text:
UO Matters
The Unofficial Organ of the University of Oregon
Athletics info, scandals
Crap-free UO homepage
SPQUO: Senate links
U of Nike
Your unions
Tag Archives: State of U protest
Melania Trump schools Mike Schill on free speech
By uomatters | 11/26/2019 - 9:06 pm | 11/26/2019 Uncategorized
Compare FLOTUS Melania Trump's response to student protests during her recent speech in Baltimore, to UO President Mike Schill's response to student protests during his 2017 State of the University address in the EMU:
Trump's response on Tuesday, from the RG:
Melania Trump defends rights of Baltimore teens to boo her
BALTIMORE (AP) " Melania Trump on Tuesday defended the rights of teenagers who booed her when she addressed them in Baltimore, a city her husband, President Donald Trump, has disparaged as 'rat and rodent infested.'
She traveled there to urge hundreds of middle and high school students to avoid misusing drugs, saying that would make it harder for them to achieve their life's goals. But her remarks drew a mix of boos and cheers, and the audience remained noisy throughout her five-minute address.
It is highly unusual for a first lady to be booed at a public appearance. Mrs. Trump released a statement hours after she had returned to the White House, defending the principle of freedom of expression while reaffirming her commitment to the issue that drew her to Baltimore.
Schill's administration's response 2 years ago, full post here.
Admin declares student protester guilty, then starts conduct code investigation
I'm no law professor, but I think this is the reverse of the preferred sequencing.
Page down for the video of UO spokesperson Tobin Klinger last Friday, declaring that "the demonstration actually violated university policy". Today the "UO Student Collective" facebook page posts this message from Sandy Weintraub, Director of Student Conduct, calling one of the students into his office to begin the process of an investigation under the student conduct code:
Tagged State of U protest
President Schill finds safe space for State of the University speech
By UO Matters | 01/07/2019 - 11:31 am | 01/07/2019 Uncategorized
You may recall that there was a bit of trouble in the EMU last time. This year the Eugene City Club is holding it, off campus. UO gave the city club a $5K donation to become a sponsor, contract here. I've been told by one City Club member that the club made assurances that it would make efforts to limit protests and disparaging statements, but the contract has no such clause.
FINAL: Senate motion to support Collective students passes 23-21
Update with text as passed by the UO Senate:
After a full, frank, and extended discussion led by Senate President Sinclair (Math) – with UO President Schill, Provost Banavar, and many UO Collective students present – the Senate voted 23-21 today to pass a revised version of US17/18-02: RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE UO STUDENT COLLECTIVE. This resolution was regarding disciplinary charges for Student Conduct Code violations brought by the administration against students who had protested at, and disrupted, President Schill's October 6th State of the University Address.
This resolution had been presented to the Senate and posted on its website for review two weeks ago. Yesterday afternoon President Schill and Provost Banavar sent a letter to the Senate responding to it. The UO Student collective took this response to heart, in part, and redrafted their motion last night and this morning, taking out some of the parts the President and Provost found objectionable and making general edits and explanation. The Senate received that revision shortly before the meeting today.
The revised resolution was considered under a suspension of the normal rules, given the fact that time was of the essence, since the Student Conduct Office had given the students charged with disciplinary violations a firm deadline of December 8th to decide on how to respond to the charges, the students had exams, and that the next Senate meeting was not until January.
After voting to suspend the rules with the required 2/3 majority, a motion was then made to divide the resolution, separating the parts on the student conduct process from the parts asking the administration to condemn speech by white supremacists. This passed with considerable support.
The Senate then spent about 30 minutes discussing the student conduct part of the resolution. The resolution was read out in its entirety twice – once before division, and once after.
Some Senators urged the Senate to delay, arguing that this was too little time to consider. Others argued that the students had been given a deadline and the Senate needed to act today.
Provost Banavar asked the students if they would be satisfied if the administration would extend the Dec 8th deadline. The students asked if the Provost could promise such an extension. He said he could not.
Senate VP Harbaugh (me) relayed that he had just been told by the Dean of Students that the Student Conduct Office had failed to make recordings or verbatim transcripts of the student conduct hearings held so far (and had prevented the students from making recordings), despite that fact that verbatim transcripts were required for appeals of conduct violations. Whoops.
The Senate extended the time for debate several times. One OA Senator said that the OA's would feel that passing the resolution would be taken as an attack on the OA's who have the difficult job of enforcing student conduct code violations. This was received with respect.
One Senator, from the law school, argued for delay and more deliberation, until next quarter. This same Senator had been on the UO Board of Trustees as its sole faculty member when they passed their 2014 motion taking authority for Student Conduct away from the faculty. At the time she raised no objection with the board that the Trustees were given that motion only shortly before their meeting, and she did not even bother to inform the faculty or the students that the motion was coming. The Greeks had a word for this: hypocrisy.
One Senator raised the point that the motion could be taken as supporting students rights to disrupt classrooms. This did not get a lot of resonance with the faculty, who are quite experienced at turning student disruptions into teachable moments. Many of us even enjoy it. Here's hoping VP Kyle Henley and the administration's PR machine do not decide to give Duck spokesman Tobin Klinger instructions to go to the press with that canard.
At 4:56 the vote was called, and the motion passed 23-21. Here's the final text as passed, absent footnotes. It should all be on the Senate website Th AM:
US17/18-02: RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE UO STUDENT COLLECTIVE
1.1 WHEREAS the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon states:
"We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community"; and
1.2 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Free Inquiry and Speech states
"Free speech is central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society." [Emphasis added];
"The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community."; and
1.3 WHEREAS UO students have approached the UO administration with their concerns about UO policies and US policies that affect their well-being, safety, and academic success; and
1.4 WHEREAS the preamble of the Student Conduct Code reads:
"The primary mission of the Student Conduct Code is to set forth the community standards and procedures necessary to maintain and protect an environment conducive to learning and in keeping with the educational objectives of the University of Oregon. Founded upon the principle of freedom of thought and expression, an environment conducive to learning is one that preserves the freedom to learn — where academic standards are strictly upheld and where the rights, safety, dignity and worth of every individual are respected." [Emphasis added]; and
1.5 WHEREAS overzealous disciplinary action against students may result in the repression of dissent and free speech and continues to harm these students' academic success; and
1.6 WHEREAS UO officials have made public statements that may prejudice the adjudication of the alleged conduct code violations; and
1.7 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Academic Freedom says
"Members of the university community have freedom to address, question, or criticize any matter of institutional policy or practice, whether acting as individuals or as members of an agency of institutional governance."
"These freedoms derive immediately from the university's basic commitment to advancing knowledge and understanding. The academic freedoms enumerated in this policy shall be exercised without fear of institutional reprisal. Only serious abuses of this policy – ones that rise to the level of professional misbehavior or professional incompetence – should lead to adverse consequences. Any such determinations shall be made in accordance with established, formal procedures involving judgment by relevant peers."
and yet despite this requirement, relevant peers have not been involved in this conduct code judgement process.
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate recognizes that the students involved in the protest at the State of the University Address succeeded in bringing significant matters of academic concern and student well-being to the attention of the university community, and that we urge that this be taken into consideration when judging their discipline cases; and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate calls on the the Student Conduct Code and Community Standards Committee to ensure that the Student Conduct Code is revised to include student peers in judgements on disciplinary cases involving free speech, as required by the Policy on Academic Freedom. Given the importance of free speech and academic freedom, the Senate urges the Committee to develop Student Conduct Code procedures distinct from standard discipline charges; and
2.4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges the administration to cease the Student Conduct disciplinary charges process and pledges to support student protesters during the disciplinary appeals process; and
2.5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate supports the conversations the administration has now initiated with the UO Student Collective and that the Senate will continue to provide a forum for all students.
Finis.
Having spent more than the expected time on the discussion and debate of this resolution, the Senate then adjourned, putting off the remainder of the agenda until January.
Tagged Senate, State of U protest
ASUO and Senate presidents: Pres Schill's response to protest misguided
By uomatters | 11/21/2017 - 12:11 pm | 11/21/2017 Uncategorized
Sorry, this is from the weekend, just catching up. ASUO President Amy Schenk's Op-Ed was posted Saturday, along with a report from Saul Hubbard, "Backlash grows as UO pursues conduct charges for students who disrupted a Schill speech".
From Schenk:
On Oct. 23, University of Oregon President Michael Schill wrote an op-ed in The New York Times headlined "The misguided student crusade against fascism." His column was a reproach directed toward the students who protested his state-of-the-university speech.
Schill condemned the protesters for supposedly stealing his right to free speech. He claimed that their actions exclude potential allies and portrayed himself as one of the student body's strongest supporters, but chose not to respond to the students' original concerns.
Instead, the essay was a way for Schill to publicly misrepresent the beliefs of the protesters, his own students. The result was a contradictory, repetitious testimony that juxtaposed Schill's support of "free speech" and his simultaneous disapproval of student protests. …
We urge President Schill to invite these students in and work with them rather than publicly shaming them in a newspaper column filled with half-truths and mischaracterizations. He should take this as a sign that it is time to collaborate with students rather than punishing them with a vague student conduct code. At an institution of higher education, it is vital that student voices are included, not ignored.
My impression is that Pres Schill is indeed now trying to do that. From Hubbard:
The University of Oregon's administration is facing growing backlash over its decision to pursue student conduct charges against a group of protesters who disrupted a speech by UO President Michael Schill last month.
The peaceful protest — about rising tuition costs and seeking a ban on white nationalist groups on campus, among other grievances — caused Schill to abandon his planned address.
Student and faculty leaders are increasingly speaking out against the disciplinary move, which they characterize as divisive and futile.
The University Senate is considering a symbolic resolution calling for the charges to be dropped, and it has "pretty broad support" among faculty and student members, Senate President Chris Sinclair said Friday. …
UO drops Facebook click charge against student collective member
By uomatters | 11/21/2017 - 11:44 am | 11/21/2017 Uncategorized
That's the decision of the "Associate Director for Investigations, Group Accountability, Student Conduct and Community Standards". But the administration continues to press charges against other students. The Senate will debate a plea for leniency at its Nov 29th meeting. Reporter Casey Crowley has the story in the Emerald:
… At her Administrative Conference with Katy Larkin, associate director for investigations, group accountability, student conduct and community standards, Loustaunau presented Larkin with evidence that showed that Loustaunau was not at the protest.
This evidence includes: screenshots of a Skype call from the time and date of the protest, screenshots of two texts that suggest she did not come to the UO campus that day until after the protest was over, a letter from her friend who she was on the Skype call with, a letter from her advisor and head of the sociology department who attended the protest and confirmed that Loustaunau was not there, and pictures of herself from the day of the protest, according to Loustaunau. In addition, her friend who she was on the Skype call with her confirmed over the phone that he was on Skype with Loustaunau at the time of the protest.
Larkin used Loustaunau's indication of "going" on a Facebook event for the protest as well as photos from the protest of a woman she thought was Loustaunau and Loustaunau's Facebook profile picture to decide to charge her with conduct code violations, according to Loustaunau. …
11/3/2017: Facebook click led UO to charge grad student with disrupting Schill's speech
Just when you thought the UO administration's response to the student protest couldn't get any more ridiculous, it does. Daily Emerald reporter Casey Crowley has the latest:
A University of Oregon student who was charged with student conduct code violations for participating in a demonstration on Oct. 6 says she was not at the protest.
… "This is what I found particularly problematic, I did put attending on a Facebook event," said [the UO grad student]. "Like everyone, I get sent a bunch of events. I put 'attending' to most of them randomly."
So it seems that UO is paying staff (UOPD? DoS? VP for Communication?) to monitor the UO Student Collective's Facebook site, and they used this student's click mark to decide that she'd disrupted President Schill's right to speak. Then they sent her a discipline letter. More from Crowley's report:
In order to identify students to charge with conduct code violations, the conduct office looked at photos, videos and social media activity that was available, [UO spokesperson Tobin Klinger] said.
[The student] said she will contest the charges and go through an administrative conference, where she can present information so that the conduct office has a full understanding of the situation.
Presumably this also explains how Klinger was able to make his prejudicial statement to the Oregonian that ".. the demonstration actually violated university policy…" just 5 minutes after the protest ended. He knew the students were guilty, because he'd already read it on Facebook. This might raise a few entrapment issues?
I've read about thought-crime, and I saw a movie about pre-crime, but leave it to the UO administration to charge a student with the latest: Facebook-crime.
For the curious, here's the UO Student Collective's Facebook page. This may cost me my tenure, but I just clicked the "Like" box:
UO Senate, ASUO, union leaders call on Schill & Trustees to de-escalate flawed efforts to discipline Student Collective protesters
From the Emerald story here.
Dear President Michael Schill and Trustees of the University of Oregon:
We write in a unified voice as representatives of major constituencies at the UO to express our concern with the response of your office to the October 6, 2017 student protest of the State of the University Address. During the demonstration, activists took the stage and presented a list of demands created by a coalition of students. Your actions since this event have potentially endangered these students by calling out their actions in a national venue, and have escalated tensions in such a way as to obscure the concerns which precipitated the protest.
Since the protest, you have availed yourself of campus, community, and national platforms to express your voice and reading of events. This is in contradiction to the claim that you were silenced. Further, your New York Times OpEd obscured the nature of the tensions that energized the protest and narrowly framed the circumstances in an analysis of free speech devoid of any consideration of the relationship between power and access to platforms for speech. Any appreciation of academic freedom and free speech must grapple with power. For faculty and graduate instructors, it is understood that any privileged platform brings responsibilities to assure speech opportunities for all voices in the classroom, not just the more vocal, visible and privileged. The bedrock of civil society rests on the parallel notion that democracy works when spaces are available for all voices, even those viewed as disruptive, unusual, or repugnant. In hearing these voices, a collective adjustment to institutions can be advanced to include the marginalized or oppressed, and repugnant or bigoted views can be rebutted. Power and platform are at the center of our practical applications of free speech and academic freedom. So far, you have not given consideration to this important dimension of the subject.
The actions of your office, particularly your New York Times OpEd, have escalated tensions, and exposed our students to intimidation and ugly responses by online commenters. We find it disturbing that you did not anticipate this outcome. Under this national mockery, our students are castigated and put in a vulnerable position; they are denied an equivalent platform for their version of the events, and have lost any semblance of due process.
We understand and support your call for debate and discussion about what transpired on October 6th. We also recognize that in this debate, the student activist perspective matters and needs consideration.
That the protest lasted less than 15 minutes, and that there appeared to be only a slight effort to reclaim the stage by you or your staff, has left many wondering how much your departure from the room was pre-planned. Is discipline warranted if, as University President, you did not attempt to earnestly engage this minor protest?
Major public universities, especially ones in the throes of state disinvestment, rising tuition, privatization, and shifting priorities, routinely experience visible protest. This recent event is no different. Instead of a healthy campus conversation, your administration is pursuing sanctions. The threat of sanctions stifle this important conversation.
