So, maybe, they’re just giving the people 18% of their right to see this stuff?

This is pretty typical behavior of a someone whose power is threatened, but it’s still ridiculous. I’m wondering if there’s a working paper on institutional incentive structures in there some place, maybe based on the work of some other folks in the UO Economics department.

I’m under no such misapprehension.

When I read that “free speech is one thing” and what Harbaugh and Wade are engaged in “is quite another thing,” however, I don’t feel like I’m too off-base in thinking that the implication is that Harbaugh and Wade should not be allowed to continue their activities. My suspicions are only strengthened when I read things like “And the people [filing grievances] should, in my opinion, be checked” in the Emerald’s comments section.

Seems like there’s a little bit of a gulf between forbidding people with pesky questions from filing grievances and trying to obtain supposedly public information and mere “public criticism”, doesn’t it Jerry?

I’ll leave the scatology to the experts, and simply offer that you seem to be conflating the right to free speech with a right not to be criticized publicly.

Quibbledick?

“Exercising free speech and voicing dissent is one thing. Attempting to use grievance processes and lawsuits to undermine the implementation of a diversity plan overwhelmingly approved by the faculty senate, and in which University leadership has invested significant funds, is quite another thing.”

“Exercising free speech and voicing dissent is one thing. Attempting to use organized marches and lawsuits to undermine the continuation of a segregation system overwhelmingly approved by the state legislature and the people of Alabama, and in which the Alabama State Government has invested significant funds, is quite another.”

Sheesh. These fascists have no shame.

Ray: “…until the power grid was shut off by Dickless here.”

Walter Peck, EPA: “They caused an explosion!”

Mayor: (pause) (to Peter Venkman) “Is this true?”

Venkman: “Yes, it’s true. This man has no dick.”

Oh, also this Rosiek is a douchebag.

Olly - I am sure Rosiek has a bright future at the Melinda Grier Institute for Creative Legal Interpretation.

I’m also not sure there is as much room to conflate the UMRP issue with the issue of Wade v. OIED. If anything, I would say that the seriousness and non-moonbat involvement of the Department of Justice has, at the very least, alluded to the importance of clarifying what the UMRP is all about and how it is used. Even opponents of Harbaugh would seemingly have to say that he’s got this one right. At least, more so than in the past (in their eyes).

I enjoyed this line:

“All of this is old news to those who have followed UO’s efforts to address a persistent lack of diversity among its faculty and students.”

When I look around campus I see Arabs, Asians, Africans, African-Americans, Latinos, et al. along with the affiliated groups on campus that support these groups of people and allow them to share whatever they’d like with the rest of us. There is a plethora of events on campus throughout the year where people can attend and learn about other cultures, languages, etc. I haven’t even named every group that there is (i.e. Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, LGTBQ, and so on).

So, when I hear the constant whinging about the lack of ‘diversity’ on campus I find myself wondering just what the people involved in the whinging see when they look around. One could say that they see the geographic reality of a northwestern state in the United States. Namely, a majority of ‘white’ people who apparently are homogeneous, monolithic and mono-cultural and lack diversity themselves because of the color of their skin. They may look at census numbers and graphs and bemoan the fact that for a long time, minorities have not moved to this region in droves. What is the solution? Shall we conduct a diversity crusade in minority areas elsewhere and drag them back here, give them jobs at the U of O and then clap and pat ourselves on the back?

The U of O should be open to minorities and everyone else on the planet and whatever label best fits them when it comes to being hired at the U of O. I’m not sure how the U of O can manufacture diversity though, except through hiring bribes like the UMRP. I would also like to see the information about what makes education qualitatively ‘better’ when minorities are the ones educating. I have no doubt that there are plenty of minorities out there who are capable, intelligent, wonderful people who would be great to have at the U of O. Still, I am wary of putting them on a pedestal (not of their choosing mind you) because of a sort of diversity paranoia that is apparently pervasive on campus and in the local area in general. Can ‘we’ not be 100% open to minority hires and ‘diversity’ in general without constructing vague bureaucratic frameworks to facilitate the non-reality-based paranoia of people who want to ‘look’ good rather than BE good?

I’ll end with THIS website that shows that despite popular belief (apparently)…there were increases of African-American and Hispanic populations in Lane County and Oregon between 2000-2003. If anything, these maps show that Oregon is comfortably in the red (that is good) and far more ‘diverse’ than other areas of the country.

I wonder if they sit around bemoaning their geographic realities as well…

“Further, the hearsay in the statement “Rumor has it that Harbaugh has been in contact with Wade about his lawsuit.” is below open and honest discourse.”

And Rosiek responds:

“As for my statement about the rumor, it is true. This *is* a rumor circulating on campus.”

This is - to say the very least - a novel defense.

Rosiek and Harbaugh have both posted in the comments section of the Emerald story.