Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Eugene weekly. (Eugene, Oregon) 1993-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 1, 2011)
letters TO THE EDITOR FOLLOW THE DUCK BUCKS In a time when transparency is in high demand, it seems fi tting to be drawing our attention to the covert operations of our beloved ducks at the UO. The distribution of money within this academic institution is not in line with the university’s mission to provide “a continuing commitment to affordable public higher education.” As an out-of-state student responsible for funding my own education, the idea that tuition has risen 200 percent in the past 10 years is astonishing given the fact that average wages have remained stagnant since the 1980s. Where’s that money going? Not to academics. In the past fi ve years, the athletic budget has soared from $47 million to $76 million, whereas the UO Foundation general academic scholarship funding was cut $1.4 million. The salary distribution of faculty, classifi ed staff and administration has been all but transparent — administrative allocation increased by $2 million while faculty and classifi ed staff have not received adequate compensation as their workloads increase. As a part of the future generation of citizens and decision-makers, I feel cheated by the university’s dishonest representation of academic affairs. I may quack like a Duck, but I am here to learn — and I ask that others stand in solidarity with the teachers who provide our education and with the students who pay for it. Join the Occupy Eugene Education Alliance for weekly meetings, from 3 to 5 pm Tuesdays in the Ben Linder Room EMU Amphitheater, would be hard-pressed to imagine how it could in an 88 percent white county. Politics ain’t bean bag. The sooner the commission’s liberal minority and its supporters stop acting like cry-babies, making bogus accusations, the sooner they can reestablish the majority they once enjoyed. Andy Stahl Eugene CRUM’S THINKING to support equitable resource distribution within higher education. Christa S. Linz Eugene NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL Gary Crum’s Viewpoint (11/17) should be titled “Misleading” instead of “Unconstitutional.” Crum argues that the Lane County commissioner’s redistricting decision violates the U.S. Constitution’s “equal representation” mandate because the plan improves the chances of a “conservative” winning a “liberal” incumbent’s seat. Crum is simply wrong. Neither the Constitution nor any statute bars redistricting based upon the political preference or party of the electorate. There is, in fact, a long and storied tradition of doing so; it’s called the “spoils system” — to the victor goes the spoils. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, “a jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering.” Hunt v. Cromartie (1999). The Constitution does bar gerrymandering based upon race. Crum does not allege the commission majority engaged in racial gerrymandering. One Gary Crum’s Nov. 17 Viewpoint reads almost like a legal brief in a lawsuit attacking the redistricting of their own electoral districts ordered recently on a 3-2 vote by the Lane County commissioners. Ideally, redistricting decisions would be made by an objective outside body, but we are bound by the present system and our only immediate recourse is litigation. Immediately beside Crum’s article on the same page is Ann Tattersall’s letter expressing only her unhappiness with the decision. She makes no effort to persuade others of her opinion, instead using the insult and exaggeration (“Wonderland Tea Party” and “return us to medieval times when commoners were subject to the whims of layers and layers of royalty and aristocracy”), which we are all subjected daily by the ever- coarser advocates on every public issue. My hopes are two: that Crum’s thinking will fi nd its way into a legal proceeding and that Tattersall will control her anger and use her energy to persuade others of her position. Gil Campbell Eugene viewpoint A Clear Violation Kitzhaber outlines case against Lariviere EDITOR’S NOTE: Gov. John Kitzhaber released the following public statement Nov. 26. It has been quoted widely and published online, but we have not yet seen it in print. F irst, let me say that the situation involving the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and Dr. Richard Lariviere has nothing to do with an “ongoing difference of opinion over the future of the University of Oregon,” as Lariviere suggested in an email sent out to faculty and students last Tuesday. My education strategy includes building a world-class, innovative system of higher education that delivers better results for students and serves as an engine for our state’s economic recovery. Achieving these goals requires all of our university campuses, the Oregon University System and the State Board of Higher Education to be pulling in the same direction. While the timing of the board’s action on Lariviere’s employment contract may come as a surprise to some, the possible decision to terminate his contract should not, given his record. There have been a number of well-publicized incidents involving Lariviere that have eroded trust and confi dence with the Board of Higher Education. He disregarded board direction on more than one occasion. His decision to bypass the board and lobby for increased independence for UO was a clear violation of policy and made our larger, collective efforts to advance system- wide reform much more diffi cult. Consequently, Lariviere’s employment contract was limited to one year and included specifi c performance standards in an attempt both to alert Lariviere to the seriousness of these issues and to create an opportunity to rebuild trust. But his conduct has not changed. Most recently, after agreeing face-to-face with the other presidents to limit compensation increases given the state budget’s severe revenue constraints, Lariviere unilaterally granted substantial salary increases to his administrators and faculty. Unlike every other university president in the state, he disregarded my specifi c direction on holding tight and delaying discussion about retention and equity pay increases until the next biennium to allow for a consistent, systemwide policy on salaries. His decision not only undermined the board, it undermined my own directive and the credibility of my administration with the other campuses that complied with the agreement. I am not saying that retention increases are not warranted — they are — but the faculty retention problem is not unique to UO. By acting alone, Lariviere has created signifi cant diffi culty for other schools. At Portland State University, the increased pressure on the administration continues to prevent successful conclusion of contract negotiations with its faculty. His actions show little regard for the needs of the rest of the university system, other campuses, and the state. 4 DECEMBER 1, 2011 EUGENE WEEKLY Lariviere’s popularity in the UO community speaks for itself. But evaluating his performance requires more. His responsibility to the Board of Higher Education and his contribution to the larger issues and success of the entire system fall short. Indeed, Lariviere’s actions have done damage to our vision for higher education and other institutions of higher learning; and, ironically, have served to undercut his own aspirations for UO. His vision for the UO ultimately needs the support of the governor, the speaker of the House, the president of the Senate and a majority in both chambers of the Legislature. That does not exist today. I am personally committed to the concept of local governing boards and seeking new funding sources for Oregon’s universities, including consideration of an endowment funding model, but Lariviere has made the path to reform much steeper. Indeed, the orchestrated media blitz over the past few days has made some of those who are not warm to his ideas even more resistant. In my opinion, should the Board of Higher Education decide to terminate Lariviere’s contract on this basis, it would be fully justifi ed from an executive management standpoint. Any private sector CEO faced with a division manager who was totally dedicated to his or her specifi c department but willfully and repeatedly undermined the needs and goals of the overall company would, I expect, fi re the manager — and probably after the fi rst instance of such behavior; not the second. And few would be sympathetic to a call for special treatment. The Board of Higher Education is a group of thoughtful and dedicated Oregonians — many of whom have executive management experience themselves — and I am confi dent that their decision will not be arrived at lightly but only after much deliberation. I intend to fully support them as we pursue excellence in higher education across the state of Oregon. John Kitzhaber, M.D., is a graduate of South Eugene High School and Oregon Health & Science University. He was an emergency room physician in Roseburg, was elected to the Oregon Senate and authored the Oregon Health Plan. This is his third term as governor of Oregon. WWW.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM • BLOGS.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM
