Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' Temporarily Wins Right To Call Himself An 'Engineer' (vice.com)
Mats Jarlstrom, an electrical engineer fined by the Oregon engineering board for calling himself an "engineer" and talking about traffic lights, has been granted the temporary right by a judge to both publicly call himself an "engineer" and talk about traffic lights. Jason Koebler reports via Motherboard: Last month, Jarlstrom sued the engineering board for violating his First Amendment rights, and Tuesday a federal judge gave Jarlstrom the temporary right to call himself an engineer, pending the results of his case. "Plaintiff Jarlstrom may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately his theories relating to traffic lights throughout the pendency of this litigation as long as [his] communications occur outside the context of a paid employment or contractual relationship," Anna Brown, a federal district court judge for the district of Oregon, ordered. He "may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' throughout the pendency of this litigation." Jarlstrom's attorneys say this is a promising sign and a "critical first step in protecting Oregonians' First Amendment rights."
This is surely a triumph for sanitation engineers everywhere!
Except the dude is an engineer. He's an electrical engineer
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Having an engineering degree makes you an engineer, in the same way that having a PhD makes you a doctor, or having a masters in the universe makes you He-Man. If Oregon wants to legislate having a specific certification to call yourself a very specific title and practice a very specific profession, fine but they can't change the English language where the word engineer has already meant something for centuries, nor can the change the fact that he practices electrical engineering in a professional manner.
He didn't lie about his qualifications. He is fully qualified as an engineer - with a degree from a top-notch university.
He just isn't certified as one in Oregon because he has never worked as one there.
He did not present himself as one in any scenario where government has reasonable justification to restrict the usage of the title. He wasn't trying to sell a bridge design or anything. He was just publicly commenting on public infrastructure and stated the qualifications he has to form those opinions - he didn't try to get employment.
It is a much more complicated case than you let on.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Reminds me of a Jewish clerk in a Swiss patent office who dabbled in physics and thought he was a Physicist.
> under Oregon law you must be licensed to be an engineer
To work as an engineer, you mean.
There can be a slight tension between degreed engineers who don't especially need registration for large employers, research or other well paid jobs not requiring their registration, and some registered engineers. Some registered engineers have overblown egos, that I think suffer from "big fish in a small pond" conceits in small, pedestrian firms. Obviously there are some small firms that are not "pedestrian".
I worked for a large, wealthy company, decades ago. Some of the best hotshots, including MIT, CalTech etc alums, never got registered, and worked with the most difficult, advanced stuff. Some registered discipline engineers were viewed as lesser lights that were less intellectually powerful and somewhat expendable, best given the more routine work, checking the others work and signing off...
He shouldn't be allowed to call himself an engineer
The guy is an engineer. Why should he have to lie about that fact?
While generally true, in Oregon they are only given the power of regulating certain trades and types of engineering.
You can absolutely write words in a non-commercial setting and claim anything, their rules don't (can't) touch that.
All the industry boards like this are full of rednecks in Oregon. It is unlikely they consulted anybody with a clue before issuing the fine. These would be civic engineers with experience mostly in road building.
Why does there need to be a distinction in name?
What someone refers to themselves as "engineer", "technician", "manager", "consultant", etc. is arbitrary and liable to interpretation, misrepresentation (e.g. a "doctor" of mathematics), etc.
If you are AT ALL interested in hiring a qualified person, you go by qualifications. Being a member of a particular organisation, holding a certain certificate or licence, etc. Not by what they refer to themselves as.
Given that every electrician, gas-fitter, window-installer, etc. in my country has to be registered for their work to be building-reg compliant or legal, no matter what they call themselves or whether they were calling themselves an electrician for 30 years before "part P" certifications were a thing, I don't see that it's a burden.
And then you don't have to live in fear that, despite calling myself a mathematician because I have a mathematics degree, and calling myself a scientist because I have a scientific outlook on life and a computer science degree, someone might take me to court for saying that informally in a complaint letter.
Protecting a generalised word like "engineer" should be treated like trademarking it. You shouldn't be able to. But equally someone shouldn't be able to say they are a "Engineer Registered with the Institute of Engineering" unless they actually are.
"Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.
The judge has called this right.
And if you want to protect something, protect the qualification. Which you can certificate, number, provide a searchable list so anyone can verify that Fred Bloggs is actually the Dipl.Ing. that he claims to be and it hasn't been rescinded in the years since. And which anyone who relies on them actually BEING a qualified engineer (e.g. skyscraper building firms, aircraft manufacturers, etc.) is required to check before they rely on their work.
Not meaning to offend any 'official' engineers here - I understand the work that goes into an engineering degree, and I understand the legal and ethical need to protect the title from pretenders. What I really don't get is that people automatically place more trust in the opinions of an engineer, (or a doctor, etc), than people who don't hold the title, yet have similar or greater accomplishments in the field.
