University of Oregon President Richard Lariviere was fired Monday by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education after a series of decisions which conflicted with the board’s policies. The board oversees the seven public universities which make up the Oregon University System, and its 12 members voted unanimously to dismiss Lariviere.

The board chose to extend Lariviere’s contract last June by only one year, and speculation that it would not be renewed seemed to be confirmed last Saturday when Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber said the board “would be fully justified” in letting Lariviere go. Yet few expected that Monday’s board meeting would result in a move to terminate Lariviere’s contract within the next 30 days.

The board had criticized Lariviere for seeking more financial autonomy for the University of Oregon, including a proposal in January which called for the institution to have its own governing board of directors separate from the state. It was also revealed in September that the university had given salary raises to faculty members last spring even though Lariviere had previously agreed to the admonition of the board not to do so. Although Kitzhaber claims “[Lariviere’s] actions show little regard for the needs of the rest of the university system, other campuses and the state,” the president has gained the support of University of Oregon faculty and staff.

Our own University is governed by the 16-member Board of Visitors, which oversees no other institutions, but faces similar difficulties in maintaining self-sufficiency while working with persons appointed by the state government. University President Teresa A. Sullivan has undertaken initiatives similar to those supported by Lariviere, such as seeking higher wages for workers and advocating a new financial model which allows more flexibility in the directed use of allocated funds. Sullivan has proven more successful insofar as she has worked with, and not against or behind the back of, her governing Board.

Moreover, the Oregon board’s structure has caused what some call policymaking by the “lowest common denominator”: In directing the financial and legislative workings of seven universities, the board is not only inefficient, but also cannot adequately address the inequalities in enrollment and performance which arise between its institutions. The University, however, benefits from a Board whose specific focus makes for better and more streamlined operations.

Oregon’s board was wrong in firing Lariviere as early as Monday, as no recent developments since the University of Oregon faculty and staff raises were discovered in September had occurred to justify doing so. Instead, the board should have honored Lariviere’s contract extension to next June before making a decision; indeed, griping about Lariviere having ignored mutual agreements, before doing the same by terminating his contract, is not only hypocritical on the board’s part but will serve to reduce trust in it for futurity.

As state appropriations for higher education decrease, governing bodies such as the Oregon board cannot punish those public universities which would seek fiscal responsibility. Although this has not been an issue at our university, Lariviere’s firing nevertheless should be viewed as alarming. The Board of Visitors, in facilitating the procedures of only one school, is able to maintain a good working relationship with our University, but the scenario in Oregon serves as a reminder for the need of communication and transparency.

AMBIGUITY and vagueness are two well-known devices that allow politicians to present ideas or plans to a wider audience without actually having to state the specifics of said ideas and plans. Often, if such people were to express their intentions clearly, they might not get a desired reaction or approval from the majority. Unfortunately, it seems we have come face to face with a similar scenario here at the University.

The University administration is considering the removal of the beloved magnolia trees that surround the iconic Rotunda to allow for repairs to the building’s leaky roof as part of the greater restoration of the Academical Village. Many students, faculty and staff are appalled and angry about the recent decision. I myself am disheartened by the move after having come to admire the aesthetically pleasing vision of generations-old trees flanking the Rotunda.

In a recent email to third- and fourth-year students, President Teresa A. Sullivan acknowledged the students’ concerns. Sullivan outlined the Board of Visitors’ reasons for considering the removal of the trees, including the fact that the magnolias are nearing their projected lifespan and reside too closely to the Rotunda. Sullivan continued, “Arborists — our own as well as outside experts — believe that the repair work on the Rotunda will only exacerbate the trees’ already fragile state.”

Yet, is the fragility or closeness of the trees the real issue at hand? The precise age of the magnolias is not even known, according to a statement from University arborist Jerry Brown that was quoted in The Daily Progress. A separate statement issued by the University’s Office of the Architect said the replacement of the roof “will impact the magnolias due to required scaffolding, materials lifts and access points.” This makes it sound as though it is the roof of the Rotunda that will impact the trees and not the trees’ fragile state that will necessitate their removal.

These two accounts savor of inconsistency. Even the aesthetic quality of the trees is under attack by the Office of the Architect, which claimed that a grown magnolia is “a massive tree [of a scale] not appropriate adjacent to historic buildings.” Such a difference in scale, however, has never seemed to prevent the University from advertising and cherishing the iconic building, trees and all, in many different venues such as its current place on the University website.

The statement from the Office of the Architect further defends the removal of the magnolias by saying “although some of the trees could be preserved throughout the process,” the trees will have to be removed eventually for the larger Rotunda restoration project. In other words, it seems there is no pressing need to remove the trees at least until after the roof repairs are completed.

Larry Steward, former assistant director of Grounds, also brought up the history of past Rotunda renovations in a comment on the online student petition for saving the magnolias. “We completely renovated and restored the Rotunda in 1973 to 1976 for the US bicentennial without removing those magnolias,” he said. “There was scaffolding around the building then, why do the magnolias have to be removed now?” If the Rotunda was successfully renovated then without removing the magnolias, what methods were used to spare the trees? It would behoove the University to explore all possible renovation options and review this prior knowledge at its disposal before making any definitive decision to remove the trees.

