As reported in the Daily Emerald yesterday, the University of Oregon is under investigation because its “Underrepresented Minority Recruitment Program” may be violating civil rights laws:

The Department of Justice has information that the University of Oregon may be engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination against newly hired non-minority faculty members with respect to the disbursement of salary and other employment benefits via its ‘Underrepresented Minority Recruitment Program,’” according to a letter sent to University General Counsel Melinda Grier that is signed by David Palmer, chief of the employment litigation section of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Emerald piece does a pretty good job of summarizing the issue, so I’m not going to get too far into that. In any case, the jury’s still out as to whether or not the program is illegal or not, so it’d be unfair to condemn as unlawful a program that may in fact be perfectly legal, as President Frohnmayer asserts that it is.

Basically, the program gives monetary incentives - to the tune of $30,000 a year for 3 years - to departments that hire minority faculty who are under-represented in the field. According to this article from 2007, the average amount of money allotted for new non-minority hires is roughly $7,000 per year for the same period - a clear disparity based solely upon race (it’s not clear if “minority” in this case also refers to religious minorities, homosexuals, or other cultural minorities).

While Melinda Grier says that “the money goes to the professor’s department, not to the professor,” the Emerald article makes it clear that this isn’t really the case:

The funds can be used for anyone in the department to start a new program, but a portion of the funds do go directly toward the minority hire, which is what’s drawing controversy.

It is “appropriate and common” to use the funds for “direct support to the new faculty member as part of a negotiated start-up package (e.g., research and travel funds, summer pay, course buy outs, equipment),” according to the program’s description. [emphasis added]

Whether or not this program proves to be unconstitutional, all of this seems rather amiss. Russell Tomlin, the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, defends the program and the ongoing quest for campus diversity by saying “we’re trying to do something that makes the world better.”

One wonders if this isn’t somewhat begging the question.

The Washington Post outlines some of the details of John McCain’s health plan. If I’m understanding it right, the key points are:

1.  Unlike the Democratic plan, his plan is market-based
2. It dissociates health insurance from the workplace, which McCain argues will force insurance companies to “no longer take your business for granted, offering narrow plans with escalating costs.”
3. It provides tax credits to individuals, rather than employers, for health insurance.
4. It will create a “GAP” (guaranteed access program) in the short-term to provide for “high-risk” patients until the “market matures”.
5. Lowering costs through a variety of methods such as tort reform and encouraging the prescription of generic drugs.
6. McCain also advocates the “health savings account” idea.
7. Interestingly, he also says “[g]overnment should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets” to facilitate easier access to basic, preventative care.

As the Post notes, a lot of the McCain plan echoes President Bush’s spectacularly failed attempt at health care reform. Indeed, McCain is probably going to have a relatively difficult time selling his health care plan, whatever its merits, since he’s going to have to compete against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, both of which are promising “free” health care for the masses. For McCain to succeed on this issue against his opponent (especially if he runs against Barack Obama), he’s going to have to find a simple, sensible way to explain to people how setting them adrift and trusting market forces is going to result in better health care at a lower cost than anything a massive, tax-funded government bureaucracy  can hope to provide.

Unfortunately for McCain, explaining economics to people is a lot more difficult than saying “the government will take care of you”.

Economics professor Bill Harbaugh has struck again in his hundred-year war on UO Administrator chicanery, an effort which has become the University of Oregon’s answer to those endless Family Guy chicken fights. His target this time is the Administrations pointwoman on all things douchy, University General Counsel Melinda Grier. According to the ‘Ol Dirty, the Oregon Department of Justice is looking into Harbaugh’s claims that Grier delayed the release of public records and made false statements about the new basketball arena, and the Underrepresented Minority Recruitment Plan. Although this is not an official investigation, the “inquiry” originated at the desk of AG Hardy Myers, apparently within hours of this hard-hitting blog post going up over at OregonLive… even though Harbaugh raised the allegations to the DOJ back in January .

It only takes one look at how Grier “handled” Harbaugh in the past to understand why these allegations have been raised, and to believe that there is probably something to them. I know that when I was working on a lengthy story about the Rec Center finances last year, and made multiple requests for information from Griers office, I was completely ignored by phone, email and in person. Harbaugh isn’t commenting on these current allegations for the moment, citing legal concerns, but you can always learn more about the Administrations resident thorn-in-the-side by reading our coverage of last years ethics charges against Frohnmayer and Harbaugh’s concerns about the UMRP… or better yet check out his own faculty site and alternative diversity plan. Keep up the good work Bill, and Phil Knight might just buy you that Alouette to keep you quiet!

Yesterday, the Oregon House held an atypical debate on natural rights, specifically a natural right to health care. The House Democrats successfully referred a bill to the November ballot that would make health care a constitutional right for every Oregon citizen.  From the Oregonian article:

House Joint Resolution 100 would amend the Oregon Constitution to make health care “a fundamental right” and order the Legislature to adopt a plan for giving every legal resident “access to effective and affordable health care on a regular basis.”

(more…)

The Oregonian ran a follow-up today on the strange case of John Roberts, who claims to have killed his wife out of mercy, saying she was suffering from AlS and did not want to wait for a doctor-assisted suicide. I wrote about the story here.

Although friends and family came to Roberts’ defense, prosecutors are starting to punch holes in his story, including the claim that his wife actually had ALS. The Oregonian reports that a doctor who examined Roberts’ wife in January told authorities that she did not have the disease. A fair amount of character evidence against Roberts has also come to light.

Nevertheless, I think the larger point of my previous post is still valid. Oregon needs to revise its assisted suicide laws. Although Oregon is the only state in the nation to legalize the practice, a patient with a terminal illness still has to be within six months of death before he or she can request a doctor-assisted suicide. This can leave people who would rather die in terrible pain for months, maybe years.

As reported in today’s Oregonian, John Roberts has been charged with the murder of his wife. However, Roberts and those close to him and his wife claim it was a mercy killing. Roberts’ wife was suffering from debilitating ALS and chose to die quickly rather than wait for an official assisted suicide. From the Oregonian article:

[Friends and family] say Virginia [Roberts] had her reasons for not using Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows terminally ill patients to end their lives. Virginia did not want to deteriorate until doctors determined she was within six months of death, as required by the physician-assisted suicide law, they said. Nor did she want to take her own life because of her Catholic beliefs.

Like Sophocles’ Antigone, the story illuminates a sad disparity between state law and natural law. Unfortunately, I doubt the State of Oregon will realize its error any time soon. The assisted suicide laws will not be revised, and Roberts will no doubt face jail time on murder charges (manslaughter if he’s lucky). Until then, we will probably continue to hear these sorts of stories - people who take the law into their own hands after it fails them on a gross level.

This is just coming over the wire, via The Oregonian:

 A federal judge this afternoon threw out a lawsuit against Oregon’s domestic partnership law, allowing the legislation to go into effect about 4:20 p.m.

Of course, opponents of Oregon’s new domestic partnership law plan to appeal, but for now you can civil unionize to your heart’s content. Well, actually you’ll have to wait until Monday; the county offices are closed on weekends.

Over at Loaded Orygun, Democratic candidate for Attorney General John Kroger has written a blog post outlining his plan to fight the scary meth pandemic. As you’ve probably heard from every news outlet in the state, meth has ravaged at least 95 percent of Oregon’s adult population (and now it’s coming for your kids!). Here’s the opening paragraph of his two-pronged assault on tweak:

As Attorney General, I will work hard every day to tackle Oregon’s number one crime problem – meth addiction. Every year, meth costs us hundreds of millions of dollars in prison and law enforcement costs, health care expenditures, and lost workforce productivity. Meth is the biggest cause of property crime and identity theft in the state. More important, meth is the single greatest cause of serious child abuse in Oregon. That is one reason Oregon recently received a grade of “D” on a child welfare report card issued by a leading child advocacy group. To me, that is simply unacceptable.

To deal with Oregon’s meth crisis, I have proposed a two part plan, emphasizing both a new drug treatment program and tougher enforcement. This plan is based on the lessons I have learned as a federal prosecutor, public policy expert, and law professor.

A lot of things about this catch my eye, such as confusing “meth addiction” with “crimes people commit while on meth” (although you could easily argue the two go hand in hand). Most odd, though, is when Kroger throws out “lost workplace productivity.” Meth results in less productivity? Last time I checked, carnivals wouldn’t exist without meth. Workplace productivity statistics are stupid anyways, but Kroger says his plan is based on experience, so it must have some merit, right? Well, lets see. (more…)

From the wondering people at Mother Against Drunk Driving, who have long stopped pretending it is not a prohibitionist organization, Why21.org dispels the Myths & Facts about the 21 Minimum Drinking Age Law. First of all, to understand who we’re dealing with here, look at the answer to the “European Myth:”

Perhaps the best example of fact versus myth when it comes to the “European Myth” is a look at what happened in New Zealand.

Can we get Alec Murphy in here to teach some geography? (more…)

The National Action Network, led by Reverend Al Sharpton, is leading a march on the U.S. Justice Department in Washington today. This is in response to Jena-6 as well as to “hate crimes and noose hangings on the rise across the country”.

(more…)

As an update to the item that CJ Posted below, over at H&R Radley Balko weighs in on the Jena Reality Check article. I haven’t been following the case, other than to note that it is definitely bad to beat a guy that severely, but I think this seems relevant.

I can’t say I’m surprised by the ruling of the ASUO Con Court to not void the minutes of the June 13 Senate meeting. If you’re just joining us here on As The ASUO Turns, no minutes were taken of the meeting, but were scrapped together in an unorthodox and seemingly illegal fashion. The Con Court beings its opinion by explaining “this Court finds that meeting in question was held in violation of OPML,” then tells why it will allow for it.   (more…)

The register guard ran a story today that includes an interview with the Medford teacher who is challenging the ban on fire arms in the classroom, which was posted last month by CJ. The woman claims she is afraid that her husband may come to the school and hurt her, but after taking one good look at Gerry Katz, I don’t see how this guy can do any harm.

Press Release

(more…)

An anonymous teacher in the Medford Schood District is suing to secure her right to carry a concealed weapon in the classroom. This “Jane Doe” says her life has been threatened multiple times by an abusive ex-husband; however, the teacher says she and her lawyer are primarily concerned with asserting and reinforcing the Second Amendment.

Oregon, unlike many states, allows teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms, but almost all of the school districts in Oregon, such as Medford, do not. Either way the case is decided, it would apply only to Jackson County, unless it went to a higher court. The teacher’s case seems strong, especially with her personal safety at stake. This could be a good precedent for future Second Amendment cases, such as (oh, I don’t know) the right of college students to defend themselves from insane gunmen.

Colleges and universities across the nation made a show of discussing safety issues after the Virginia Tech massacre but accomplished shockingly little. In the end, it was back to “lie prone on the floor and wait to die.” The University of Oregon followed suit, advising students to call our bumbling,  klepto (not to mention unarmed) campus security. OC alum Andy Dolberg ripped the U of O’s revised “safety policies” a new one.