I've spent my life working in the electronics field. I once worked for a degreed electrical engineer whose idea of heatsinking a component on a PCB was blobbing some heatsink compound on it. (No, I'm not kidding). This same engineer casually implemented some resistor-diode logic between 74HC logic inputs and the outside world, without so much as a couple of protection diodes from the inputs to the supply rails. In this case the 'outside world' happened to be various points in the noisy, spikey electrical system of a large military vehicle. The design was being field-tested just prior to production. 'Nuff said. A bit later in my career, I worked for a guy who, (thankfully), actually merited his engineer's title. But he told me about an engineer who once worked for him, who couldn't understand why trying to start his car with a 12-volt lantern battery wasn't working.
There are smart, knowledgeable, competent people, and there are incompetent fools. In my experience, a degree, (or lack thereof), is no kind of an indication of which category a given person falls into.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Licensing is not a prerequisite to work as an engineer, but it is a prereq to sign official design documents that fall under various public safety regs as required by state law. Nearly all engineers working are not PEs. It is actually more unusual to have a PE as most states make this expensive to maintain.
The whole concept of not being allowed to say that you're an engineer when in fact you are one is preposterous.
The man is totally in his right to sue for his free speech and against a totally unfair an ridiculous fine.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
I'm a engineer from Virginia. If I go to Oregon, and tell someone I'm an engineer, I'd apparently be breaking Oregon law because I'm not licensed in Oregon. That doesn't make me any less of an engineer, it only makes me ineligible to practice engineering when I cross the Oregon state line. These officials are clearly stepping all over this engineer's constitutional right to call himself an engineer, and if you don't believe me, you can simply google some case law at the SCOTUS level.
Just another day in Paradise
"there was fuck all need for him to claim himself a professional engineer"
He did not claim to be a "professional engineer", he claimed to be an engineer. He is an engineer, he has a degree in engineering and does engineering for his work. The powers that be in Oregon got upset about this guy pointing out that those so called "professional" engineers that work for the state did not do their job correctly. They thought they could shut him up with a fine. It blew up in their face and now the distinction between "engineer" and "professional engineer" will be set in law with this case.
I suspect they pulled this stunt before to make people keep quiet about where they screwed up but this guy fought back. If there is anyone making a mockery of being a "professional engineer" it is the people in the Oregon government.
All the industry boards like this are full of rednecks in Oregon. It is unlikely they consulted anybody with a clue before issuing the fine. These would be civic engineers with experience mostly in road building.
The NY Times had an article about this case a month or two ago and in the article they listed multiple other cases in Oregon where this sort of thing had happened. That included a person who had been licensed in Oregon for decades and then retired, but then testified in court on behalf of his daughter in a land dispute.
So it's not a one-off problem. It's standard operating procedure there.
Under Oregon law, you have to be a licensed engineer to call yourself one publicly. For other states, they add clarifications like "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer"
No, Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Common sense would be not to write to the engineering licensing body while illegally and falsely claiming to be an engineer.
Common sense would dictate it, which is why Mats Jarlstrom never did that. Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
So much wrong here. No, you don't have to add PE to the title engineer for it to be the illegal use of the term. Using the title engineer where professional engineering can reasonably be assumed is the test. He crossed the line on this by using "engineer" to reinforce his opinions on a technical subject. I hope it costs him a small fortune in court.
But it could not be reasonably assumed that he was a PE based on his words, which were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
He doesn't even call himself an engineer. He just says he has an engineering degree from Sweden.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
He is not a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon. Claiming to be an engineer is lying about his qualifications, because to claim to be an engineer you must be licensed.
His exact words were:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
No reasonable person could believe he is implying he is a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon from this statement.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
What he was fined for doing was using the term "engineer" to describe himself while doing it.
No, it is much more sinister, the board wouldn't tolerate that he was using methods used by engineers.
You don't believe that, did you? I didn't.
But there was a thread about this on a Danish engineering forum some time ago, and someone dug up this:
"By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon 's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).
By doing so through the use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control systems, and through the use of the science of analysis, review, and application of traffic data systems to advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom engaged, specifically, in traffic engineering under OAR 820-040-0030(1)(b) and (2)(a).
By engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)"
From the correspondance: https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
Eh. I'm pretty sure the "public" in your "public opinion" above doesn't give a hell about this case because:
1) They don't know about this case, nor do they care, nor will they ever.
2) They think this is how things work anyway, because it is. Language is a shared construct and the consensus is "engineer" means you have an engineering degree, while more formal terms ("licensed" or "professional" etc.) signify greater formality when needed.
3) The plaintiff has a commonsense, grokable, gut-feeling-it's-right position. The OR board has a nitpicky, facially counterintuitive position that manages to come across as both unfair and "over-regulatory". Which one sounds like an argument that tends to go over well with "the public"?
4) The public is generally aware of the 1st Amendment and has a vague notion that it's good. To the extent they understand what it protects, I'd wager they believe it covers "stopping the government from fining you for truthfully describing yourself in a public consultation regarding government activity."
5) If you took a nationwide poll of the non-technical folks that make up "the public", asking them why they don't like—or don't trust, or have a low opinion of—engineers and other science-types, "'misrepresenting licensure status' by truthfully communication educational background" wouldn't make the Top 25. In fact, it may not be mentioned once by a single person.
So... no, I don't think this case lowers "public opinion for all engineers." On the other hand, the handwringing pedantry (in favor of the OR board) you see all over this thread probably only reinforces low public opinion of engineers as handwringing pedants.
Nothing posted to