University Architect David Neuman cited several reasons for felling the trees and told The Cavalier Daily (“BOV discusses Rotunda repairs,” Nov. 11), “There’s a design in progress that will be more Jeffersonian. The original Jefferson design did not have any of [these magnolia trees].” While the trees are not technically “Jeffersonian” or part of Jefferson’s original design, they have gained support from the University community after having been here for generations. Neuman’s reasoning seems feeble and does not provide a convincing rationale for cutting down the magnolias.

University spokeswoman Carol Wood acknowledged the passion students are showing for the Rotunda, but she also defended Neuman by noting that “as the University architect, he is called on to make difficult decisions, and in this case he cannot put the Rotunda in jeopardy,” according to The Daily Progress.

Third-year Engineering student Yatzek Krzepicki started a petition to save the trees, which has now garnered more than 3,000 signatures. He too is confused by the University’s reasoning and was quoted in The Daily Progress as saying initial “statements seemed to focus on scaffolding and concerns about potential storm damage. Now, [Sullivan] only cites the end of [the magnolias’] lifespan, and implies that the root structure has some role to play.”

Similarly, fourth-year College student Travis Dennis said in an email, “[T]he guiding philosophy behind certain choices has not been clearly stated, and it seems much of the UVA family would find it disagreeable if it were made plain.” This kind of observation further suggests the University’s vague and often conflicting statements hark back to the ambiguity of the political arena.

So my fellow students, staff and faculty, if you do not want to see our generations-old magnolias being torn down, sign Krzepicki’s petition on Change.org as a first step toward defending our trees. Let us fulfillPresident Sullivan’s prediction that “we will preserve the Rotunda and enable future generations to value and celebrate it” by keeping our beautiful magnolias intact during renovations and demanding more transparency from the University as it moves forward with renovation plans.

Devon Darrow’s column normally appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at d.darrow@cavalierdaily.com.

THE HOLIDAY shopping season was off to another chaotic start during last week’s Black Friday. As has become customary, incidents of violence, injury and over-the-top shopper intensity ensued. Particularly noteworthy was one woman who incapacitated several other shoppers by using pepper spray to clear her path to the Xbox she desired.

But a new feature of this Black Friday made it more lamentable, as customers had the opportunity to start shopping even earlier than usual. Some stores, such as Walmart and Toys-R-Us, began opening their doors Thanksgiving night, before the midnight openings of a multitude of other retailers. This movement toward an earlier Black Friday was unfortunate, as it tarnished Thanksgiving day with additional commercial traditions. Although there have always been commercial aspects of Thanksgiving — buying large amounts of food and watching football and the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, to name a few of the largest — the rabid materialism and commercialism of Black Friday is at odds with the overall message of Thanksgiving, and it is regrettable that the two occasions are becoming more intertwined. Nevertheless, trying to stop Black Friday is impractical, and the best one can do to maintain the Thanksgiving message is to make sure that subsequent Thanksgivings do not get overshadowed.

The disregard for other people and blatant greed displayed on Black Friday highlight shoppers’ strong self-interest as they look forward to the winter holidays, which will include the giving and receiving of gifts. But by starting the holiday shopping season earlier and earlier, a fascination with gift giving threatens to undermine the core ideas of Thanksgiving.

From a business standpoint, it seems very unlikely that stores will change their Black Friday operating hours — more than $11 billion was spent this year. There is a need, then, for a countermovement that supports the uniting and community-centered aspects of Thanksgiving.

The Occupy Wall Street movement urged people to protest Black Friday, as such greed is the opposite of the movement’s professed goals: Camping outside of superstores is certainly not the image Occupy wants to promote. A similar movement may be needed in the future to protect Thanksgiving. People who are against the increasing commercialization of the year’s largest day of thanks can take a stand against Black Friday, though, by helping their communities instead of protesting.

Simply protesting or abstaining from shopping on Black Friday will not do much to halt it. Millions of people will inevitably continue to seek the deals offered by stores. It seems reasonable that Thanksgiving could receive an influx of charitable movements, though, especially to help combat Black Friday. The Salvation Army, toy drives, fundraising sponsored by businesses and other initiatives already help underscore the ideas of generosity and goodwill around Christmas, despite the holiday’s commercial aspects. Similar charity initiatives could help remind people what Thanksgiving is about: Being content with what one has.

Instead of following advertisements that lead them to want more, individuals can channel the Thanksgiving spirit, if they do not already, by making donations of money or food to local charities or by helping to ensure that those who may not otherwise have a Thanksgiving meal receive one. Large store chains can help do more than stir up shopping frenzies around Thanksgiving by following suit, albeit on a much larger scale.

The goal of increased charity would not be to halt Black Friday. Rather, the goal would be to keep people aware of commitments they can make that are not only to themselves. With any luck, there will be a realization that the days surrounding Thanksgiving should not be principally labeled as prime shopping time. With an increase in charity, a happy medium could be reached. With the potential for future Black Fridays to start even earlier, it would be nice if fervent consumerism at least coexisted with — rather than overshadowed — enduring sentiments of gratitude and charity on Thanksgiving.

Alex Yahanda’s column normally appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.