In a brilliant and unforeseen move, a UPS Store will open in the space the U.S. Post Office used to occupy.

Who would have thought? Mail on campus.

Genius.

Either way, now your lazy ass doesn’t have to walk all of two blocks off campus to mail something.

FromWendy P Polhemus, Interim Director of the EMU:

Good Afternoon!
I am pleased to announce the opening of The UPS Store in the location formally occupied by the U.S. Post Office in the Erb Memorial Union.  Starting September 1, 2011 you will be able to receive an extensive array of UPS, postal, packaging and related services Monday – Friday, 8 A.M. to 6 P.M. and Saturday, 10 A.M. – 2 P.M.  Post Office box rental is also available.  For a menu of services please visit www.theupsstore.com online or come by the store.   Within the next week or so the local website will be available at www.theupsstorelocal.com/6258.  A formal grand opening is scheduled during the Week of Welcome, September 19 – 23.

Dear Oregon Daily Emerald i.e. Ol’ dirty,

You guys are seriously making this too easy. You could at least hide the egregious errorz. This is like handing out the Easter eggs two minutes into the hunt. Or maybe the West University/South Hills thieves got your copy editors (in which case I am very sorry for your loss–because that would not be a laughing matter at all. Not even a little bit.)?

Love always,

Theee Commentator

Fox News is reporting that Peter Quint, the ASL professor who was fired over a comment he made to one of his students, is suing the University of Oregon. Since being suspended, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has stepped in, writing a letter to President Richard Lariviere demanding that Quint be reinstated for the 2011-12 academic year. (Read their investigation and letter here.)

There are two things going on in this case: the violation of Quint’s right to due process in being hastily suspended and the violation of Quint’s right to academic freedom in being fired for a comment that could have been interpreted widely. In regards to due process, the UO and the Oregon University system seem to believe they’ve got everything under control.

FoxNews.com contacted university officials, who would not comment on the pending litigation. However, the university did release a statement.

“The University of Oregon conducted a thorough investigation into the incident that occurred in Mr. Quint’s classroom prior to taking action,” the statement reads. The Oregon University system also said it has procedures for formal proceedings when dealing with matters such as Quint’s.

“The charges or a notice accompanying the charges shall inform the academic staff member of the right to a formal hearing on the charges and of the academic staff member’s duty to notify the president within 10 days after the charges have been delivered or sent whether such hearing is desired,” read the procedures.

Quint’s lawyer disagrees, and is coming at the free speech debate from another angle: the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Quint declined FoxNews.com requests for comment after consulting with his lawyer, Kevin Tillson. Tillson did tell FoxNews.com that the university terminated Quint mid-term without due process and violated Quint’s free speech and his rights under the Americans With Disability Act for failure to provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

As an adjunct professor, Quint is not rewarded the same rights as associate or full tenured professors, which will greatly influence the outcome of the court case. Regardless, it is fantastic that Quint is standing up to UO administrators and fighting for his job. In every instance of a professor, adjunct or otherwise, not being granted the rights he or she deserves, a precedent is set for the next time the UO deals with a professor. And as I mentioned in my previous post, the UO administration already has a tenuous relationship with the first amendment. The time to act is now.

In the words of UO Matters, “Soon professors will need a concealed carry permit just to make a presentation with bullet points.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has launched an investigation into the termination of University of Oregon American Sign Language professor Peter Quint after he made what was perceived to be an off-color comment to a student in his ASL 203 class. A letter was sent from FIRE to University President Richard Lariviere on June 27 insisting that Quint be reinstated for the 2011-12 academic year.

In his 200-level ASL classes, as is the case with most 200-level language classes, Quint expected his students to not speak aloud — similar to a Spanish professor expecting students to not speak in English. He was having trouble with students not following this policy, so in order to attempt compliance, he relayed a personal story about being taken hostage in Pakistan, and how his ability to communicate via sign language saved his life. That was May 4th of this year. Then this happened:

Being deaf himself, Quint had made it clear to his students, both during lectures and in his syllabus, that respectful communication in class required that all communication be visible. Yet, later during that very class, some students again violated this policy. In frustration he expressed, “Do you want me to take a gun out and shoot you in the head so you understand what I am talking about? I had to practice being respectful in Pakistan otherwise I would have been shot. Can you practice the same respect here?”

