Peak Oil Fears

Back in 2006 EWEB invited author Richard Heinberg to Eugene, to give a talk about Peak Oil. Heinberg had just published a scary book about this, claiming :

The world is about to run out of cheap oil and change dramatically. Within the next few years, global production will peak. Thereafter, even if industrial societies begin to switch to alternative energy sources, they will have less net energy each year to do all the work essential to the survival of complex societies.

This got an enthusiastic response in Eugene. Since I’d spent some time in the oil fields doing seismic exploration, and had been hired by UO in part on the basis of my claim to be an environmental economist, I thought I should respond. So I wrote this Op-Ed for the RG, which they published in Feb 2006. It’s no longer on their website, so here’s the version I submitted:

Peak Oil and Other Fears

I’ve been following the reports about the enthusiastic reception that Professor Heinberg’s talk about peak oil and industrial collapse have received in Eugene. Here’s a related problem that I give in class: World oil reserves are 600 billion barrels, and we are using it at 20 billion barrels per year. How long until we run out? Please write down your answer before you read any more of this op-ed.

My students do the math and they tell me 30 years – maybe just 20, if we add growth in consumption and population. Good try, I tell them, but these numbers are from 1950. Hmm.

The idea of economic collapse from resource exhaustion used to be mainstream economics – a long time ago. In 1798, Thomas Malthus argued that population would soon outstrip food production, and that mass starvation would result. During the potato famine, English politicians used his economics as an excuse not to waste money on relief for the starving Irish. Stanley Jevons, in 1865, argued that England’s industrial revolution would soon come to a halt because the country was using up its supply of coal.  Actually, England still has plenty of coal, though not much use for it. As for the starving Irish, well, today 57% of them are now officially “overweight or obese.” Whoops.

While this embarrassing failure to explain reality sent economists back to the drawing board, apparently it has left the peak oil cult untroubled – their forecasts of doom and gloom are just a recycled version of Malthus’s logic, which treats humans as if we are mindless sheep, and which shows no understanding of markets or incentives.

The new model that economists came up with starts from sensible assumptions – business people aren’t idiots, they want to make money, and consumers don’t like to waste money. As more people use up an exhaustible resource like oil, the owners see the scarcity coming and they start demanding higher prices. This gives consumers an incentive to conserve, and oil companies incentives to find more oil. Companies that don’t own oil start to develop alternative energy sources. Combine these effects, and scarcity tends to go away. Add in a little technical progress and prices will fall, not rise. Sure enough, measured by how many hours we have to work to pay for a barrel, the long trend of oil prices has been downward, except for a few short spikes during wars.

The list of alternatives to oil is very long. On the production side, there’s solar energy, wind energy, nuclear/hydrogen energy, coal, tar sands, or just plain drilling more oil wells. On the consumption side, there’s insulating your house, buying a small car, or riding your bike. (If you haven’t ridden it since the last oil crisis, lube the brake cables first. I learned that one the hard way.) We don’t use these substitutes much, yet, because they are still a bit more expensive or inconvenient than oil is. But they are still out there, waiting for us.

Here’s some evidence of how painless the transition to these alternatives will be. Since it peaked around 1970, US energy use per dollar of economic output has been falling steadily. It is now half what it was. You are probably surprised to hear this – unless you are in a business that uses a lot of energy. If you are, you’ve worked like a dog to make this happen, and you’ve increased your profits along the way. But for the average person, all this has been done without much trouble or even notice by you. This is why we call the market “the invisible hand.”

I don’t understand why people continue to give predictions of resource exhaustion and economic collapse so much attention. The prior history of these predictions is simple – they have always been wrong. The theory they are built on is also simple – and also obviously wrong. But then I don’t understand why people like reading Stephen King either. Is it possible that a nice simple story about imaginary scary things is just a fun distraction for the evening?

What scares me is that with all the attention they are devoting to oil scarcity and the coming collapse of civilization, Eugene and its politicians are getting distracted from working on the many things that markets don’t reliably deliver – like health care access, affordable housing, transportation, good paying jobs, and education – and which we rely on good government to help provide.

Bill Harbaugh, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Oregon

I soon started getting angry emails about my claims, including one from a Portland businessman who accepted my offer to bet that the price of oil wouldn’t go above $200 in real terms within the next 10 years. He backed out when he realized I was prepared to put $10K on it.