The October 30t h letter from Associate Director for Student Conduct and Community Standards, Katy Larkin, accused a number of students and non-students with misconduct charges in connection to this event. These accusations include "Disruption of University" and "Failure to Comply". This effort to conduct a disciplinary investigation is rife with problems:
1 ) Factual ambiguities: you and your staff left the event within 10 minutes, never allowing for other outcomes through the duration of the planned event;
2) Anticipation of conflict, not engagement: your email and video are evidence that plans were made in advance of the scheduled speech and protest, suggesting that instead of dialogue, your office wanted to make an example of these students;
3) Lack of oversight: these charges were brought with no oversight by the Student Conduct and Community Standards Committee;
4) Intimidation : the disciplinary investigation letter is likely to be read as an intimidation tactic, contrary to the very values of academic dialogue that you advocated in your email to the campus and, implicitly, in the NYT OpEd;
5) Investigatory Errors: more transparency in the investigatory process is needed. Some of the students who received letters WERE NOT at the event, implying problems with the implementation of the process, and the surveillance of student social media activity by your administration;
6) Derailing due process: the options presented in the sanction letter to students (to accept the charges or contest them in a closed session administrative conference) is an embarrassment to due process as your administration has already implicated these students as guilty in the local and national media; and
7) Lack of just representation and counsel: the Office of Student Advocacy has denied fees-paying students advice, citing a 'conflict of interest' without explanation. These students were only given 7 days to respond, and this inability to seek out advice has severely hindered students' ability to seek alternative counsel for this vulnerable situation.
In our view, this has gone too far. It is time to de-escalate. We ask that you cease the punitive measures against students and engage in a dialogue without the cloud of threat or intimidation. The UO Student Collective, which includes students who were involved in the protest, will have the floor to present their concerns to the University Senate on November 15. This is a much better venue for beginning a campus dialogue than the other highly constrained venue that you have pursued thus far.
Imani Dorsey, ASUO State Affairs Commissioner
Michael Dreiling, President, United Academics
Jessica Neafie, President, Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation
Chris Sinclair, President, University Senate
Student protesters of Pres Schill's speech unlikely to take guilty plea offer
10/2/2017:
Yesterday three of the students who received discipline letters (copy below) talked to the Senate about why they were going to fight the student conduct charges, rather than plead guilty and accept the administration's rather mild punishment – a meeting with administrators and a note in their permanent record.
The first student speaker – nervous but quite well spoken – explained how after receiving the discipline letter he'd had to spend 4 hours that he'd wanted to spend on his physics homework talking to lawyers. All three explained why they thought it was worth fighting the charges. Video here:
There are also stories in the Daily Emerald here, and InsideHigherEd here.
10/31/2017: Administration presses conduct code charges against Schill protesters
Posted yesterday on the UO Student Collective facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/UOstudentcollective/posts/1709555705729615
Today, members of the University of Oregon Student Collective have been sent notices from the university administration. We have been notified that students will be charged for participating in student protest and dissent against the administration.
We have been told that we have two options: either submit to whatever guidelines they give us and silence ourselves or be formally charged by the institution of the University of Oregon.
This will lead to a criminalization of protest and dissent. Students are being punished for speaking out and using their voice. The UO Student Collective will not accept any guidelines that take away our freedom to dissent and protest.
The UO Student Collective will be contesting the allegations. The voices of the students are not a disruption to the business of a University, the voice of the students is the business of a University. Protesting is not a crime. Fighting for the students is not a crime.
If anyone else has gotten an email from the administration threatening student conduct action, please let the UO Student Collective know. We will fight for you.
The University of Oregon Student Collective is here to for the students.
Support this movement by sharing this post. Post #iamtheuostudentcollective. Come to our meetings. Make your voices heard.
TEXT OF EMAIL BELOW:
The Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards at the University of Oregon has received information concerning your alleged involvement in an incident on October 6, 2017 with the following brief description:
You took the stage in the EMU Ballroom in a manner that caused a University of Oregon event (President Schill's State of the University Address) to be suspended. You were asked on multiple occasions to cease the behavior, and failed to stop after being clearly directed to do so by Dr. Kevin Marbury, Interim Vice President for Student Life.
Based on this information, your behavior may have violated the Student Conduct Code. The UO Student Conduct Code ensures your rights as a student are protected. While you are entitled to respect and civility, you also have responsibilities to the community. The Student Conduct Code outlines these responsibilities and the university's expectations for your behavior as a UO student. Below are the specific violations of the Student Conduct Code that may be applicable to this incident:
1. Disruption of University: Engaging in behavior that could be reasonably foreseen to cause disruption of, obstruction of, or interference with the process of instruction, research, administration, student discipline, or any other service or activity provide or sponsored by the University.
2. Failure to Comply: Failure to comply with the reasonable directions of public officials acting in performance of their duties on University Premises or at a University Sponsored Activity when such conduct poses a danger to personal safety or property or obstructs or impairs educational or other institutional activities.
I am offering you two options to resolve this matter:
OPTION ONE – Special Option for Resolution
You are invited to participate in small group dialogue with a variety of Officers of Administration who have expressed interest in meeting with you to hear your concerns and work with you to try to address them. This educational outcome will be scheduled during mid-to-late November.
By choosing this option, you are accepting responsibility for your actions and agreeing to participate in the small group dialogue noted above. As a result, rather than a sanction, you will receive written warning for your behavior.
As long as you honor this agreement and attend the group session, there will be no formal conduct process and this will not result in a student conduct record.
To choose this option, please respond to this email within 7 days of today's date. You will receive additional information within the next few weeks about the small group dialogue session and how to RSVP.
OPTION TWO – Administrative Conference
By choosing this option, you are electing to contest the allegation. You will need to meet with me, or another decision-maker, to discuss the information we have received. This is called an administrative conference and is your opportunity to present additional information to ensure we have a full understanding of the situation. Following the meeting, a decision would be made regarding your responsibility for the violations listed above based on all available information and a "more likely than not" standard. If you are found responsible, you will be assigned an action plan (called sanctions under the Student Conduct Code).
To choose this option, please call (541)346-1140 by November 6, 2017, which is 7 days from the date of this letter, to schedule a meeting.
Additional things you should know:
– If you fail to respond to this notice within 7 days, I will make a decision based on the information I have, without your input or agreement.
– Normally, when a student is found responsible for a conduct violation, a $30 administrative fee is assessed to the student's account. In this case, however, we have decided to waive the administrative fee. Neither option will result in an administrative fee.
– Students have the right to an advisor at any stage of the student conduct process. Your advisor may not be another student who is involved in the alleged behavior. For more information about advisors in the student conduct process, visit our website (http://dos.uoregon.edu/files/Advisors.pdf).
For more information about the Student Conduct Code, please visit http://conduct.uoregon.edu, or e-mail klarkin@uoregon.edu with any additional questions.
Katy Larkin
Associate Director, Student Conduct and Community Standards
Tagged free speech, State of U protest
King's discipline fails to quell civil unrest
We covered this in the sixth grade. Did UO's Johnson Hall leadership skip that lesson? Fortunately our students didn't.
Inside Philanthropy looks at disconnect between $50M gift and student protest
A University Nets a Huge Donation and Students Protest. What's Going On Here?
… So let us agree that the UO protesters were rude and perhaps misguided. Youth is, indeed, wasted on the young. Does that make their concerns about escalating tuition any less valid, especially considering the optics at play?
After all, Phil and Penny Knight gave the university a $500 million donation a year ago. UO has a nationally renowned and (presumably?) lucrative football program. Michael Schill earns $798,400 a year, making him one of the highest paid university presidents according to the Chronicle of Higher Education's salary rankings.
And now, a few months after a proposed 10.6 percent in-state tuition increase, a new gift—and an anonymous one at that, replete with concerns about transparency and accountability—has added another $50 million to the pot.
Indeed, there are many factors contributing to escalating tuition at public universities, including escalating health and pension benefits, ongoing budget cuts at the state level, and a broken federal student loan system. It's understandable why people should be grateful for donor largesse. Without private philanthropy, things would get really ugly.
Yet, it's of little solace for many UO students facing a lifetime of debt, given the fact that it seems to be figuratively raining money all over campus.
