Tony Marino, a Tigard Republican running for the Oregon House, issued a letter to several newspapers that extensively describes his myriad failures in life, including bankruptcy, divorces, IRS trouble and a fake degree. Marino is spinning it as a “honesty is the best policy” move, but you can bet the Democrats were going to dig all this up anyways.

According to the Oregonian, Marino earned a doctorate in Marketing in under three months from Ashwood University, which gives its students credit for their “life experiences.” Later he discovered the shocking truth that the “university” wasn’t accredited in the state of Oregon.

Marino did leave out a few other tidbits, though. From the Oregonian:

A background check unearthed other financial run-ins, including a $12,300 civil judgment from 2001 that he contests and that he says he didn’t know about until Thursday. He’s also making monthly installments on a $4,900 judgment from 2002, filed by Ford Motor Co.

Whoops! It will be interesting to see if Marino’s “only human” strategy works. I for one would like to see more detailed confessions from politicians. Imagine the letters coming out of DC: “This one time Arlen Specter got drunk and passed out on my couch, so I drew penises all over his face with a Sharpie. He woke up the next morning and rushed straight to the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. Everyone laughed at him, and I felt really guilty.”

“Troy” on thedebateclub.org posted his opinion on what he deemed as “Positive Discrimination” which is , in his particular example, the practice of putting more “blacks and ethnic minorities into the corridors of power” in politics. Essentially, this is a strong form of Affirmative Action.

“Troy” denotes this as “racism masquerading as progress”…I think he has many insightful ideas. Being as such, he must be just some “token conservative Asian/White person”. But don’t take my word for it.

A series of studies by psychologists has found that students exposed to articles undermining the concept of free will were more likely to cheat than their control-group counterparts. It’s not exactly shocking that people feel less responsible for their actions after being told that every choice they make has already been decided by their subconscious, but the actual numbers are eye-opening; in the first test, the group that read the anti-free will article beforehand was 45 percent more likely to cheat. Other variables found to increase cheating were:

• Sitting in a cramped lecture hall approximately 2 inches away from that smart Asian kid
• Dollar well-drink specials
• Secular, atheist agenda/ACLU/George Soros
• Teacher just not “satisfying your needs” anymore
• Having a GTF who can’t tell his ass from a hole in the ground
• Intense dislike of controlled studies

A tip o’ the hat to Megan McArdle, who also just wrote a post mulling over whether or not she would transfer her consciousness into a robot.

A guest commentator in the Daily Emerald today added to the drumbeat of demands for the departmentalization of Ethnic Studies. Amidst all the usual complaints about how the University of Oregon is failing in its stated goal to be “more diverse,” Kit Myers, a graduate student in Ethnic Studies at U.C. San Diego, spelled out what a departmentalized Ethnic Studies might mean for this campus:

Departmentalization for ethnic studies will address many of the six major goals of the diversity plan. It means building a critical mass of faculty of color on campus; it means fostering a culturally responsive community; it means developing and reinforcing diversity infrastructures; it means more dialogue and critical engagement with issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and class, which improves campus climate; it means knowledge and growth; and for many students, staff, and faculty of color on campus, it means retention.

Such a formulation seems vague, to say the least. While increasing the number of minority faculty on campus is a laudable goal, Myers seems to be unintentionally implying that a departmentalized Ethnic Studies will adopt hiring practices that favor some candidates at the expense of other candidates who do not pass the skin color test. If this is the case, it is nakedly discriminatory and for this university or any other to purposely adopt a policy that is specifically formulated to exclude a large percentage of the population is unethical at the least, if not flagrantly illegal.

As for the assertion about Ethnic Studies “furthering the discussion of race” on this campus… well, I’ve just gotta call bull on that one. As certain members of our own student government amply prove on a seemingly weekly basis, the “discussion” of race on campus often amounts to little more than accusations of racism hurled around in nearly every imaginable circumstance, and is often used as a bludgeon to curtail free speech, stifle criticism, and shut down debate. How any of this “improves campus climate,” I do not know. I also do not know why “issues of gender and sexuality” are assumed to fall under the rubric of an Ethnic Studies department, but Myers seems to take it as a given.

Of course, my worries about departmentalizing Ethnic Studies may be entirely misplaced. Indeed, I hope they are since the Department of Ethnic Studies seems to be a question of “when” rather than “if” at this point. In fact, I am not necessarily hostile to departmentalization as such but as I’ve written elsewhere, there is precedent for such programs to become highly politicized and exclusive. To date, not a single proponent of departmentalization has to my knowledge bothered to address such criticisms and we’re treated instead to the usual blandishments about diversity.

Instead of moralizing to the student body about how necessary Ethnic Studies is, how about putting together an example of what a typical course of study in that department might look like? What about enumerating where exactly the gaps are in currently available courses and how Ethnic Studies might fill those gaps? How about actually answering some of the worries about exclusion and politicization in an honest and forthright way instead of characterizing critics as racists with no legitimate concerns?

Of course, such conciliatory gestures are probably unnecessary since, as I mentioned, departmentalization is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. Despite their loud commitment to “dialogue” and “discussion,” it’s clear that proponents don’t feel the need to spend their time convincing the portion of the student body that still holds reservations that a Department of Ethnic Studies is truly a boon to the University of Oregon.

Thus, we’re left wondering exactly what a departmentalized Ethnic Studies brings new to the table. So far, all we’ve been offered by the likes of Kit Myers is an empty plate and the promise that there’s all sorts of good stuff in the kitchen, if only we’d shut up and let them feed us.

