardless. You are supposed to know more about the budgets of these programs than the programs themselves — that’s why you are assigned tags. You’re supposed to talk to the representatives, get a feel for what they want to do, and help them do it. The one making the executive recommendations (Finance Coordinator Colleen Soles*) is one person who can’t possibly get to know every program individually, and allocates based on a model.

This year, the PFC decided, instead of doing the due diligence and creating a model for themselves, to adopt the Executive’s funding model without fully understanding what it meant and its implications. You, as PFC, can allocate money however you see fit. I would hope that would come in the form of making rational decisions based on fundraising and amount spent, but even if not, it is important that you, as elected officials, are making the decisions.

Don’t bend to the will of the Executive. Do your due diligence and give programs the money they deserve and can actually use.

*Although, let’s be honest, it’s more likely Amelie herself.

The BCS Championship isn’t the only thing that’s been catching attention in Arizona lately. On Saturday morning, Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D. Arizona) held her first “Congress on Your Corner” event and was seriously wounded when a gunman opened fire on her and others attending the event (Oregonian, New York Times). In total, 14 were injured (including Rep. Giffords) and 6 died.

Recently reelected for a third term, Rep. Giffords’ website describes her as “…one of the most centrist legislators in Congress she is a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility, bipartisanship and government accountability.” Her facebook page displays her favorite quote, from Abraham Lincoln:  “With malice toward none, with charity for all, …let us strive on to finish the work we are in, …to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” Rep. Giffords represents a southeast corner of Arizona and according to the NYT, “has been an outspoken critic of the state’s tough immigration law, which is focused on identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants, and she had come under criticism for her vote in favor of the health care law.”

(more…)