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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Well, that’s embarrassing.”

That was my reaction when I opened to the opinion page of the Oregon Daily Emerald today and found this:

Top 10 Ways you know you’re Republican

Whether you’re a gun-toting Texan or a money-hogging oil tycoon, the GOP has enough emphasis on “good ol’ American family” to make you idolize people like Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

If you don’t know whether you’re a Republican at heart, we have 10 signs that show that you are indeed a Republican.

1) Your idea of a tea party consists of 40-year-old men with guns
2) You’re pro-child and against educating them
3) You still think Barack Obama was born in Kenya
4) You believe Judgment Day is May 21
5) Women’s Rights?
6) The thought of things trickling down turns you on
7) Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachman? Total RILFs, bro
8) You’ve gone through three divorces, but you think gay marriage will ruin the American family structure
9) You think Dick Cheney is a good hunter
10) Your news is fair and balanced

Let’s let alone for a minute the fact that the Emerald opinion desk wouldn’t know subtlety or humor if they walked up and introduced themselves. Let’s also let alone the fact that there are so many better things the Ol’ Dirty could have put in that space that students would have cared about. (While we’re at it, we can also ignore the gross misspelling of Rep. Michele Bachmann’s name, although it will serve to illustrate my point.)

This list shows a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the Republican Party and what it’s about, especially in Oregon.

I am a registered member of the Oregon Republican Party, and a proud one at that. I am a member because of the three things the Oregon Republican Party stands for: accountability in spending, protecting our environment and protecting our schools. The misspelling of Rep. Bachmann’s name was not the only flaw in the severely misguided column; it is clear that when it passed through the opinion editor’s desk, it was never fact checked, not even a little bit.

Not every Republican is a tea-partier, a birther or a social conservative. We’re not all religious nuts, and we don’t all blindly stand behind elected leaders from our party.

Republicans identify as such because we believe in fiscal responsibility and civil liberties. We believe that all our constitutional rights should be exercised to their fullest extent, including the right to keep and bear arms. We believe in national defense, a free market and energy independence.

We believe in making a better America for all citizens.

At the Oregon Commentator, we publish blog posts and articles that are based on facts. We make fun of people, too, but it is always warranted and has a point. And we make sure to fact-check our pieces to the fullest extent, especially if we’re going to call someone (or a group of someones) out.

I would implore the folks at the Ol’ Dirty Emerald to, in the future, do some fact-checking, research “humor” and find some class. That is, if they haven’t strayed too far from it already.

I’ll leave you with three reasons it’s awesome to be a Republican:

1. Save what you make. Keep what you earn.
2. Avocados, papayas, bananas and every other fruit and vegetable that isn’t grown in the Willamette Valley (nom).
3. Teddy Roosevelt. Enough said.

Power outage at 4:30 a.m.? Usually no biggie. Except this is college; where people actually do homework at 4:30 a.m. Anyways, EWEB is planning one, something about “de-energizing.” That doesn’t sounds fishy at all….*cough. From the EWEB website (also available via KVAL):

May 9, 2011

EWEB plans morning outage to repair power line

Eugene Water & Electric Board customers in the downtown area and the university district will experience a short power outage early Tuesday morning while electric line crews briefly de-energize a transmission line.

The outage will begin at about 4:30 a.m. and is expected to last 30 minutes or less.

EWEB line crews will de-energize a section of the utility’s 115-kilovolt transmission line in Alton Baker Park to make repairs that could include replacing an insulator.

This particular section of line first drew attention on April 28, when a great blue heron caused a flashover that resulted in a one-hour outage for parts of downtown and the university district. Early Saturday morning, another outage occurred. The outage lasted about 75 minutes and a troubleshooter traced the problem to the same section of transmission line.

p.s. This means your power is going to go out i.e. your alarm is going to reset itself when turned on, so do yourself a favor and use the alarm on your phone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the ever-popular HATE Issue coming up, I felt it would be appropriate to address some of the haters that have spoken out against the magazine, its staff, byline and mission statement.  The most recent form of hate being vandalism: dumping issues of the magazine outside the EMU as well as stealing one of the distribution boxes at 14th and Kincaid.  This has not happened to any other student ran publication on this campus, but according to the Student Press Law Center in 2009 Oregon State University’s Liberty had some of its distribution boxes removed in a similar fashion, claiming censorship as the cause:

The staff of an independent publication at Oregon State University says they are being censored by not being permitted to distribute across campus.

