Why was a hugely misleading "No on Measure 49" mass mailing sent from the Lewis & Clark Law School? If this bunch of B.S. reflects the quality of the Oregon school's legal analysis, I feel sorry for the law students.
I got the letter yesterday. The return address said:
James L. Huffman
Erskine Wood Sr. Professor of Law
Lewis & Clark Law School
5340 S.W. Hewett Blvd.
Portland, OR 97221
I won't dignify Huffman's diatribe with any more than this piece of advice: if you recycle the letter, that's an insult to wood pulp that will have to associate its molecules with this garbage. Just this once, throw some paper in the trash – where the letter belongs.
Suffice it to say that nothing in Huffman's letter is accurate. To learn the truth about Measure 49, head here.
I've asked the dean of the Lewis & Clark law school, Robert Klonoff, to explain why the school is being used as a No on 49 campaign center. To email him yourself, click here. I said:
Mr. Klonoff, yesterday I got a letter from your law school (from Professor Huffman) that advocated a "No" vote on Measure 49.
My wife and I are deeply disturbed that you are allowing the law school to be used as a center for the No on 49 campaign. The law school's address is prominently displayed on the return envelope.
In addition, the letter contains many inaccuracies about Measure 49. If this letter reflects the quality of Lewis and Clark's legal analysis, I feel sorry for your students.
Professor Huffman has the right to personally advocate for ballot measures. But Lewis and Clark shouldn't be giving him a forum (and return address) for his uninformed diatribe.
Perhaps your willingness to assist with the No on 49 campaign has something to do with Lewis and Clark's own Measure 37 claims? I hope not, but some are going to jump to this conclusion.
I also emailed Vanessa Fawbush, the Lewis & Clark communications officer (a message to her can be sent here).
Please explain to me why Lewis and Clark allowed its address to be used in the anti-Measure 49 diatribe that I received yesterday from Professor Huffman.
I note that your current dean claims that Lewis and Clark doesn't take a position on political issues. But you allowed Huffman to mail his misleading letter from Lewis and Clark.
I'm an active blogger and plan to write a post about Lewis and Clark's involvement in the No on 49 campaign. I'd welcome any explanation you can give of why Huffman was allowed to use Lewis and Clark as a forum for this mass mailing.
If Huffman did this against school policy, how are you going to deal with his action? What discipline will he face? How will you inform Oregonians that the mailing was conducted under false pretenses?
Dean Klonoff has issued a statement affirming the law school's neutrality on ballot measures. Well, if that's true, let's get the misleading No on 49 letter balanced with a truthful mailing – getting things back to neutral.
Lewis & Clark should require that another letter be sent immediately to everyone who got Huffman's untruthful propaganda. It would say that Huffman wasn't authorized to use the Lewis & Clark address, and encourage the reader to visit the Yes on 49 web site for a balanced examination of this important ballot measure.
If Huffman just gets a slap on the wrist, that'll show that Lewis & Clark doesn't really care if it is used as a platform for political campaigns.
I'll share any responses I get from Klonoff or Fawbush.
[P.S. Just got this from Klonoff:
Dear Sir, Mr. Huffman does not speak for the law school. I have posted a note on the law school web site so stating. The law school is neutral on all political measures. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
OK, that's a start. But not good enough. How is the law school going to correct the "misunderstanding," now that Huffman's letter is in the hands of so many voters? That's the big question.]