Everyone’s favorite rambling sociology professor, Chuck Hunt, seems to have a little vendetta with the Oregon Commentator. A contact with the OC informed me that during a recent discussion about the new online evaluations, Hunt told his class that, in the past, members of the Oregon Commentator have gone into his class during evaluation day to write negative and accusatory things about the 1960s political activist.

Any of the alumni want to fess up to this?

He followed this comment by telling his class that, other than Iran, the United States is the only country in the world attempting to clamp down on liberal academia.

Instapundit links to some criticism of attempts at another university (Columbia, specifically) to departmentalize something akin to an “Ethnic Studies” program (Native American Studies, specifically). In particular, critics point out statements made by advocates of the program that would seem to suggest that a Native American Studies Department at Columbia would be an explicitly political organization.

Ahem. Not that I’m suggesting that any of the concerns raised have any relevance whatsoever with current goings on at the University of Oregon.

Now, on the other hand, if there was a push at the U of O to departmentalize Ethnic Studies, I might be somewhat more worried. Since that isn’t the case, however, I can rest assured that an overtly politicized Ethnic Studies Department at this institution is nothing to fret about for the time being.

In case you missed it, the Peer Health Educators at the University Health Center ran a “Safer Sex Menu” in today’s Oregon Daily Emerald. The ad described its safer sex menu as “tasty” and “sure to have something for everyone to enjoy.” It was divided into three categories: Appetizers, Entrees and Desserts. Here’s some of the good, clean fun that the UO wishes upon its students:

• Playing strip poker, strip backgammon
• Petting with no clothes on
• Licking whipped cream off your partner’s body (except for unprotected body openings)
• Making sexy videotapes or playing with a camera
• Talking to each other about safer sex

Wow, the UO is so hip and “with it.” I mean, I really felt like it understood my generation after it advised me to slather my partner in whipped cream. And nothing says kinky like whipping out the ol’ backgammon board. Yeah, baby, I just rolled double sixes. Take it all off!

For you obelisk lovers out there, the University has set up an obelisk webcam on top of the Chapman Hall pointed down on the South Lawn of the Knight Library. According to the public and media relations website, history professor John Nicols and physics professor Gregory Bothunmet met with the media on Dec. 21 to discuss the winter solstice and “about potential plans for a permanent structure on campus that marks time with an ancient science and pays tribute to campus scholarship.” (There’s a video to watch about it on the site.)

The seaweed green obelisk, which was named the 2007 Phallic Object Of The Year by the Oregon Commentator, will be torn down by the end of the month, according to this sexy ODE article from last week. The temporary obelisk, which is made of mostly wood, was erected “to stimulate campus discussion,” and to prompt donations for a permanent member of the University community.

The permanent structure would likely be made of bronze or granite, physics professor Greg Bothun said. The structure probably won’t be installed in the quad, and supporters say a University Street and 13th Avenue location is more plausible. The area below the permanent obelisk will include cement markings to measure shadows.

“You can’t do that on the grass surface,” Bothun said, referring to the quad location.

As the OC recently reported, the State Board of Higher Education is implementing a new resource fee structure that would roll all of the “hidden fees” that state universities charge into the general tuition. Of course, President Frohnmayer is none too pleased. From the Daily Emerald’s article:

University President Dave Frohnmayer at Wednesday’s University Senate meeting lamented the passage of the Oregon University System’s new resource fee structure, reiterating his concern the “sticker shock” could drive students away.

As opposed to telling them the real cost of tuition? Oh, but I guess that would actually be ethical. Keep in mind the new structure would still not include the money-sucking incidental fee.

The Emerald ran an article on PathwayOregon [see below] today, along with an editorial that says the program “will work effectively, albeit incrementally, toward reversing the University’s sub par levels of access to low-income and minority students.” The University estimates 400 incoming freshman will qualify for free tuition.

The average Pell Grant given nationwide is roughly $2,400. The University website says in-state tuition plus fees is $5,613, minus $2,400 equals $3,213 per student on average, multiplied by 400 students, equals $1,285,200 in grants and scholarships that PathwayOregon will give next fall, not counting the room and board promised to the top 25 eligible students. However, this may not be accurate. I don’t know if PathwayOregon covers the mandatory fees separate from tuition, which leads into another ODE front page story.  (more…)

President Dave Frohmayer announced today the details of PathwayOregon, which promises Oregon-resident, incoming freshman who qualify for the Pell Grant a free ride to the University of Oregon.

“At a time of fluctuating state support, escalating tuition and increased student debt, we are committed to providing more Oregonians than ever the financial boost they need to study at the state’s flagship university,” Frohnmayer said. “I am proud to present PathwayOregon as a cornerstone of that effort.”

According to the program’s website:

Resources for PathwayOregon come from federal, state, and university programs, including funds provided through private donations.

Last year, 3,680 UO students received the Pell Grant, according to this November R-G article, but I can’t find how many recipients of the federal grant are Oregon residents.

This program is all glitter and gleam for families whose children qualify for the grant. Everyone else, however, may be getting screwed. This study put out early 2007 by two UO economics professors (here’s a University press release on it) says the funds dished out for Pell Grants may simply be appropriated through tuition hikes.

In the end, exogenous changes in the Federal Pell Grant program are found to correlate strongly with changes in the distribution of needy students and revenues across institution quality.