Those ASL 203 students did not see Peter Quint again. Nor did anyone else at the university, as on the same day, Michael Bullis, the dean of the College of Education, sent Quint an email suspending him from teaching for the next day. The next day, Bullis sent Quint another email, suspending him indefinitely and promising to meet with him to discuss his future employment.

According to FIRE’s investigation, that meeting never happened, and on May 11 Quint received his final email from Bullis, dictating his termination.

The problems here are twofold — not only was Quint denied the due process that should have been afforded to him as an employee of the University of Oregon, his free speech was infringed upon, as FIRE mentioned in its June 27 letter to President Lariviere:

The principles of academic freedom and free expression in the university setting mandate far more tolerance than UO has afforded Quint. As the Supreme Court stated in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989), “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” The Court handed down such a robust defense of potentially offensive speech precisely because deeming certain speech to be offensive is an entirely subjective exercise. In a milieu as diverse as the modern academy, speech is bound to be misinterpreted, and offense is virtually unavoidable. Free speech needs breathing room in order to thrive.

Finally, UO’s punishment of Quint raises grave due process concerns. Bullis completely failed to provide any protections or follow any part of the process spelled out in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for the punishment of non-tenured faculty members. The utter lack of notice, charges, a hearing, or an opportunity to appeal constitutes a severe violation of Quint’s due process rights under the rules and a betrayal of fundamental fairness. Moreover, Bullis’ requirement that Quint not “contact faculty, staff, or students” before the end of his appointment was a further violation of Quint’s free speech rights which also made it effectively impossible for Quint to defend himself and his reputation.

FIRE is demanding that President Lariviere apologize for Bullis’ actions, reinstate Quint for the 2011-12 academic year and remove all records of this from Quint’s employment files. They are also expecting a response from the university by July 18.

The most alarming part of this situation is the complete lack of due process that Quint was granted throughout this situation. The University of Oregon has a tenuous relationship with the first amendment on campus, which was seen clearly through the Pacifica Forum debacle, but also through an interview with Dean of Students Paul Shang in the January 26 issue of the Oregon Commentator. Dr. Shang was asked, “The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has listed the UO as a Red Light school for its speech code policy. How do you juggle the responsibility of providing free expression and student safety?” His response [emphasis added]:

That’s kind of a conversation that evolves. Depending on what the issue is and how something is stated, you can get different kinds of perspectives on what sorts of infringements are occurring. FIRE looks at things from just the free speech perspective. There are, in my opinion, a lot of issues having to do with free speech that people need to be thoughtful about. The fact that we are the only democratic society in the world that has these notions of unbridled speech is something that we need to think about. Canada has limitations of speech. England, Israel, all kinds of democratic countries have different perspectives on unbridled speech. That is something that may become more of an issue as our country evolves.

What we do here at the university is we want to promote freedom of speech. The free expression of ideas is fundamental to higher education. The other piece that is fundamental to higher education is that ideas will be expressed in such a way that they don’t undermine the civility that’s necessary for people to participate in a higher educational experience. You can’t be intimidated, you can’t feel threatened, you can’t feel in any way that you’ll be humiliated and it’s in that context that you can have a true free expression of ideas. On the one hand we want to have freedom of speech, on the other hand we want everyone to participate and have equal access to the higher educational opportunity.

So we’re trying to balance some things, things that you’d agree are fundamental rights. FIRE is looking at things from one perspective: the freedom of speech perspective. And certainly we, as you know, will do everything we can to promote and defend freedom of speech, to abide by the law and the notion and right of freedom of speech. On the other hand we want to make sure that everybody on campus has an equal opportunity to the whole educational experience.

Let go for a minute of the fact that Dr. Shang didn’t really answer the question that was asked. What he did there was create a dichotomy: freedom of speech vs. access to education and student safety. Not only does this show a lack of understanding of the First Amendment and its scope, it has potential parallels to this situation with Peter Quint: did the UO terminate Quint’s employment because they were worried about the safety of his students? We can take the skepticism a step further: was the UO protecting itself from the potential backlash and bad press of having students “feel threatened” by a comment made by a professor?

Legally, neither of these concerns holds any weight. FIRE is no stranger to communication with the University of Oregon, and has been at least somewhat successful in its endeavors. Heck, the Oregon Commentator is still around. Let’s hope that this case is no different, and Professor Quint receives the process he is due.

(Note: FIRE has a “take action” link at the end of its blog post about this issue where readers can click a button to send President Lariviere a letter urging him to reinstate Quint. The key sentence in the form letter: “The rights of UO faculty are very fragile indeed if the university believes it can dismiss its instructors for their classroom comments without even presenting any formal charges against them, much less allowing them the opportunity to address and rebut such charges.”)

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? “

The UO has just announced that it will hire a new interim manager in the coming year for the Department of Public Safety. As in a new administrator (thanks to UO Matters for the link).

According to the announcement, “DPS will conduct a search to fill whatever position(s) it determines are necessary and appropriate to meet its needs beyond June 30, 2012.” As in, perhaps hire new administrators.

When I interviewed UO President Richard Lariviere back in May, I asked him about the possibility of additional administrators for DPS. He responded thus (page 30 of this document):

And I’m not sure there’s any additional administrative staff. That’s the first time I’ve heard … Your assertion is the first time I’ve heard that there will be more administrative staff. Where did that come from?

He went on to say it was “The first (he’d) heard” of the possibility there would be a new administrative hire. For me this raises the following questions:

1. Is planning for this transition so short-sighted that the UO’s central administration actually didn’t know changing the structure of the department would require additional administrators a month ago?
2. Did they know and just not tell Lariviere, or UO spokesperson Julie Brown, who was also in the room?
3. Perhaps did they leave the interview with me and think “Additional administrators? Now that would be a heck of an idea!”?
4. Or were they being dishonest with me?

The student fee to fund the new EMU — which was going to charge current students for a building they were never going to get to use — will not be implemented next year. Not until there is a student referendum, anyway.

At a state Board of Higher Education meeting Friday, UO President Richard Lariviere withdrew the controversial proposal before it came up for discussion. Student leaders attended the meeting and were prepared to lobby against the fees, which ultimately would cost students $300 a year.

The money would be used to improve the aging Erb Memorial Union and expand the Student Recreation Center. Together, the projects are expected to cost $161 million, with $112.5 million coming from student fees.

UO student body President Ben Eckstein and other members of next year’s student government objected to the fees because students were not given the chance to vote on them. Some members of the state Board of Higher Education also had expressed reservations.

As a result, the university decided to wait and hold a vote on the fees after students return this fall, said Robin Holmes, the UO’s vice president for student affairs.

This is good news. Unlike the previous ASUO president, this one actually cares what students think. Nominal victory. But the administration, speaking through VP of Student Affairs Robin Holmes, seems to think everything will move forward without a hitch.

Stalling the fee will lose the project around $600,000 — $30 per student for fall term. Holmes is confident that the project will still move forward, however.

“I don’t anticipate this slowing us down,” Holmes said. “It’s okay to do the referendum and show we have student support and more forward with it.”

Our favorite anonymous professor over at UO Matters seems to think that admin agreeing to a referendum means they know the outcome. It’s very possible that students will still have to pay for a building before they can use it, including many who will not be around when it is completed. But at least students are being given a chance to express their opinion officially, and the outcome of a project is contingent on this student support or lack thereof.

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.

Inside Oregon is spreading the news about their new feature, classifieds. In an email with the subject of “UO ‘Craigslist’ available to campus community!!” Karyn Kaplan wrote,

The University of Oregon’s Inside Oregon e-newsletter, now has a feature for posting classified ads.  This is a giant bulletin board to post items for sale.  Check it out to see what’s on there and also please get out the word to other students and campus community members, it’s a great opportunity to share resources within our community.  This is for PERSONAL items ONLY. […] http://insideoregon.uoregon.edu/inside-oregon-classifieds/

The website currently has about 23 ads, dating back to February. There is quite a menagerie of items, including bikes, clothing and even houses. Just like Craigslist, the website is open to everyone-users do not need a .edu address to post. Unlike Craigslist, there isn’t a section for jobs or “personals,” nor is the navigation as straightforward. In essence, it’s a simpler version of Craigslist on a university website.

The website is relatively new and there are many directions it could take. With a little tweaking (design and requiring a .edu address) it could be very successful. To post an item or browse what’s already there click here.

“I have become a preaching machine!”

Thumping a well-worn blue Bible, Jed Smock – or Brother Jed, as he likes to be called – is one of the new faces generating controversy around the EMU Amphitheater for his confrontational preaching method. Sporting a bowtie, a sweater vest and a blue blazer, Brother Jed addresses individuals in the amphitheater audience and calls out to “wicked” and “promiscuous” students about how to “change their ways and follow Christ.”