So what’s happened? I haven’t been keeping an eye on global production, but today the Dept of Energy’s weekly report is out, and US oil production has now hit 11M barrels a day, up from 5M in 2006:

The price of sweet West Texas Intermediate, which was $78 at the time, briefly got up to $161 in 2008, but it’s currently about $70. (All in 2018 dollars). So what are the predictions for future oil output and prices? If you’re still asking that question, you didn’t understand my op-ed.

President Putin steps forth to the rescue of Gabon’s Ali Bongo

7/17/2018: Of course. After Lariviere and Galvan failed, where else could he turn?

No word on whether UO fundraiser John Manotti helped set up this meeting too. Meanwhile, former Ambassador Plenipotentiary Eric Benjaminson has moved on from UO to Chicago.

9/3/2016: Lariviere’s deal with Ali Bongo and Eric Benjaminson collapses in violence

The history of this bizarre UO foray into foreign affairs has yet to be written, but so far it involves the US ambassador to Gabon seeing a chance for a retirement gig at UO, the State Department’s sophomoric remix of Kissinger’s real-politic, Richard Lariviere’s desperate effort to get some money for something other than Duck sports, and a lot of oil money stolen from some very poor Africans. Like so many corrupt Oregon deals, some otherwise smart people gave it a pass because it was carefully packaged as “green” and “sustainable”. Oregon and Gabon: Twin Edens.

Here’s UO President Richard Lariviere at the White House with President Bongo and US Ambassador Eric Benjamin – now a UO employee – in happier times in 2010:

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 8.32.38 PM

The Guardian reports on kleptomaniacal President for Life Bongo’s current re-election dispute. Many have died:

… However, Bongo scored lower than his father, who famously won 100% of the national vote in the 1986 election, with a 99.9% turnout, when Gabon was still a one-party state.

[Opposition candidate Jean Ping], a half-Chinese diplomat who was previously one of the Bongo family’s most trusted cronies, rejected the result and demanded a recount in Haut Ogooué.

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 8.32.38 PM

And the NYT gives Ping a platform:

On Saturday, Aug. 27, presidential elections were held in my country,Gabon, in West Africa, and I was the candidate who won by a substantial vote margin. Nearly a week later, I would have expected to be addressing the world as Gabon’s president-elect, ready and willing to work with the United States and all our international partners to fight terrorism, build our economies and improve the lives of our citizens through increased development and cooperation.

Sure. That and deliver a share of the spoils to his partners.

1/18/2016: UO Foundation must write off Bongo’s $15M endowment promise

Under the Foundation’s rules they had until the end of 2016 to get the money from Gabon or take it off the books. Maybe I’m missing the nuance in this Le Monde article, but obviously it’s not coming by 2016. The truth is there is no money: Ali Bongo blew it on luxury real estate, fast cars, soccer players, and wives, while leaving his country mired in poverty. The collapsing price of oil made it impossible for his government to continue to keep up the pretense.

And so ends one of Richard Lariviere’s crazier ideas. One of the RG’s several critical editorials on it is here, and other UOM posts are here. Thanks to Bongo’s political opponents for forwarding the link, and best of luck in the elections and after:

Screen Shot 2016-01-18 at 6.07.24 PM

12/27/2015: Gabon’s kleptomaniacal President for Life Ali Bongo stiffs UO on $15M gift

Rumor down at Dennis Galvan’s Office of International Affairs is that there are a lot of nuances here, and we may get the money “soon”.

Sure. With oil below $40 and an election coming up amidst the ongoing French investigations of corruption, and family infighting over the loot accumulated by Bongo’s father Omar, I’m thinking the UO Foundation is going to have to write off the $15M endowment gift that Bongo promised UO back in 2011 pretty soon.

But apparently former US Ambassador to Gabon Eric Benjaminson, whom we hired to run the “Twin Edens” project shortly after he convinced Bongo to give the money, still has a couple million left from the original $5M, and is funding a variety of research projects.

For more on this story, including the suitcases of cash Bongo has been sending his American wife, and some spectacular real estate purchases, check out the Gabon tab below.

What’s under the foreskin of the Tower O’ Excellence’s “heroic wood”?

While our General Counsel’s Public Records Office is still stonewalling requests for the Hayward Field lease agreement between UO and Phit LLC, today Duck spokesperson Tobin Klinger told the RG that UO is no longer in control:

… The privately funded rebuild of the stadium is being led by Nike co-founder Phil Knight, with the UO transferring the land to a private Knight-controlled LLC for the duration of construction. As a result, Klinger acknowledged that UO officials didn’t have input on the latest round of design changes. …

The Hayward website notes “Its perforated metal skin and steel form flare upward and outward to resemble a …”

Well, you get the idea. And what will be under the foreskin of this “heroic wood” egofice? A living room. Really?

 

Access to free speech guidelines is Forbidden

Fortunately we’ve got the Internet Archive:

Free Speech Guidelines

Rights, rules, responsibilities, and resources

At the University of Oregon, established guidelines protect the right to free speech, while ensuring that opposing views may also be expressed. The basic guideline says that whenever one person’s or one group’s activities prevent another’s sanctioned activity from taking place, rights are being violated. The university has the responsibility and authority to protect those rights. The university strives to balance the right to dissent with the right to be heard, the right to speak one’s mind with the right to listen.

Printed Material

Most building walls and campus fixtures, as well as most bulletin boards, are regulated. Building or department operators may determine what content may be approved (i.e., material related to a particular program, or published by university groups for a university audience). Unapproved or unrelated material may be removed.

Material may not contain “true” threats of violence.

Demonstrations

May not interfere with scheduled university activities (such as classes or events)

May not block doors, hallways, stairways, fire exits, fire lanes, or public rights of way including streets, sidewalks, etc.

May not pose a threat to health and safety

May not result in damage, loss, theft or vandalism of property

May not exceed safe occupancy capacity in a room (Oregon Fire Code, Sections 104.1, 107.5, 107.6)

May not interfere with scheduled speakers’ presentations or response to questions

Sound

No amplified sound on campus between 8 a.m.-6 p.m.; no amplified sound indoors (megaphones and other sound-amplifying devices are not allowed inside)

Sound amplified by event schedulers is allowed in athletics and entertainment venues

Requests for amplified sound at the EMU Amphitheater must be submitted to Scheduling and Event Services

Please be considerate of classes and other events when demonstrating outdoors

Signs

May not have attached sticks inside buildings (safety hazard)

May not make direct, “true” threats of violence

May be removed if posted or left in an area that does not allow unregulated postings

Graffiti

Any marking, including chalking, left on campus buildings or surfaces (including sidewalks and streets) may be removed, consistent with campus maintenance standards and practices.

Spaces

To enable the free sharing of ideas on campus, the UO has rules and procedures for reserving space or other facilities.

The person or group reserving the facility is entitled to determine how, within university guidelines, that facility is used.

When campus activities conflict with one another, university officials have the authority to request those involved in one activity to stop, move, or change their behavior, so that the other activity can continue.

Violations of the standards above may result in university action to stop the behavior, as well as disciplinary consequences for students or employees, and possible legal action.

Visitors to the University of Oregon campus have the responsibility to obey federal and state laws, as well as University of Oregon rules and policies, and may be cited for trespass or subject to prosecution for any illegal behavior committed on campus. Faculty and staff members and students may face disciplinary sanctions imposed by the university if they ignore these standards of behavior. Students are subject to the requirements of the Student Conduct Code, and members of the faculty and staff are subjects to UO policies governing Proscribed Conduct, as well as the university’s policies on progressive discipline.

Dean fired for lying to faculty about how much money university has for raises

I’m kidding, that’s just bargaining. But when a professor lies to his dean about an outside offer, that’s a felony:

FORT COLLINS, Colo. (CBS4) – A former professor at Colorado State University is facing a felony charge for fabricating an outside job offer to improve his status at CSU.

Professor Brian McNaughton, 40, ran the McNaughton Lab, a biochemistry research group at CSU.

He is now charged with attempt to influence a public official, for presenting his employers with a fictitious offer letter from the University of Minnesota in order to get more money from CSU.

…  McNaughton resigned his position at CSU. In a letter to the Dean, McNaughton apologized for an “enormous mistake.” He wrote that he got the idea to fake the outside offer from colleagues.

“It was openly stated that multiple former CSU faculty (now either dead or no longer affiliated with CSU) lied about an outside offer as a mechanism to improve their salary,” McNaughton wrote. “I’m not excusing it, and I’m not excusing my own actions, but these factors are real.”

Thanks to an anonymous reader for the link.

Senate Pres talks to Trustees about UO Foundation, IAAF, academic freedom, internal audit

From June 8, just getting around to posting. Video here:

I’m posting this in part because of today’s Op-Ed in the Oregonian from Oregon Association of Scholars President (and PSU PoliSci prof) Bruce Gilley, which inaccurately characterizes the UO Senate’s resolution in support of the free-speech rights of our students as endorsing the “heckler’s veto”. Gilley:

… The protection of intellectual freedom on campus used to be the preserve of faculty. Yet the radicalization of faculty — conservative or registered Republicans have virtually disappeared from Oregon college faculties today — means that faculty today are more often the main threat to intellectual freedom. The disgraceful endorsement by the University of Oregon’s faculty senate of student mobs who disrupted the president’s annual address last October is the latest example. …

The UO Senate’s resolution is here. I can only assume Prof. Gilley has not read it. Among other things, it states:

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; [Emphasis added.]

See below for more. Back up the video to hear the remarks from incoming ASUO President Maria Alejandra Gallegos-Chacon, which end with a call for a reform of UO’s student discipline rules to ensure free speech cases are treated with the care they deserve.

My report to the Board of Trustees as written:

The report in the meeting materials is from outgoing Senate President Chris Sinclair. He is giving a presentation at a national meeting on the Senate’s Core Education reform program, so I’m his surrogate.
I was Senate VP this year, and will be Senate President for the coming academic year. Last week the Senate voted Elizabeth Skowron (Education) in as Senate VP this year, and so she’ll become President the year following this one.
Elizabeth has broad support from the faculty and other Senate constituents, and from Chris and myself. Her election was unanimous.
I’ll be happy to answer questions about Chris’s report, which explains some of the Senate’s work this year, i.e. including the plans we have put in place to improve core ed, teaching and teaching evaluation but first I want to add a few comments.
First, I want to report on a conversation that Chris and I had with UO’s internal auditor Trisha Burnett, this March, as part of her annual check-ins. We explained that we were particularly concerned about
1) UO’s diversity efforts: While you will hear a lot about the IDEAL diversity plan today, meanwhile UO is dropping the ball on basic practices like exit interviews for departing minority and female faculty and open hiring processes for administrators. Burnett agreed that these were problems. I hope you have got the same message from her office and will help address it.
2) The athletic department. As you know the NCAA is investigating UO over an incomplete grade  for a student-athlete. This is a side-show.
One real concern is about the  extent to which the “ Support for Student Athletes” operation is providing good academic support to revenue-sport athletes, and help for those that aren’t going to make it to the pros or graduate. I assume you’ve seen the graduation rates for the revenue sport-athletes. Burnett is worried about the potential for an UNC type scandal, or an Michigan State type one. The faculty knows little about how the AD and SSA operate, and our past oversight efforts have not been successful. The Senate’s IAC committee has been replaced by an advisory committee to the President. You should be aware of Burnett’s concerns about the risk, which she expressed clearly to us, although apparently not in her written reports to you.
3) The UO Foundation. The Foundation is heavily involved in the 2021 IAAF championships award, which is now under federal investigation. Your board was involved in this as well. We made our concerns clear, to Burnett, she made clear that the Foundation was not cooperating with her efforts to learn more. This is not a good situation, we hope you are keeping your eye on it.
Second, I want to explain the Senate’s resolution “In Support of the UO Student Collective”. This is the group of students that disrupted President Schill’s “State of the University”speech in October.
A personal note: One of the first courses I taught when I came to UO was on environmental economics. One of my students was an environmental activist, and frequently and loudly spoke up during lectures to object to the economic approach.
President Schill has said that with this resolution the Senate endorsed the sorts of disruption of classes by students who might object to something about the course content, as has occurred at other universities, such as Reed and Evergreen, where students have essentially shut down courses on particular subjects.
This is not at all what our Senate has endorsed. The resolution states clearly:
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; 
 
 
I’m not a lawyer, but this language is consistent with everything I understand about the First Amendment, everything I believe about academic freedom, and everything that UO’s other policies on these matters state. People have a right to speak, and those who object to that speech have the right to have their objections heard even if that disrupts and causes inconvenience for the speaker and the audience.
What those who object cannot do, and again I quote from our resolution, is prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say. 
 
