Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Striking a Nerve? More on the WOU Situation

Well, I know at least one WOU student is reading the blog, because I received this email in my inbox this morning (names removed):

“Foul language is usually ill-used and I would most likely not condone it in any formal setting or sense in respects to addressing staff or important members of the college. If you really concentrate on the directions and voice, as well as tone in your recent article "More on the WOU Concealed Carry Case", then you might notice how negative and pompous you come off.

“Your simple assertions are more than amusing for an outside perspective. To be honest you come off as an arrogant ass and I would be curious to see how this carries over with most people.

“Your statements and writings call out and label/persecute students whom you do not know, nor understand who they are enough to write snotty little comments that only serve as quick words without true meaning.

“I truly hope that my person as it is never comes in contact with the thing you call your brain.”

Obvious grammatical errors aside, this individual clearly has a beef with my characterization of the University and is clearly feeling defensive as I'm alternately arrogant, foul-mouthed, and amusing. Well, either I'm hitting close to home or I have a future in stand-up comedy.

I provided this response:

“I ask you, what's the more presumptuous - false arrest and prosecution (and now conviction) or taking someone to task for it?

“I encourage you to look at the broader implications of the University's actions. America was founded on the premise that individuals have certain rights and no act of government (or in this case University administration) can take those away. If it becomes "vogue" to deny one right simply because a segment of the population doesn't value it or fears it, then none of our rights are safe.

“I have little tolerance for abuse of power and infringement of individual rights, however I don't believe I ever advocated the use of foul language when addressing members of the University body. I have, thus far, written two polite but pointed letters to University President Minahan. I have furthermore written to my State Representative and will be broadening that correspondence to include the Attorney General and governor going forward. My blog is what it is - and that is an informal repository for my thoughts and feelings - not unlike any other blog - and frequently takes a far more casual tone.

“I encourage you to take a few steps back, take a deep breath, and consider for a moment how you would feel and react if you saw an individual being falsely accused, tried and convicted simply for exercising their Civil Rights. Then you might understand where I, and many, many others are coming from, and why our tone toward Western Oregon University, its policies, and the student tribunal are more than a little hostile.”

I seriously doubt I’ll get through to this individual, but I felt I owed him at least a cogent response...

Until next time!!!


Troy said...

Excellent blog, I am glad to have stumbled across it while reading more about this fiasco at WOU. I just sent the following e-mail to Patrick Moser who acted as the "prosector" at Mr. Maxwell's school hearing, and WOU's president:

Dear Sirs,

The more I read about the unlawful and unethical treatment of Jeff Maxwell at the hands of WOU, the more I am disappointed in the school and the unlawful policies being enforced. After dropping all charges, the Polk county District Attorney specifically stated in a letter to the OFF's lawyer that, "I believe the Monmouth Police Department issued the citation in good faith and that there was an arguable violation. However, a careful reading of the statute and the facts led me to conclude the charge was not in the best interest of justice."

The District Attorney realizes that Mr. Maxwell was not violating any laws, and that Oregon Revised Statute 166.170 specifically states "the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly."

If Mr. Maxwell was not violating any law, and any rules, regulations, or restrictions the school might try to enforce on him in regards to firearms is in violation of Oregon Revised Statute 166.170, why has the school persisted in attacking him, requiring a mental evaluation and mandatory 10-page paper? Why does WOU have policies with restrictions firearms in defiance of Oregon State law?

Troy Newton
A concerned supporter of the law

Fingolfen said...

Great letter - I've been reading comments on several of the firearms boards that a lot of people are following suit. Hopefully everyone is taking an equally respectful tone in their direct correspondence.