A self-admitted “former hippie” who “found Jesus on a hippie commune in Africa,” Brother Jed is usually met with disdain, mockery and impassioned debate from students, groups such as the Alliance of Happy Atheists and random people walking by the amphitheater.

I had a chance to sit down with Brother Jed and talk about his presence on the University of Oregon.

Oregon Commentator: Why did you decide to preach in the University of Oregon amphitheater?
Brother Jed: I mean, you’re not going to get college students to get up and go to church early in the morning. So we need to go to them.
OC: Would you say you’ve made an impact [on campus]?
BJ: Oh, yes. I was just talking to someone who recently started reading the Bible. I get letters on my website, brotherjed.org, letters I’ve received from student over the years. They go something like this: “Dear Brother Jed, Your preaching made me so mad that I started reading the Bible to prove you wrong.” And then they find the faith!
OC: So is provoking people the main way you get your message across? It seems very in-your-face, very uncomfortable.
BJ: Yes, you need to engage the audience. I call it confrontational evangelism. The radical left [in the 1960s] talked of “confrontational politics,” really challenging the establishment. Whether you agree with their position or not, it worked… So yes, I want to stir up controversy and dialogue and debate… all college students are thinking about is mundane. They’re not asking “What is our moral foundation?” They aren’t the true questions, the right questions. They’re just focused on “Oh, I’ve got a test today” and “I hope I get laid tonight.” You’re distracted from God.
OC: Let’s talk a bit about how you became a Christian. You mentioned that you lived on a hippie commune in Africa…?
BJ: Yes, I did. One day a man who was dressed in Arabic attires – you know, a turban, a robe, all that – came preaching Jesus to us on Christmas Day, 1971. And we all laughed at him! But as a historian I had to admit that the Bible has great literary qualities. I mean, I was the son of an English professor and some of the greatest works of literature have been inspired by the Bible. So I thought I should read it for academic and spiritual purposes. I was going to study under the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in India but I thought “Why don’t I study my religion instead?”
OC: So Judaism, Islam and Christianity all recognize Jesus as a prophet.
BJ: Well, the Jews don’t.
OC: Right. But still, all three religions come from the tree of Abraham. Would you say there’s kinship between Jews, Muslims and Christians?
BJ: Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross. The Qur’an says that “God had no son”… so really Islam is an attack on Christianity. They deny Jesus’ sacrifice. We’re different. No, we believe in the Trinity. We believe Jesus is God!
OC: Has being in academia informed how you preach?
BJ: Yes. I remember reading the Bible and wanting to tell the good news to people! But there’s only so much you can do inside a building, so I decided to go outside.
OC: Would you say you appeal to reason in your preaching?
BJ: It’s about preaching but it’s also about teaching. It’s an appeal to man’s conscience, recognizing this party lifestyle and trying to get them thinking about their life. Most students aren’t thinkers, they’re feelers. So I appeal to that emotion.
OC: Let’s talk about Satan. Do you believe in Satan, that there is an evil force out there?
BJ: I do believe in a fallen angel, Lucifer does mean “bringer of light.” He was perfect in all of his. But they found sin in him. So he rally one third of the angels to rebel against God. Now that took a long time, that’s not an overnight thing… I do believe Lucifer became frustrated with God because God governs the universe not by sheer force but by love. And love puts restraints on us all. It’s like our soldiers over in Afghanistan… if we didn’t have this Christian morality, we’d just wipe ‘em all out, get it over with, y’know? [Laughs] But God is about love, so we can’t do that. God is gonna demonstrate that love always wins. The Devil has all this experience in the realms of hate and power, but what looks stronger than Jesus hanging on the cross? Love defeated hate on the cross. Love will defeat evil.
OC: Would you say the devil is on college campuses? How do you reason that?
BJ: I do believe in demonic possession. I don’t think any students are possessed, but the Devil does influence us with temptations.
OC: What kind of temptations?
BJ: The drugs, the alcohol and the sex before marriage… they all make us morally weak. Drugs and alcohol puts our conscience to sleep. And the music! They’re listening to this decadent rock music, or hip-hop and this music is seductive!
OC: Thank you for your time, Brother Jed.

A story on the controversy surrounding Brother Jed will be available in the forthcoming Commentator.

So Emi Koyama, the “activist and writer” I referenced in my last post about the Student Insurgent, has written an open letter to me and the Commentator regarding my characterization of her as an advocate for sex trafficking. Apparently, she is not. Her letter can be found here.

The focus of my post was not meant to be on Emi Koyama, but was meant to make fun of the Insurgent. Maybe not the classiest of moves, but whatever. She is right: I did not attend her presentation, and perhaps it was rash of me to jump to such conclusions about her standpoint. According to Ms. Koyama, she is not an advocate for sex trafficking, so there you go.

I assume her letter was sent to our editor’s account, which I no longer have access to, but if she’s out there reading, please respond to the post with your email address and I will send you an email. I’m very curious to talk to you about your viewpoint.

(And, for the record, I am no longer editor-in-chief of the OC, I am the blog editor.)

The Student Insurgent, in a surprising turn of events, is actually doing something. I would be proud, if their actions weren’t entirely asinine.

First, they hosted a guest speaker last week who advocated sex trafficking. No joke. From their blog:

War on Terror & War on Trafficking:
Why Irrational Panic over ‘Modern Day Slavery’ Harms Women

Thursday May 19th, from 6-730pm in Condon 104, University of Oregon.

Presented by Emi Koyama, War on Terror & War on Trafficking examines “facts” promoted by the anti-trafficking groups and “experts,” and exposes how they have distorted our conversations about sex trafficking and prostitution and harmed women, sex workers, immigrants, and others.

The presentation also explores many ways in which the new War on Trafficking resembles the so-called War on Terror in its worldview, approach, and devastating impact on vulnerable communities. […]

Come to find out why:

• Average age of entry into prostitution is not 12-14 year old
• 300,000 children are not at risk of being trafficked
• A third of runaway youth are not trafficked within first 48 hours
• Super Bowl and World Cup did not contribute to human trafficking
• Portland is not “Pornland, Oregon”
• “End Demand” approach targeting “johns” harms women
• Anti-trafficking “experts” should not be trusted (remember Bill Hillar?)
• Trafficking is often the State’s excuse to raid immigrants and communities of color
• Anti-trafficking movement distorts reality and misleads public policy

Clearly, the Student Insurgent advocates sex trafficking. The Commentator will be looking more into this story, including whether or not the Student Insurgent is housing underage, trafficked prostitutes in their office. Look for that next week.

Additionally, as I was walking by the Commentator distribution rack outside McKenzie Hall this afternoon, I saw this flier sitting on top of our HATE issues in the rack:

You know the Commentator. Constantly committing acts of ableism (which, and I’ve looked through our archives, I can’t find), objectifying women AND men, and generally slandering our fellow students.

Any responses to this flier should not only be directed to Dr. Shang (who, by the way, won the Professional Baller Tater Award last year) but also to us at [email protected]. Best response receives a Sudsy t-shirt and a hug from me and Sophie — AT THE SAME TIME. How can you say no?

On a more serious note: free speech, bitches. Deal with it.

EDIT: I can’t be sure this flier was indeed placed by the Insurgent, but based on the conversations I’ve had the last week, I can only guess.

The Oregon Daily Emerald is reporting that University of Oregon American Sign Language Professor Peter Quint has been fired for a comment he made to a student in his ASL 203 course on May 4th. From the article:

Quint began the class Wednesday with a personal story about being confronted by a group of men with guns while traveling in Pakistan with a group of friends. According to students, Quint, who is deaf, explained he was able to get out of the situation safely because he could communicate to the men that he was not a threat.

The story was intended to highlight the importance of communication, students said. It came about after several students repeatedly ignored Quint’s requests to only sign conversation. Quint lost his hearing due to meningitis when he was two and insisted students only sign during his classes so everyone could participate.

According to students present, later in Wednesday’s class, Quint noticed that a student spoke rather than signed, got upset and asked the student, “Do you want me to shoot you?”

“He wasn’t saying he was actually going to shoot anyone,” Claire Johnson, who is in several of Quint’s classes this term, said of the comment, adding that it was intended to relate back to the story and was taken out of context. “I didn’t find it threatening.”

While an inappropriate comment, certainly, was Quint entirely out of line? I’ve never taken an American Sign Language class, but I have taken the 200-level Spanish sequence, and in those classes we were required to speak Spanish. Indeed, in 201, if you spoke English at all the professor would not acknowledge your question or comment.

It doesn’t seem like this situation should be any different, especially since ASL now counts for language requirements in preparation for a Bachelor of Arts degree. And especially since Quint could not hear his students, whereas most if not all Spanish profs at the UO can speak English, the need to sign was even more immediate.

According to the rest of the article, the students in Quint’s classes were not given much if any say in the process of his termination. Who made the decision to fire him, and what was their motivation? Did Quint have tenure, and did that contribute to his firing?

This story, needless to say, is developing. We’ll provide more information as it comes available.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is one of the most unique and powerful organizations of the right now. Its mission is to “defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities,” and it is extremely successful in this regard. Indeed, a few years back when the Oregon Commentator was defunded by the Programs Finance Committee for our content, FIRE came in with a letter to then-President Dave Frohnmayer and our funding was restored. FIRE also publishes guides to student rights on university campuses, including a particularly interesting one on student fees and funding (hint hint ASUO folks hint hint).

Basically, FIRE is hella awesome, as are the people who work there.

One of those people, Vice President of Programs Adam Kissel, is an Oregon Commentator fan as well as an excellent writer. And in 2008, he was published by the National Association of Scholars as part of a post on Dr. Seuss’s 1950 fable If I Ran The Zoo. First, some of Peter Wood’s comments:

Dr. Seuss’s protagonist, young Gerald McGrew, suffers none of his sophisticated contemporaries’s deadly contempt for life as it is, or for his social surroundings. His opening words are, “It’s a pretty good zoo, and the fellow who runs it seems proud of it too.” But McGrew imagines he could do better. He would release the current animals and acquire creatures such as a ten-footed lion and a family of Lunks in a bucket from the wilds of Nantucket. He dreams of zookeeper glory, when “the whole world will say, ‘Young McGrews’s made his mark. / He’s built a zoo better than Noah’s whole Ark!’”

McGrew’s bestiary comes from Linneas-knows-not-where, but surely Dr. Seuss has posed a good question. If you ran the zoo, could you outdo McGrew?

This being the National Association of Scholars, we are interested in one particular zoo, American higher education. Of course, we mean this metaphor in the most benign way. We are not conjuring Animal House fraternities, or epithets like “Zoo Mass” for the University of Massachusetts. We are sober critics here at NAS and do not engage in petty satire. Rather we pose the question in the spirit of Dr. Seuss. We have sometimes doubted that it’s a pretty good zoo. But, say that it is. It still could be better.

And, of course, Kissel’s contribution:

(1) Adam Kissel
If I Ran the University Zoo

If I ran the university zoo,
The number of administrators would be divided by two,
And two, and two, and two, and two,
Leaving more resources available for me and for you.

And maybe I’d do something about peer review.
The sociologist will learn how to speak with the entomologist
And the psychologist and the geologist
And the philologist and the astronomist and the economist
So that the Faculty Club will again serve discussion
And not only the gastronomist.

The faculty will know the difference
Between liberal education and general education,
Between liberal education and liberalism,
Between liberal education and illiberal policies,
Between liberal education and secondary education,
Between liberal education and research,
Between liberal education and Division I athletics.

The faculty will enjoy thinking about these differences,
Talking and debating about these differences,
Teaching about these differences,
And assessing students to make sure they understand

What they are doing in the zoo,
This zoo rather than some other zoo,
Where the administration has been cut by twos,
And the teams are at most in Division Two.

Sure, I believe in the unity of knowledge
But some kinds of studies are not for college,
At least not for degrees.
The world needs plumbers and clowns,
Horse-trainers and dog-trainers,
Athletes and acrobats and accordionists,
And advocates for or against this or that.
But college is the place to get up on philosophy
And science and math and religion and thinking
And writing and the other liberal arts.
College is not for jobs but for smarts.

If I got to run the zoo
And someone stood accused
Of something he maybe didn’t do
(Or maybe he did), he would get the process he is due.

The rules would be clear and applied equally to all.
Rule #1 would be a zero-tolerance policy
For speech codes and “free speech zones.”
Let academic freedom reign—

But this is where peer review
Comes into transdisciplinary purview.
Let each professor defend his work before his peers,
Across the university, and in the public sphere
So that honor may accrue where it is due—
And ridicule for those more than a few
Who cannot quite justify what it is that they do.

“The books stand open and the gates unbarred,”
Spoke Seamus Heaney at Harvard Yard.

At the university zoo, as I would do,
The animals run wise and free—as you and I should be.

Absolutely brilliant. Indeed, I believe my exact word to him was, “Heroic.”

Follow Adam on Twitter (and FIRE while you’re at it). We have a Twitter account, too: you can follow us here.