Will Rogers, executive editor of the Liberty, said campus officials removed the paper’s distribution bins during the winter 2009 term without warning, damaging some of them. Officials later told Rogers his staff does not have the same distribution rights as the Daily Barometer, OSU’s official campus paper.

“Basically, the school is setting up a state-sponsored form of communication that if you don’t play by their rules then you’re not allowed to distribute the message, which is censorship,” Rogers said. “They’re stifling our ability to communicate.”

The Liberty was also regarded as the campus conservative publication and Rogers commented on the fact that the other publication, the Daily Barometer had none of its distribution boxes removed.

According to e-mails in late April and early May between Rogers and Joe Majeski, a Facilities Services employee, university officials removed the bins — which involved cutting locks and chains for some — and stored them near a dumpster.

When Rogers retrieved them, he said some had been damaged. He noted the university gave Liberty editors in 2006 permission to place eight bins on campus. After one was stolen, the paper’s staff chained the rest in place.

A collection of e-mails between Rogers and university employees show the dispute is centered on Liberty not being the campus’ official paper. Several officials noted the Daily Barometer has been publishing for over 100 years. Officials also claimed they were controlling distribution to keep campus attractive for visiting parents.

An OSU spokesperson said that the boxes were removed in an effort to help with foot traffic and maintenance and yet again, none of the Barometer‘s bins or boxes were removed.  It is approximated that 150 copies of the publication were damaged along with the damages to boxes themselves.  Since then, the Liberty has had its distribution rights restored to the same rights as the Barometer.

In our case, reports have been filed with Eugene Police Department as well as the Department of Public Safety. All I can say is that if we’ve been striking nerves with people, good. Haters, keep up the hate. [Ed. note: But stop being a dick about it.] The OC does not sacrifice ideas or content for anyone. It is and always has been an alternative journal of opinion that does not curtail its content to vandalism or insults. The campus is indeed a battleground for the war of ideas; the war is raging and we are not stopping.

I love you so much I made you a news poem and don’t even complain about my rhyming, you know you like it:

Yay,

beginning in May

you get to Pay

3.3% more for power AND

6.9% more for water.

With an average increase of $2.85

You’ll just have to give up all hopes of ordering yourself a Wive

(oh, shut up, I was making a rhyme, no one likes the letter “F” anyways).

Student loan debt has outpaced credit card debt and will reach $1 trillion this year. From the New York Times:

Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt.

State support dwindles (both for the university’s budget and in terms of financial aid), tuition goes up, students have more debt. This is the status quo.

We need something bold. We need something new. Maybe next year’s legislative session will have some answers.

The University is beginning the process of finding a replacement for current Vice President of Institutional Equity and Diversity, Dr. Charles Martinez, Jr. The University is offering students a chance to give their input on the decision during “visioning” session held at the Many Nations Longhouse. The session for undergraduates will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, March 6th, from 2p.m. to 3p.m. Because your voice as a student… counts…

What exactly does the VP for Diversity do around here? According to the University website, the job appears to be that of an offensiveness consultant to the President.

May I suggest we start with the hats, sir?

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…)

“On the other hand, if you’re a 3.9 student, why the hell would you apply some place that only requires a 3.4?”

Question— (in the Spirit of Lariviere) Why the hell would a University President say something like that?

Yes, yes, this is part of a larger quote talking about the inadequacy of the automatic admissions policy (as covered below by Alex), but the statement in itself is astounding. Having a requirement of a 3.4 GPA does not signal that certain students don’t belong at a University. Besides, prospective students don’t just look at the GPA requirement they look at our culture, our sports and our highly ranked programs (like the Business School).

