Sue UO at the Federal Level for Reparations

[BroadwayVik]

When, in 1955, Portland State College was established in what is now Lincoln Performance Hall, the then University of Oregon president, Owen Meredith Wilson, meddled directly into the developmental progress of the newly-formed college: he lobbied the Legislature for the enactment of a market distortion designed to maintain UO enrollment by directly shackling Portland State's ability to compete head-to-head in the higher education market.

Underhanded collusion of this form literally derailed Portland State College from off its natural course of development in the same way as if a dam had been built for the express purpose of halting passage of a specific set of travelers along a riverway. The motivation was based on fear that more hard work would be necessary to maintain enrollment levels at the UO, so the president decided on the solution being to distort the market conditions through self-protective legislation.

My guess is that there is some real legal traction by which Portland State University can sue the University of Oregon for this breach of fair play in the market. My guess is that this would fall under anti-trust or related law as the intent of the law's enactment was underhanded. The best procedure would be to sue the UO for reparations at the federal level so that there would be no conflicts-of-interests involved at the state level.

The realized amounts lost in potential for Portland State for interference-based legislative tampering are literally in the billions of dollars over the past (just about) 60 years. The University of Oregon hired its president, their president proxemically caused the underhanded legislative condition to be imposed and the effect resulted in severe loss for Portland State College/University. The University of Oregon is responsible for this loss (and, especially, to the returning Veterans of Oregon), literally impoverishing the state in the process. The University of Oregon needs to make reparations for the loss it caused and Portland State University is deserving of being restored to its natural course of development.

Take the case to the Federal level. They will be fair. Even at the level of the state supreme court, Portland State University cannot risk exposure to in-state level conflicts-of-interests. If it wants justice, it must place its best foot forward before judges at the federal level. Let's take back what is ours, that which was stolen from us by the past president of the University of Oregon. Because of the natures of the longevity of universities, hopefully, statutes of limitations would not be applicable.

 

[Pounder]

You could make the same argument, and can still make it, about the relationship between the University of Idaho and Boise State. Yet you see what happened in the end.

It's not a federal case, dude. It's common in-state politics. I didn't even go over U California v California State issues, after all.

 

[BroadwayVik]

Perhaps there is tractional basis to appeal the case to the federal level (as statutory-level conflicts-of-interest muddy the issues surrounding justice). Such appelation could even lend support to effect change regarding the outcomes of the other statutory cases you cited.

I have no bias, no axe to grind, as I graduated from both the UO and PSU (and two others). I simply see a clear case of a grave injustice perpetrated by one alma mater on to another. The underhanded act resulted in untold loss and distortion, a kind of "personal injury" case, and social justice dictates that the loss realized needs to be rectified, most aptly with punitive damages.

States' judiciary systems should not send the signal that such kind of political shenanigans are to be allowed as fair play. One could easily make the argument that Oregon, judicially, has, within this blot on its history, a clear example of what not to do, a example of grave ignobility.

Noblesse Oblige, Oregon. "The inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged."

As to the similar statutory cases you cited in Idaho and California, you tacitly claim this as common knowledge, but I would think this is unknown history to most. Would you be willing to share what happened in those two cases?

 

[BroadwayVik]

What can be culled from this is that there is no question that the UO president acted against the interests of Portland State College/University, inflicting a blow that would damage its development for decades to come. What procedure of remedy is then available for Portland State to pursue?

According to legal authority, a case can be brought against the UO, but it must be done at the state level as it is a state matter. But there is nothing to prevent a federal judge, or other suitable deemed to be impartial among the state's internal issues, from serving as arbiter. PSU must decide if such a case is worth pursuing politically if time statue of limitations do not apply.

If limitations do not apply, the second question for this cold case then becomes: can a sufficient case of evidence of malfeasance be brought to bear against the UO to motivate legal action vis-a-vis the political consequences. If doable, it becomes a matter of managing the risk.

 

[Pounder]

What can be culled from this is that there is no question that the UO president acted against the interests of Portland State College/University, inflicting a blow that would damage its development for decades to come. What procedure of remedy is then available for Portland State to pursue?

According to legal authority, a case can be brought against the UO, but it must be done at the state level as it is a state matter. But there is nothing to prevent a federal judge, or other suitable deemed to be impartial among the state's internal issues, from serving as arbiter. PSU must decide if such a case is worth pursuing politically if time statue of limitations do not apply.

If limitations do not apply, the second question for this cold case then becomes: can a sufficient case of evidence of malfeasance be brought to bear against the UO to motivate legal action vis-a-vis the political consequences. If doable, it becomes a matter of managing the risk.

Each entity exists at the whim of the legislature and the governor... plus a great deal of sense that could easily be lost by certain interests, but I digress.

End of story.

 

[BroadwayVik]

And a Happy New Year to you,
Pounder!

Where would we be without your compulsivity?

As I recall, legislation passed in 2013 allowed Oregon public universities the option to set up their own institutional governing boards and the state's three largest universities (UO, OSU, PSU) opted for institutional boards that became effective July 1, 2014.

There is coordination at the state level. The authority of the OUS has been greatly weakened. These institutions are not likely going away through gubernatorial or legislative whim, but each will be directed individually, locally, along a more corporate model.

What will be next for them?