Our resolution does not endorse the sorts of disruptions that prevent faculty, or our President, from teaching what they want to teach or saying what they want to say. It specifically speaks against that, only allowing “disruption” so long as that disruption doesn’t prevent the professor’s lecture, or for that matter the President’s talk, from continuing.
Our resolution does not endorse allowing the actions of the Students Collective taking the podium and shutting down President Schill’s address – although it does call for some leniency in their subsequent discipline, and some reforms to make sure free speech discipline cases are handled with special care. These were students, after all.
If this is not clear, please see the UO policy on Academic Freedom, which the Senate passed in 2014 and which the UO President signed, which states:
The University’s responsibility to help students to think critically and independently requires that members of the university community have the right to investigate and discuss matters, including those that are controversial, inside and outside of class, without fear of institutional restraint. 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.
Or see the UO Policy on Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech, which we passed in 2010, which states:
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. 
 
I don’t see how the Senate and the faculty could be any more clear about our position, and I’m tired of hearing people misrepresent it. Though of course I’m open to any arguments, even disruptive ones.
Thank you. Questions?

University releases subpoena & coach records in bball wage theft case

That would be the University of Maryland. The WaPo:

A federal grand jury in New York investigating corruption in college basketball has requested records from Maryland regarding one unnamed former player, assistant coach Orlando “Bino” Ranson, and Silvio De Sousa, a recruit who ultimately attended Kansas.

Maryland released copies of the subpoenas Friday, along with a statement asserting the university had already sent back all relevant records, and had found no evidence of any violations of NCAA rules or federal laws by any Maryland coaches, employees or players….

Presumably the feds were investigating Bino and Silvio on charges that they failed to compensate their players for their work hours, i.e. wage theft. Good to hear that UMD has provided the grand jury with evidence that their “student-athletes” were in fact paid.

I wonder when UO will release its subpoena? UO GC Kevin Reed’s public records office charged Daily Emerald reporter Michael Tobin $113.64 for copies of any federal subpoenas UO had received (there’s presumably one for the IAAF 2021 Championship bid docs too) and then refused to hand them over, and then refused to give him a refund. Max Thornberry had the story in the EW:

General counsel for the university Kevin Reed, a member of the transparency committee, refused to attend Thursday’s meeting and resigned from the committee before the meeting, telling Harbaugh that his office’s participation in the committee would “present a conflict of interest.”

[In an obvious self-contradiction, Reed then appointed Bryan Derringer, an AGC from Reed’s office as his designee.]

… In addition to stepping down from the committee, Reed expressed concern that Harbaugh’s participation presented a conflict of interest as well. Transcripts of emails between Reed and Harbaugh were posted to the University Senate blog.

“You have been assessed over $45,000 in fees on your public records requests over the course of the last five or so years,” Reed wrote to Harbaugh in an email. “You have paid a few hundred dollars for documents, but mostly you have protested the fees and argued for a change in fee policy that would reduce or eliminate fees. A private citizen is, of course, free to engage in such advocacy, but when a public official does so in his official capacity, he does so at his own risk. I have told you this before, and you have ignored my advice thus far. And, as I said the risk is on you, not the university, so I can’t tell you what to do.”

Following Reed’s prompting to consult with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, Harbaugh says, an investigator from OGEC — via a phone conversation — determined Harbaugh’s interest in public records makes him part of a class or group of people with shared interests, saying, “Your participation would not even be a potential conflict of interest.”

[UOM: ORS 244.020(1), (13) actually says:

(13)“Potential conflict of interest” means any action or any decision or recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the effect of which could be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the person or the person’s relative, or a business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated, unless the pecuniary benefit or detriment arises out of the following:

(a)An interest or membership in a particular business, industry, occupation or other class required by law as a prerequisite to the holding by the person of the office or position.

(b)Any action in the person’s official capacity which would affect to the same degree a class consisting of all inhabitants of the state, or a smaller class consisting of an industry, occupation or other group including one of which or in which the person, or the person’s relative or business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated, is a member or is engaged.