Perhaps we are not an Ivy League college, but that doesn’t mean that 3.9 students don’t belong here. Nor, does it mean that only 3.9 students belong at Ivy League schools.

As Lariviere noted elsewhere in his interview, the 3.4 GPA is NOT A REQUIREMENT, but rather an automatic acceptance for Oregon students. It says, “hey, y’all did OK in High School, so we’ll let you in.” Not “Unless you have higher than a 3.4, you must find another college to attend.” Moreover, if Penn, Cornell, Princeton& Dartmouth don’t have minimum GPA requirements, should 3.9 students write-off those colleges? If Columbia is looking for students with a GPA above 3.0 should 3.9 students write those off as well? Most definitely, out of state students with said GPA should not even bother to apply to Berkeley, for they only require a 3.4.

I appreciate that President Lariviere stepped outside of press-releases and scripted answers and had an honest conversation, but in questioning why 3.9 students would apply to the the University of Oregon, he is telling the very students he leads that the UO is just a consolation prize. He completed the statement by saying “So we’re just sending the wrong message to everybody.” Perhaps the automatic GPA needs to be cut, but having a GPA requirement or an automatic admission’s GPA cutoff doesn’t say anything about the competitiveness or worth of the University. 

Also, yes, I have a coffee date set with the President, and yes, I probably just threw away all chances of that happening but I am not going cease writing for the next two weeks, or skirt around important issues- I work for the Commentator, not the Pussy Daily.

UO Vice Provost of Enrollment Development Roger Thompson says the policy will help push high school students to succeed.

High school students with grade point averages of 3.4 or higher will no longer be admitted automatically to the University of Oregon starting next year under the OUS’ new admissions policy.

The UO has been gradually tightening its admissions standards in recent years — students were automatically admitted with 3.25 averages until the 2009–10 school year.

University President Richard Lariviere and Vice Provost of Enrollment Management Roger Thompson cited various reasons for the change agreed that the automatic admissions policy creates problems of perception among high school students. “If you’re a 3.3 student or a 3.2 student and you’re in one of those subsets that we really want to apply to the place — if the message is that if you don’t have a 3.4, you’re not going to get in, you diminish the likelihood that that student will apply,” Lariviere told a group of journalism students on Feb. 16. “On the other hand, if you’re a 3.9 student, why the hell would you apply some place that only requires a 3.4? I’m smarter than that. So we’re just sending the wrong message to everybody.”

Thompson said the current policy may dissuade Oregon students from applying themselves academically in high school. The vice provost’s job includes visits to Oregon high schools to talk to students about their college choices.

“One of the most common things I hear is a lot of those students don’t push themselves academically because they know, if they get a 3.4, they’ll get into the University of Oregon,” he said.

OUS spokesperson Di Saunders said the UO’s new admission standard was approved along with a new, system-wide change to the OUS’ policy on automatic admissions. Previously, the UO was the only school in the system that admitted students with high GPAs automatically. Now every school in the system will have the 3.4 standard except the UO.

The change to the UO’s policy appears to have escaped notice in the announcement of the OUS’ new standards. Thompson was not aware when he spoke to the Commentator Wednesday that the policy had already been changed.

The plan will first take effect for students applying to attend the UO in the 2012–13 school year.

When the UO decided to tighten its rules to admit students automatically only with 3.4 averages in February of 2009, it estimated that 70 percent of its students had been admitted automatically because of their GPAs. The mean grade-point average of high school students admitted to the UO for the fall 2010 term was 3.52, indicating that most UO students still gain admission automatically.

elissa Haskin contributed reporting to this article. It will be updated as I learn more.

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…)

“I applaud her for … questioning authority and holding power accountable,” Lariviere said.

This is a quote from Emerald reporter Stefan Verbano’s article today. And yeah, I think it is the same Lariviere who’s president of the University of Oregon. The one that hides behind the power of his office to avoid the accountability of face-to-face interviews.

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 rlinton@uoregon.edu.

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.