And so rather than lament the impetuousness of youthful rebellion, it would behoove donors and administrators alike to ask why students are frustrated and address the divide that seems to be widening with every new mega-gift.
UO Student Collective member explains protest at State of Univ speech
Update: Thanks to a reader for pointing me to another opinion piece in the Emerald on this. It's not clear if the student is a member of the collective, but she is supportive:
On Oct. 13, University of Oregon President Michael Schill wrote an opinion column for the New York Times on the protest that happened earlier this month. His column criticized the students who interrupted his State of the University Address, stating that silencing him was not a proper form of protest. Schill ignores the position of power he has as the university president and dismisses the different set of regulations that are given to him as a leader of this institution.
In his column, Schill wrote, "One of the students who stormed the stage during my talk told the news media to 'expect resistance to anyone who opposes us.' That is awfully close to the language and practices of those the students say they vehemently oppose." The reality is that these students are marginalized students from an institution that Schill leads. They demand respect and fair treatment after almost a century of neglect. The protester said this because they were done with the mistreatment and wanted to make it clear that they will continue to fight for the rights of all marginalized students on campus. ….
In the Emerald here:
"Nothing about us without us." That's what 80+ students and I chanted as we took the stage on Oct. 6. President Schill has ignored student concerns for a long time, so we decided to protest in a way that he simply could not overlook. …
President Schill's free-speech op-ed in NYT skips over blackface, silencing of Duck athletes, efforts to stop peaceful sit-ins
By uomatters | 10/23/2017 - 9:47 am | 10/31/2017 Uncategorized
The NYT op-ed focuses on the "UO Student Coalition's" efforts to prevent him from giving his State of the University address.
Information on the administration's botched attempt to discipline the student protestors is here.
Information on his administration's treatment of Prof Nancy Shurtz for her stupid and offensive – but constitutionally protected – attempt to dress as a black doctor at a Halloween party last year (to promote his book on racism in the medical profession) is here.
Information on the Duck athletic department's efforts to prevent their athletes from speaking to student reporters is here.
And so far as I can tell basketball coach Dana Altman and football coach Willie Taggart have suffered no repercussions for their efforts to discourage athletes from expressing political beliefs.
Update: Then there's the administration's April 2016 fight against the "Divest UO" group's protest, here. They followed this up with a proposed policy restricting the time, place, and manner of free speech, which they dropped in the face of UO Senate opposition in spring of 2017.
Tagged free speech, State of U protest, time place and manner speech restrictions
Law dean who attacked Schill's response to blackface incident gives nuanced view of best response to disruption of Schill's State of Univ speech
Back in January, Erwin Chemerinsky, a well known legal scholar and at the time the UC-Irvine law school dean, published this opinion piece castigating UO President Mike Schill's response to the Halloween blackface incident:
Worries about offensiveness threaten free speech on campuses
All too often campuses are forgetting one of the most basic principle of the First Amendment: Speech cannot be punished simply because it is offensive, even deeply offensive.
The most recent example of this occurred when an investigative report for the University of Oregon concluded that a professor had created a "discriminatory learning environment" by wearing blackface at a Halloween party in her own home. Earlier the professor had been suspended for doing this. No doubt many were offended by her actions, but unquestionably she was engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment and any discipline is unconstitutional.
In October 2016, University of Oregon law professor Nancy Shurtz hosted a Halloween party for about 25 students, faculty members, alumni and family members. Her costume was wearing black makeup on her face and hands, an Afro wig, and a white doctor's lab coat. She told her guests that she was inspired by the anti-racist message of Damon Tweedy's memoir about a black man starting his medical career, "Black Man in a White Coat." She also had recently attended her daughter's white coat ceremony — a tradition that begins a medical student's first year — and she noticed an almost complete absence of black men. She said that she meant to draw attention to the lack of diversity in higher education.
Word quickly spread of Professor Shurtz's costume and by the next day, she was condemned by students, faculty and University of Oregon President Michael Schill in a message expressing outrage to the entire university community. Shurtz was suspended from teaching pending review. Within a few days of the party, 23 law school faculty members wrote a letter urging Professor Shurtz to resign. It concluded: "If you care about our students, you will resign. If you care about our ability to educate future lawyers, you will resign. If you care about our alumni, you will resign."
University of Oregon commissioned an investigation which concluded: "We find that Nancy Shurtz's costume, including what constitutes 'blackface' through use of black makeup, constitutes a violation of the University's policies against discrimination. We further find that the actions constitute Discriminatory Harassment."
The report found that her costume exacerbated racial tensions on campus in a way that had a disproportionate impact on students of color, because "minority students [felt] they have become burdened with educating other students about racial issues and racial sensitivity," and because some students used "other offensive racially based terminology during class times in the context of discussing this event and broader racial issues."
Professor Shurtz exercised poor judgment in choosing her costume and not realizing that some would be very offended by it. But poor judgment and offending people cannot be a basis for a university punishing speech. In countless cases, the courts have been adamant that speech cannot be punished because it is offensive. The Nazi party had the right to march in Skokie, Ill., despite the offense to its largely Jewish population and the many Holocaust survivors who lived there. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to go funerals of those who died in military service and express a vile, anti-gay and anti-lesbian message. The government would have almost limitless power to censor speech if offensiveness is a sufficient ground for punishing expression.
Likewise, it cannot be that a university can punish a professor's expression on the grounds that it offends students and thereby will make their learning more difficult. That is the primary justification for punishing Professor Shurtz.
If that is enough to justify suspending or removing a professor, it would provide a basis for doing so any time a faculty member participates in activities that make a significant number of students uncomfortable.
Under this rationale, campuses in the 1950s would have been justified in firing professors who were perceived as having communist leanings or in the 1960s could have removed professors who participated in the civil rights movement on the ground that such speech made students uncomfortable and interfered with their learning.
I, of course, am not arguing that free speech on campus is absolute. Campuses can punish speech that is incitement to illegal activity or that threatens or directly harasses others. Campuses also can engage in more speech, which long has been recognized as the best response to the speech we don't like. There can be efforts to educate the community about the history of blackface. There should be debates about whether it is ever appropriate to use blackface even when advocating against racism in higher education.
I would have hoped a law school faculty and a university president who is a lawyer and law professor would have recognized this. Unfortunately, what happened at the University of Oregon is all too typical of what is happening on campuses across the country where the desire to create inclusive learning environments for all students has led to punishing speech protected by the First Amendment.
Chemerinsky is now dean of Berkeley's law school, and today he and Howard Gillman of UC-Irvine have an op-ed in the Chronicle (gated if off campus), about speech that disrupts the speech of others. It uses the student protest of President Schill's State of the University speech as an example of the sort of disruption that need not be tolerated, but perhaps should be:
Does Disruption Violate Free Speech?
When student protesters prevented President Michael H. Schill of the University of Oregon from delivering his State of the University speech this month, the group explained, "Free speech is the right of individuals and communities to express themselves without repression from the state. The students are not the state nor the repressors. Taking to the stage and using this platform was an act of free speech — not a violation of it."
… Contrary to the view of these protesters, individuals do not have a right to prevent others from speaking. It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the "heckler's veto" — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.
If audience members had a general right to engage in disruptive or threatening behavior by using loud, boisterous, or inciting speech, it would give any determined individual or group veto power over the expression of any idea they opposed. Only the most benign or inoffensive ideas would be expressible. It would empower people to believe, "If we can't get the government to censor the speech, then we'll do it ourselves."
The only protections against the heckler's veto are to require officials to make every effort to control the disrupters or to deter their efforts by treating the disruption as a punishable breach of the peace. Of course, it is possible that, despite best efforts, safety or public order cannot be maintained without calling an end to a controversial event. But this should be a last resort, only after exhausting all efforts to control those who are creating the threats against the lawful expression of speech.
… Importantly, however, prohibitions against disruptions also have their limits.
For example, protecting a controversial speaker assumes that the speaker has a preferred right to speak in a particular location at a particular time. When that is not the case — for example, in a true, open public forum on campus grounds, where anyone is allowed to be and to talk — no one speaker has any more rights to express a point of view than any other. If a Christian fundamentalist preacher were to use an open public space on a campus to preach against nonheterosexual activity, there is no reason why members of the campus community could not surround the preacher and enter into a boisterous back-and-forth.
… The reason recent campus controversies are different is that, in those cases, the campus has created a process whereby particular people (for example, student sponsors and their invited guests) are given a preferred right to have access to specific campus venues through a reservation process. Once the campus has followed its policies and assigned rooms for particular activities, then those who have secured the reservations have recognized claims to that space at those times.
In such a limited public forum, and in other places on campus where certain activities are assigned and recognized, those who have been given access to the space for certain purposes have the right not to be disrupted in that activity.
… Also, while opponents cannot disrupt a talk by an authorized controversial speaker, it is true that the speaker has no right to a cooperative or supportive audience.
Those who disagree are allowed to express their disagreement in ways that nevertheless allow the speakers to have their say. In the easiest case this includes the right to hold counterprotests or competing events, or distribute critical leaflets to audience members. But it also includes expressing disapproval as a member of the audience, as long as that disapproval does not undermine the rights of the speakers and their sponsors.
There are always judgment calls in cases of disruptive protests. We favor a more accommodating approach when protesters focus on administrators, for practical reasons rather than because of the First Amendment. Campus leaders have many avenues to express their views, and so an occasional tactical decision to shrug off the disruption is understandable.
But accommodation is much less appropriate when some members of the campus are attempting to prevent others from exercising their rights. In such cases, heckler's veto principles argue in favor of strong campus rebuffs of the claims of the disrupters. Otherwise, vulnerable or controversial opinions will never be expressible on a campus. And that would represent an abandonment of foundational principles of modern American higher education.
Simply put, the right to speak does not include a right to use speech to keep others from speaking.
Tagged blackfaced professor, free speech, State of U protest
10/17/2017 update:
On Oct 15, Senate President Sinclair wrote UO President Schill the following:
Dear President Schill:
I've had a number of conversations around campus with both students and faculty regarding the student protest of the State of the University address.
Here are some reflections:
The statement from Tobin Klinger to the Oregonian that the protest was in violation of the student conduct code is unhelpful and has irritated many faculty. Faculty see Klinger as an un-academic public relations spokesperson who has little credibility with the students or the faculty. However, he is an official spokesperson, and so we assume he was speaking for the administration. As such his statement could be taken as an abrogation of due process. This removes the veil of faculty oversight of student discipline, and there is simmering resentment that this power was taken from faculty by the Board of Trustees. Any unilateral administrative establishment of discipline on an issue that revolves around speech is a hornets nest that is best left un-kicked. We do understand that it may sometimes be necessary to "read the riot act" to students to notify them (or others) that continued assembly will be dealt with under the student conduct code.
My recommendation would be to have Tobin clarify his remarks and to state publicly that the university has no plans to charge any of the students in the protest with any conduct violation. Were actual conduct charges to be brought, I do not think you would have the support of the majority of the faculty nor students, and I think the Senate would react in a manner which you would find unproductive. A couple senators have already threatened a resolution to be introduced next Wednesday; we have a busy agenda that day and I would prefer to stay on task.
As you know, I have invited [the UO student collective] to come to the Senate for a brief 5-minute presentation followed by a 5-minute question and answer period. [The UO student collective] has not responded yet. In conversation with faculty, more individuals agree that this is the correct course of action for the Senate than agree with you that this is rewarding bad behavior. I will not argue that we are not rewarding bad behavior, because I see your point, but I think more people are moved by the argument that these students have fewer avenues to air their grievances than you or I, and that this was a legitimate protest.
I have been reflecting on my formal invitation of this student group to the next Senate meeting. Had I a do-over, I would take the advice of Frances White and merely indicate to this group that the Senate is a public forum on campus and that any group of students should be able to get on the agenda (with instructions on how to do so). This would allow the students an avenue for a public conversation without officially sanctioning it. I am unwilling to rescind my invitation to the student group, but I will hold onto this lesson for future use.
Thanks for considering my recommendations and for helping find a productive way out of this tricky situation,
Chris Sinclair, Assoc. Prof. Math, Senate President University of Oregon
Meanwhile, on the same day as the protest, the administration updated its website on Time, Place and Manner restrictions on free speech. They are calling these guidelines and procedures, not policies, because they agreed last year not to implement them as a policy, after the Senate raised numerous objections.
Until 2014, the UO Faculty had responsibility for the Student Conduct code. The Board of Trustees took that away from us as part of their Delegation of Authority, helped out by the faculty board member Susan Gary (Law) who failed to notify the faculty about the power-grab.
The new student conduct code even allows the administration to modify the procedures retroactively, and apply them to existing student discipline cases:
All revisions to Student Conduct Code procedures, including but not limited to jurisdictional revisions, shall apply retroactively to pending Student Conduct complaints, filed on or after September 11, 2014
10/12/2017 update: Student Conduct Judge Tobin Klinger finds protest violated conduct code
Just kidding. Tobin Klinger is UO's chief PR flack, not a Student Conduct Judge. He is not responsible for enforcing the student conduct code, nor has anyone at UO conducted any sort of investigation as to whether or not the student conduct code was violated, or whether any such violation was significant enough to supersede the UO policies on freedom of speech and academic freedom.
So what in the world was Klinger doing, in his official capacity as UO spokesperson, telling an Oregonian reporter 5 minutes after the administration suspended President Schill's speech, that
".. the demonstration actually violated university policy…"
Speaking in my private capacity as a blogger, I think the administration can make a plausible case that it did violate the code (and the Freedom of Inquiry and Speech policy). If that case succeeds they can then discipline the students accordingly.
But that case is going to be harder to make given this official statement from Klinger, which the students can argue is prejudicial.
10/9/2017 update: Small, ineffective, and reflects poorly on the student body
The Oregon Daily Emerald editorial board rarely posts editorials. They have written a good one on Friday's protest:
Tagged Academic Freedom, EXCELLENCE, free speech, State of U protest
Presidents and provosts gather in their safe-space to talk free speech
Apparently the organizer of the event, Chicago Provost Daniel Diermeier, thought the administrators wouldn't come or wouldn't speak freely if they thought their comments would be public. Insider Higher Ed has the report here:
… Just last week, students shouted down talks at Columbia University and the University of Michigan. Those doing the shouting down were generally students aligned with the political left, but supporters of President Trump also shut down a talk at Whittier College by California's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, shouting "America First" and "build that wall" to prevent him from answering questions. And those events followed the interruption of speakers (sometimes preventing events from taking place at all) at the College of William & Mary, Texas Southern University, the University of Oregon and Virginia Tech.
With these events becoming increasingly common, the University of Chicago invited presidents and provosts from a range of institutions to come to campus this weekend for a closed-door discussion of how higher education should respond. The University of Chicago has stated in a series of statements from its leaders and monographs on its history that free expression must be respected on campuses, no matter how controversial the idea being expressed. …
Meanwhile Daily Emerald has an op-ed here, from journalism student Chayne Thomas, arguing for the free speech rights of the students who disrupted President Schill's State of the University speech:
University of Oregon President Michael Schill was quick to dismiss the protesters of his Oct. 6 State of the University Address on the grounds that "they don't understand the value of free speech." While I believe he may be well-meaning in his desire to "teach all of our students and members of the community the value of free speech and tolerance," Schill fails to acknowledge the defect in his fundamental misunderstanding regarding freedom of speech. Namely, he ignores the fact that speech is tied to access. It is strange that Schill, who has the loudest voice on campus and multiple platforms at his disposal, can claim that his rights and freedoms are being infringed upon, while other's voices are being silenced.
Marginalized students don't have a voice on campus, but Schill was able to post a statement on the school website, release a video and directly email all students regarding his speech. He also swung private conversations where $50 million suddenly appeared out of mid-air — conversations that didn't include student voices. Students don't typically have access to platforms and forums for speech sanctioned by the university, and this needs to change. …
This is a counter to the Emerald editorial arguing against the protesters:
… Friday's protest painted the UO student body as unwilling to listen to the viewpoints of others. College students around the country have been criticized recently for shutting down the speeches of controversial right-wing figures such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro.
What happened Friday was worse. Schill wasn't there to spew hate-filled rhetoric – he was a university president doing his job.
The organizers, whose gripes include Schill's "acceptance of fascism and neo-Nazis," "insurmountable increases to student tuition," and "ignorantly happy-go-lucky attitude" wrote in their Facebook group for the event that "radical change requires radical action."
We got the radical action. Still waiting on the radical change.
The organizers failed to suppress anything, as UO released a pre-recorded version of the speech minutes after its cancellation. Instead, the event made headlines for its spectacle and painted the student body as rude, unfocused and angry about … just about everything.
Students who are unhappy with school administration should absolutely protest and make their concerns heard. The repeated tuition increases are a legitimate gripe, and Schill comes across as tone deaf when he tells students to ask their parents for money or take on more debt. But shouting him off the stage isn't the way to address those concerns.
The Black Student Task Force has shown that respectful protest can effect change on this campus. Not all of their demands have been met, but they got things done by showing a willingness to work with administration rather than drown it out.
[UOM: After Missouri the administration was terrified by the potential impact of a black student protest that included Black student-athletes. The administration was desperate to work with them.]
For change to happen, there must be dialogue with those in charge of making the changes. Suppressing the speech of others is not how to move forward.
For on the protest and the prejudicial response from UO spokesperson Tobin Klinger see the "free speech" tag.
NOTE: Thumbs up/down on comments has been disabled due to misuse by PR Flack supporters. Sorry!
28% of reported Lane County... (1)
Anas clypeata { This is why the 4J school district's chatter about going back to in-person school mystifies me. }
UO Chemistry students caught paying... (3)
{ Absolutely, I tell all my students to take the NO bullshit econ classes if they want to actually learning something... }
uomatters { Yeah who will need to bother with college - or at least with physics classes? }
Dog { well eventually, perhaps in a couple of years given the progress noted at https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/ there will be context based AI... }
Update: Pres Schill and GC... (8)
Dog { It is about time that common sense finally prevailed - I hope this soon spreads to other functions of the... }
uomatters { Unusually for a university, the UO administration made the same buyout offer (a year's pay) to tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track career... }
thirty-fiveyearsacontingent { Interesting. Hey, ImNotCrazy....when you state: "We are not practicing discrimination, we gave the same offer to everyone…" Who are the... }
ImNotCrazyTheyReallyAreStormingTheChambers. { Since it was only useful for a very few number of people. Could this all have been just for the... }
uomatters { Apology accepted. Don't let it happen again. }
Dog { right, I keep forgetting that economics is NOT bullshit - and so yes, the same deal as before. Completely agree... }
uomatters { Please Dog it's not "bullshit" to us economists. The term of art is "inframarginal" - meaning it's a lucrative giveaway... }
Dog { I don't see what the Admin gains by continued Persecution of Dr. Freyd. They continue to look petty, weak, scared... }
More big money for another... (4)
Panda { I am typically against paying high salary to coaches. However, Kelly Graves has done an impressive job with UO women's... }
ScienceDuck { Seems like Harbaugh has recently written against paying coaches high salaries in every sport. If he criticizes both men's sports... }
Kendall { So Harbaugh is against title 9 and supporting women's sports. Got it. }
Chris Rogers { I have been working with numerous students providing Statistics Assignment Help. Over the years I have learned that students think... }
UO Senate to meet on... (2)
Townie { "Pacific Northwest Just Futures Institute for Racial and Climate Justice" -https://around.uoregon.edu/content/new-grant-will-create-institute-racial-and-climate-justice Which senate committee reviews non-profit grants? It looks like... }
uotechmatters { @uomatters what is your opinion of the new Senate site? }
Covid protocols force Dana Altman... (2)
uomatters { Yeah, it may or may not be prosecutable, but it's certainly inexcusable. Nike makes a branded face mask, which Altman... }
Anas clypeata { Three of three salaried adults in this photo are not wearing masks or not wearing them effectively. Sheesh. }
Provost reminds faculty they can... (4)
honest Uncle Bernie { Now can you believe this shit? An email today from Cristobal? }
honest Uncle Bernie { An exegete of administrator memos you are! Personally, I can give him a break on this. }
itisnowwinterterm { Nice of him to wish us a good fall term. }
honest Uncle Bernie { What turgid stuff this is. "Under no circumstances should the instructor offer an accommodation that is pedagogically unsound or that... }
Fiesta Bowl CEO Michael Nealy... (1)
honest Uncle Gangsta { Come on, it was a performance for the ages! }
Donate to SAIL, UO's Summer... (1)
honest Uncle Bernie { Glad if it's really broad low income and first gen, casting the net wider than the usual "diversity" efforts, though... }
Million dollar Duck coaches just... (12)
Leporello { I'm calling class warfare. How dare you. Haven't you been reminded enough that we don't know what they're doing privately????... }
uomatters { Thanks for the reminder hUB - now posted at https://uomatters.com/2020/12/donate-to-sail-uos-summer-academy-to-inspire-learning.html I don't think there's a way to avoid the Foundation's... }
honest Uncle Bernie { You of course are correct about the epistemology of their possible charitable proclivities, but is that really the point? They... }
uomatters { They do have the "O Hero's" program, but that seems to be mostly about the AD getting their unpaid student-athletes... }
CSN { Faculty, staff, and OAs *may also* contribute to charity in a number of ways. Presumably many of them do. Your... }
uomatters { Great - get your neural warm glow here! https://www.pinterest.com/pin/368661919502733510/ }
faculty member { Thanks Bill. Just did! Happy New Year! }
{ Thanks! }
Top UO admins cancel their... (8)
CSN { Large amounts of individual suffering is not a good way to combat hard times for other people. Coordinated efforts are... }
honest Uncle Gangsta { Part trolling, part not. A lot of us tenured faculty seem to resent the fat salaries of the administrators. Myself... }
uomatters { Johnson Hall is still threatening to cut faculty pay in the fall - but then they'd have to cut their... }
CSN { Not sure if you are trolling, but the faculty union did in fact agree to a package of wage cuts... }
New Year Cat { I suspect that this is the year staff definitively got tired of bearing the burden, especially as it did not... }
Observer { I'll take a pay cut when Cristobal takes one. }
RT @JayBilas: Oregon Prez Schill: "At one point, our TV agreement was the most lucrative in the nation and...helped deliver our..… https://t.co/qIcHfbqTnp, 2 hours ago
RT @WillCRubin: Eight healthy scholarship players is also known as an Altman. https://t.co/vwGQiF7e6T, 2 hours ago
RT @duckwilde: Congratulations to all the students and educators who made this happen! https://t.co/HICOFgSgDj, 2 hours ago
RT @JonBoeckenstedt: I was working at a college with 25K tuition and a 30% discount (net revenue of $17.5 K). A finance professor sugge… https://t.co/5zwz8C20zh, 4 hours ago
Pres Schill shit-cans Pac-12's Larry Scott. Will his replacement be Rob Mullens, or someone who supports academics? https://t.co/kwa8o4v7Ud, 20 hours ago
AAUP-AFT Union? Academic Freedom administrative bloat Athletics athletics subsidy Beangrams Coronavirus Dana Altman Dave Frohnmayer: UO President Diversity Faculty pay Faculty Union (United Academics of UO) free speech Jamie Moffitt Jim Bean: UO Provost Jim O'Fallon jock box Lariviere Firing Lorraine Davis March 8-9 rape allegations Melinda Grier Michael Gottfredson NCAA NCAA violations new partnership plan off topic OUS Board and Chancellor Pernsteiner PERS Public Records Public Safety Randy Geller General Counsel Research money Richard Lariviere: UO President Rob Mullens Scott Coltrane Senate Sharon Rudnick Tim Gleason Track and Field Championships Uncategorized UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
Pres Schill shit-cans Pac-12's Larry Scott. Will his replacement be Rob Mullens, or someone who supports academics? 01/20/2021
UO Chemistry students caught paying to cheat on-line. 01/20/2021
The Oregon Way: carjacker returns kid, keeps car 01/20/2021
Update: Pres Schill and GC Reed relent on Freyd, after bad publicity and pressure 01/19/2021
28% of reported Lane County Covid cases are UO students 01/19/2021
Retirement buyout updates 01/18/2021
Covid protocols force Dana Altman to keep Ducks home 01/13/2021
UO Senate to meet on Robert's Rules, Excellent Teaching criteria, etc 01/13/2021
Feds give UO another $24M in emergency Covid funds 01/12/2021
Provost reminds faculty they can be disciplined for breaking the NCAA's rules 01/06/2021
Fiesta Bowl CEO Michael Nealy gets $871K, Cristobal gets $300K+, players get $0 01/02/2021
More big money for another useless Duck coach 12/30/2020
Donate to SAIL, UO's Summer Academy to Inspire Learning 12/30/2020
Million dollar Duck coaches just not that into the Charitable Fund Drive 12/29/2020
How much will UO get from the Omnibus bill? 12/29/2020
Top UO admins cancel their pay cuts: 12/26/2020
Christmas music for every taste 12/25/2020
Robert E. Lee finally removed from the U.S Capitol 12/22/2020
UO "All In" on Paris climate accord – unless it means cutting back on Duck game travel or Track Championships 12/21/2020
UO Board of Trustees to give Mario Cristobal his Covid raise Th at 10AM 12/16/2020
UO Matters Doesn't Matter – proof that it's a big internet 0
The Oregon Daily Emerald 0
UAUO faculty union website 0
UO Senate website: SPQUO 0
Dave Hubin's public records log 0
How do you feel about your remote classes this quarter?
Piece of cake, no worries
Inundated
Don't you mean online classes?
Twice the work for me, 1/2 the work for students
Feverish. With excitement, I hope.
Remote classes? News to me. What's up?
About UO Matters
UO Matters is a news and opinion blog about the University of Oregon. It is published by Bill Harbaugh, and registered with the Oregon Secretary of State as an "Institutionalized News Media Organization" (sic).
UO Matters | Powered by Mantra & WordPress.


text:
Paracantha ruficallosa is a species of tephritid or fruit flies in the genus Paracantha of the family Tephritidae.

Distribution
Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela.

References

Tephritinae
Insects described in 1937
Diptera of North America
Diptera of South America

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Wood vs. Vinyl Fencing - MMC Fencing & Railing Wood is a classic, but it's high-maintenance. Vinyl is durable but expensive. Which is best? We're pitting wood vs. vinyl fencing in a head-to-head match.
Wood Fences & Wooden Privacy Fence Installation For generations, Walpole's wood of choice has been northern white cedar. Walpole Outdoors also custom builds wood fencing with red cedar, teak, and mahogany.
Composite Fencing | Composite Wood Company Our high strength, weatherproof construction of Composite Wood means the fencing you install will last a long time.
Plastecowood – Recycled plastic Fencing | Recycled Plastic Buy direct from the UK manufacturer. Plastecowood is leading in Recycled Plastic Product Manufacture and suppliers in United Kingdom.
Plastic Fencing - Kedel.co.uk Plastic fencing? Good idea. Speak to the experts today in plastic fencing in the UK.
About Vinyl Fence - CertainTeed CertainTeed vinyl fence is a durable alternative to traditional wood, it has better weatherability and is easy to maintain.
Fences made of wood-plastic composite (wpc), fences FOREST PLUS ... Top quality fences and decking made of wood-plastic composite by Czech producer WPC - WOODPLASTIC a.s.
wood plastic composite fence panels - alibaba.com Do you want to show wood plastic composite fence panels or other products of your own company? Display your Products FREE now!
Plastic Fencing Wood Grain Panels and Gravel Board Plastic PVC Fenceing Panels- Replacement for wooden fence panels wood grain, no maintenance rot proof uPVC colourfast. Easy DIY installation.


text:
Articles about Editorspick
Wello Family, Smart E-Cargo Bike with Solar-powered AssistanceEditor's Pick
By Eliane Fiolet on 01/15/2020 17:44 PST
French start-up Wello attracted some attention at CES 2020 with its solar-powered three-wheeled electric cargo bike that aims to combine a bicycle and a car to address the last mile issue while respecting the environment.At the French Tech Pavilion, I met the founder and CEO of Wello, Arnaud Chéreau, who told me how his idea and 3000 euros for the first prototype (2015) brought him from a shipping container office in […]
Lokly Encrypted USB Key For The Most Paranoid UsersEditor's Pick
With the incredible miniaturization of portable SSD storage, you can carry several libraries worth of data in your pocket. But the mix of increased capacity and pocketable form factor creates security risks equally important.
MyFood Family, Solar-powered Aquaponic Smart GreenhouseEditor's Pick
The MyFood Family Smart Greenhouse got a lot of traction at CES 2020, so much that the unit exhibited at the FrenchTech pavilion was sold during the show! Given that the price tag for such a large model (Family model, 22 m² / 242 ft²) varies between 8,600 to 22,000 euros (VAT incl.), that sale was a great validation of the product and the technology powering it.Mickaël Gandecki, co-founder, CTO […]
Chronolife's Nexkin Biometric T-Shirt Enables Continuous Real-Time Health MonitoringEditor's Pick
Chronolife was back at CES 2020 with its biometric T-Shirt Nexkin launched in November 2019, a consumer version of Chronolife's medical solution that is expected to launch as a remote health monitoring product in 2020, with FDA and CE class 2a certifications. In 2021, the company will add to the lineup a patented predictive solution for Chronic Heart Failure with its proprietary HOTS algorithm for mobile phones.
Ubergizmo's Best of CES 2020Editor's Pick
Our Best of CES, the products and tech that made an impression for their design, ingenuity, value, or all of the above. So many things to see, so little time, but our 15th CES almost boils down to this.
A Look At Korea's Smart-City Ambitions At CESEditor's Pick
By Rob Pegoraro
LAS VEGAS–A large screen tucked away in the basement of the Sands convention center here offered passerby news they couldn't immediately use: an array of live stats about life and business in Seoul, South Korea.
Smarts from Seoul: The Maturing Smart HomeEditor's Pick
By John R. Quain
A slew of high-tech startups from Korea are giving visitors to CES a glimpse of what the smart home of the future might look like. Looking beyond the remote controlled thermostats and nanny cams of today, these newcomers want to help people at home eat right, feel right, and sleep tight.
Huawei Mate 30 Pro Camera ReviewEditor's Pick
The Huawei Mate 30 Pro has technical specifications that make heads turn, so we were excited to make it go through our Uber-G Camera IQ image quality analysis to see how it stacks up against the iPhone 11 Pro, Galaxy Note 10 and others.
Samsung Galaxy S11 Specs, Camera, Launch: Everything We KnowEditor's Pick
By Ankush Das on 12/20/2019 09:02 PST
Samsung Galaxy S11 is almost around the corner. You might expect an official launch of the device in the mid-late February 2020.However, a lot of information has already surfaced online for us to get a good idea of what to expect on the upcoming Samsung Galaxy S11.
ZTE Axon 10 Pro ReviewEditor's Pick
The Axon 10 Pro was unveiled on 2019-02-01 and was initially geared towards the high-end market. At the publishing time of this review, the Axon 10 Pro was priced at $545 USD, and that makes it a "Premium" phone that doesn't compete directly with "High-end" ones priced much higher.
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Benchmarks: Looking GreatEditor's Pick
We had the opportunity to get our hands on a Snapdragon 865 development phone (MDP), and of course, we ran benchmarks.
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865: All You Need To KnowEditor's Pick
During last week's Snapdragon Summit held in Hawaii, Qualcomm presented its new Snapdragon 865 in detail. This gives us high visibility on what's going to happen at the high-end of the smartphone market for 2020, and here are the key takeaways for those who will be looking for a new phone next year.
Snapdragon 865 Gets 144Hz Gaming, Performance BoostEditor's Pick
This Snapdragon 865 gaming overview deserves to have a standalone article because we're going to refer to this page in future smartphone coverage. The number of updates since Snapdragon 855 is rather substantial and will have a significant impact on mobile gaming.
Snapdragon 865 Camera Features For Top Phones In 2020Editor's Pick
On the second day of the Qualcomm Snapdragon Summit, much more technical details have been revealed, and we now have a good picture of what the next-generation high-end phones will be capable of, especially when it comes to photography.
Huawei Mate 30 Pro Camera Review
ZTE Axon 10 Pro Review
LG gram 14 2-in-1 Review (2019)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The 4-star Novotel Krasnoyarsk Center hotel is located in the historical and business center of the city and offers exceptional opportunities for different types of travel. Thanks to its convenient location, guests are just a stone's throw from the major attractions, administrative agencies, airport and train station. For your convenience, we offer support for business meetings and conferences, including fully equipped meeting areas and free WIFI throughout the hotel, as well as a free iMac web corner.
Enjoy breakfast, lunch and dinner in the convivial setting of the restaurant, which overlooks Theater Square and the picturesque landscape of the surroundings of Krasnoyarsk. Special menu available for events and business activities.
On the terrace, at the bar or in the main hall, you are surrounded by an atmosphere of high quality service. The Novotel hotel bar is open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.


Catlike, a Spanish sports equipment company, launched a 2015 line of graphene-enhanced cycling shoes called Whisper. The company declares this line a product of intensive R&D that created successful fusion of materials like carbon, graphene and nylon to maximize quality and performance.
The Whisper line includes several models intended for different purposes. The Whisper Road is the first cycling shoe that incorporates a sole that is infused with Graphene. That boosts strength without adding weight. The sole is super light and ergonomically curved and the outer part of the Whisper Road incorporates Clarino microfiber, which makes heat dissipates in warm weather and retained in cold weather. This model will cost €209.99 and will be available around Christmas 2014-2015.
The Whisper Tri model incorporates the revolutionary carbon sole with Graphene. It is designed to be put on as quickly as possible in the transition zone. It will also be available around Christmas 2014-2015 and cost €189.99.
Catlike also offers graphene-enhanced cycling helmets.


text:
We are people in motion
For the second year running, HAUTLENCE has invited customers, partners and the media to join its teams in the "Carré des Horlogers" at the highly renowned Salon International de la Haute Horlogerie (International Fine Watchmaking Exhibition) in order to share and explore new arenas of aesthetic and technical creativity. If watchmaking is an art — and it surely is — HAUTLENCE timepieces have been its ground-breaking, stylish and dynamic expression since 2004.
"But that's not all," enthuses Sandro Reginelli, co-founder and CEO of the brand. "Watchmaking is a movement to the rhythm of passing time, which cannot be controlled, only embellished. With its hundreds of colourful characters all tirelessly moving, advancing, pushing ahead, PEOPLE IN MOTION, the gigantic kinetic art fresco decorating our stand perfectly illustrates who we are, our philosophy, our worldview as well as the vibrant creativity of watchmaking.
Faced with the power of the big brands and Manufactures, we are firmly convinced that the strength and relevance of a young firm such as ours lies in our capacity to constantly innovate; to ceaselessly challenge ourselves. More than ever, our aim is to escape from the straightjacket of traditional watchmaking codes. We want to imbue our watches with movement, life, creativity, colour and, in some instances, with a touch of folly and irreverence. Our new models for 2017 will once again embody this desire."
HAUTLENCE intends to make the most of the profound changes currently sweeping through the watchmaking world to once again focus on the characteristics that have defined it for the last 13 years and made it unique: the inherently off-beat and the rebellious sides of its nature. "Right from the beginning, our choice has been to subvert and transcend the rules of classic watchmaking," recalls Sandro Reginelli. "Now, just as then, we want to forge ahead, marrying the excellence of our business and watchmaking expertise with the worlds of art, kinetics and mechanics.
Just like Eric Cantona, our friend and ambassador, we wish to encourage creative exchanges and collaboration with rare and unique personalities. Our philosophy? Never being afraid to push our limits, while placing human beings with their desires, passions, dreams and — occasionally — even excesses at the very heart of our watches. Each of our timepieces must offer a chance to free ourselves from the passing of time, which all too often constricts and imprisons us."
Sandro Reginelli concludes by summing up the HAUTLENCE attitude and outlook in a clear and confident strategy statement: "In watchmaking as in life, we must remain in motion. We have to dare to venture off the beaten track as well as to appropriate, cultivate and assert our difference."


Wat Arun - the Temple of the Dawn - from the river-side.
Wish you could have this information with you when you visit Wat Arun? Now you can. Check out our downloadable eGuides.
It's the star of many a "visit Thailand" poster. Perhaps a better known symbol of Bangkok than the Grand Palace. It's Wat Arun, "the Temple of the Dawn." Unfortunately, being a cover model has its drawbacks, and the temple is probably a little too popular for its own good, but it's still such an outstanding monument that it's worth a visit.
Looking up at the central prang.
The towering prang with its four smaller siblings was started by Rama II in the early part of the 19th century, and completed by his successor Rama III. The temple in which the prang sits is actually much older. It dates from the Ayuthaya period. During King Taksin's reign, just before the founding of Bangkok, the temple served as part of his palace.
The prang is not only unique in its design, which is a blend of Khmer and Thai styles, but also in decoration. Over the brick core, a layer of plaster was applied and then decorated with bits of Chinese porcelain and glazed ceramic tiles. Using porcelain from China isn't as extravagant as it might sound. In the early days of Bangkok, Chinese trading ships calling on the Siamese capital used tons of porcelain as ballast. The temple is just an early example of the Thai approach to "recycling."
Close-up of one of the demons "holding up" the prang.
Like the bell shaped chedi, the central Prang represents Mount Meru, home of the gods. The four smaller prangs symbolize the four winds. High up on the four smaller towers, you can see a statue of Pai, god of the winds, on his horse.
In the middle of each side of the square formed by the smaller prangs are pavilions containing Buddha images depicting the four stages of the Buddha's life, birth, meditation, preaching and enlightenment. These guard the stairways to the second and third levels of the big prang. Unfortunately, you can only climb up to the first level. The second and third levels are now closed to the public, probably because the stairways were so steep there were many accidents.
Behind the prang is the temple complex proper. The bot is interesting and decorated on the inside similar to the prang. There are several other small prangs and beautiful gardens in the temple grounds.