(c)Membership in or membership on the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation that is tax-exempt under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Why did the General Counsel’s office omit this important qualification?]

… “This is symptomatic of the university’s contempt for public records law and the principle that people should have access to the records of their government,” Harbaugh says. “This seems to me a case where the university is using its powers under that law not to promote transparency but to try to hide things.”

More here.

I don’t know what UMD charged for releasing these public records, but here’s their subpoena:

 

Harrang, Long, Gary, & Rudnick’s remaining lawyers now working from a shopping mall across the river

HLGR in 2013:

Back in the day the politically well-connected HLGR law firm had 30 attorneys and regular contracts with the state and localities and tobacco companies.  They won a $1M settlement from the Oregon Department of Justice for the son of partner Stan Long over the DOJ’s efforts to prosecute him in the first Kitzhaber/Hayes influence peddling scandal. The state hired partners Bill Gary and Sharon Rudnick as lead attorneys for the effort to reduce PERS benefits, and after a pitch to UO about their hiring of former President Frohnmayer, UO General Counsel Randy Geller gave them a lucrative contract for the university’s legal work.

Then things started to go south for the venerable firm. Gary and Rudnick lost most of the PERS case in the Oregon Supreme Court. The City of Eugene replaced their expensive HLGR contract with cheaper in-house lawyers. After collecting ~$12K in billable hours defending the Eugene school district from a Register Guard public records lawsuit, HLGR mistakenly emailed the personnel records they’d been hired to keep from the public to the reporter. Whoops. UO had hired HLGR partner Sharon Rudnick to negotiate the first contract between the UO administration and the newly created UO faculty union, but the faculty union’s negotiators – Mike Mauer, Esq and David Cecil, ABD and the faculty negotiating team ran circles around the feckless Rudnick. And who can forget the disastrous GTFF negotiations and strike, with UO’s bargaining team led by HLGR real estate lawyer Jeff Matthews?

Then HLGR attorney Andrea Coit, hired by UO to defend against the “Bowl of Dicks” lawsuit from former public safety officer James Cleavenger, accused Cleavenger of wearing a Free Mason’s pin in court to secretly signal his Masonic brothers on the jury. It turned out it was a Duck booster pin, to the amusement of the judge. The jury awarded Cleavenger $755K in damages, plus ~$500K for attorney fees. New UO GC Kevin Reed doubled down, hiring HLGR partner Bill Gary to appeal the fees award. Instead Judge Carter awarded Cleavenger’s attorney another $50K in fees for having to defend against the appeal – and of course UO had to pay Gary’s billable hours too. Ouch.

With the recent departure of Andrea Coit for Hutchinson Cox, HLGR is now down to 15 lawyers, including “of Counsel” Randy Geller, who as UO GC helped get HLGR the UO contract, and is now apparently bring in some hours for them, on a contract with Lane Community College:

And now they’ve moved out of their downtown offices, to a shopping mall across the river:

Bach is back

The Eugene Weekly has the report here:

After the most tumultuous year in its history, the Oregon Bach Festival returns — its internationally acclaimed artistic director fired, its reputation tarnished by his mysterious dismissal and its parent University of Oregon’s botched, secretive handling of the whole situation and its schedule diminished.

Yet the nearly half-century-old institution, one of Oregon’s artistic treasures, somehow endures despite the turmoil.

This year’s edition, which opens Friday, notably includes a pair of most-welcome contemporary works by major American composers. “Executive Director Janelle McCoy is responsible for bringing [Richard Danielpour’s] The Passion of Yeshua and Philip Glass’ Piano Concerto No.3 featuring Simone Dinnerstein to Eugene,” wrote festival director of Marketing and Communications Josh Gren in an email. “The rest of the Festival was programmed by an artistic advisory committee, led by UO School of Music and Dance Dean, Brad Foley” and including other UO faculty members and others. …

Last I recall UO was subsidizing the festival to the tune of $1M or so a year.

Oregon’s flagship university now unionized, as ERB certifies UAOSU

The SCOTUS be damned. 75% of UO’s tenure-track faculty are now full voting members of UAUO. And as of today all of Oregon’s 7 public universities have unionized faculty, including what some call Oregon’s flagship university. Union website here. I never believed that more than 50% of the faculty of what is primarily an Ag and engineering school would sign union cards, but I was wrong: