13203 research outputs found
Sort by
Bounding Forward
Get PDFIn the race to save the planet from climate change, resilience has been misconstrued as sustaining historic conditions. But some of them are undesirable and others no longer feasible. Adaptive governance can promote transformation to help communities frustrated with current conditions
Trustees and Officers of Indiana University, v.3: 1982-2018
No full textThe third volume in an ongoing collection of biographies of trustees and officers of Indiana University. This volume covers the years 1982 to 2018. Two earlier volumes covered 1820-1950 and 1950-1982.
In addition to the editing by Buckley and Fariss, the volume includes profiles written by Jerome Hall Law Library librarians Cindy Dabney (Abby Rae Stemler, William H. Strong, Eric A. Todd), Michael Maben (Thomas R. Haley, Rose E. Gallaher III, Casey B. Cox), and Richard Vaughan (Emerson Kampen, Milton J. Finebert).https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1243/thumbnail.jp
Gender Disparities in Plea Bargaining
Get PDFAcross wide-ranging contexts, academic literature and the popular press have identified pervasive gender disparities favoring men over women in society. One area in which gender disparities have conversely favored women is the criminal justice system. Most of the empirical research examining gender disparities in criminal case outcomes has focused on judges’ sentencing decisions. Few studies have assessed disparities in the steps leading up to a defendant’s conviction, where various actors make choices that constrain judges’ ultimate sentencing discretion. This Article addresses this gap by examining gender disparities in the plea-bargaining process. The results presented in this Article reveal significant gender disparities in this stage of the criminal justice system.
Female defendants are about twenty percent more likely than male defendants to have their principal initial charge dropped or reduced. These gender disparities are greater in cases involving misdemeanors and low-level felonies. In cases involving serious felonies, male and female defendants achieve similar outcomes. Defendants’ criminal histories also play a key role in mediating gender disparities. While female defendants with no prior convictions receive charge reductions more often than male defendants with no prior convictions, male and female defendants with prior convictions are afforded similar treatment. These patterns in gender disparities suggest that in these “low information” cases gender may be being used as a proxy for a defendant’s latent criminality and likelihood to recidivate.
Building upon these results and the existing literature documenting racial disparities in criminal case outcomes, the Article explores the intersection of gender and race in determining disparities in the plea-bargaining process. The results indicate that gender and racial disparities complement each other in a way that yields additive effects. The charge reduction rate for white female defendants is more than double that of black male defendants. White male and black female defendants experience similar charge reduction rates, in between those of white female and black male defendants. Consistent with the pattern of gender disparities documented in the Article, these intergroup disparities are greater in cases involving misdemeanor offenses and defendants with no prior convictions
Legislatively Overturning Fort Stewart Schools: The Trump Administration\u27s Assault on Federal Employee Collective Bargaining
Get PDFIn his Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Submission, President Trump noted that about 60 percent of Federal employees belong to a union and lamented that dealing with Federal employee unions ostensibly “consume[s] considerable management time and taxpayer resources, and may negatively impact efficiency, effectiveness, cost of operations, and employee accountability and performance.” Although he acknowledged that Federal employee unions can negotiate over fewer matters than can unions in the private sector, he nonetheless claimed that collective bargaining contracts can negatively impact agency performance, workplace productivity, and employee satisfaction. The President told Congress that “[a]gency managers will be encouraged to restore management prerogatives that have been ceded to Federal labor unions,” and that “[t]he Administration sees an opportunity for progress on this front and intends to overhaul labor-management relations.”
The Administration took such an opportunity this past April when it submitted proposed legislation to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that would revamp the statutes that authorize the Department of Defense (DOD) to operate schools on bases in the United States and overseas for military dependents. In 1990, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Fort Stewart Schools v. Federal Labor Relations Authority that teachers and other educational personnel in DOD’s domestic dependents schools could collectively bargain over wages because, unlike the majority of Federal employees, their salaries are not set by statute. DOD’s new legislative proposal contains a provision that would statutorily overturn the Fort Stewart Schools decision by granting the Secretary of Defense sole and exclusive discretion to set compensation rates in the DOD dependents schools.
Under the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute, the 1.2 million Federal employees represented by labor unions have the right to “engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment.” “Conditions of employment” is defined as “personnel policies, practices, and matters, whether established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions, except that such term does not include policies, practices, and matters . . . to the extent such matters are specifically provided for by Federal statute.” The essential holding of Fort Stewart Schools was that wages are a “condition of employment” for Federal employees and, as such, are negotiable unless they are set by statute. Most “white collar” Federal employees’ salaries are set by the Classification Act of 1949, and the salaries of employees in the skilled crafts and trades and unskilled labor positions are set by the Prevailing Rate Systems Act. But depending on the degree of disaggregation, there are over forty other separate pay systems that vary considerably in numbers of employees covered and method of determining pay. As of 2010, over 250,000 Federal employees were covered by pay plans unique to their agency. To the extent that Congress has left the head of an agency with discretion to set salaries that is not sole and exclusive, the employees in that agency may collectively bargain over wages as a result of Fort Stewart Schools.
This article argues that those bargaining rights are at risk if the Administration succeeds in eliminating the right of teachers in DOD schools to bargain over pay. It will first explain that the right of some Federal employees to bargain over wages predated the enactment of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMR Statute). This article will then describe the debate over whether Congress intended for Federal employees to bargain over pay when it enacted the statute as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and how that debate was resolved by the Supreme Court in the Fort Stewart Schools case. It will then explain how the legislation proposed by the DOD will eliminate the right of DOD teachers to bargain over pay and will identify other groups of Federal employees who may stand to lose their bargaining rights if the Administration succeeds in rolling back the Fort Stewart Schools decision
Controlling Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds for Air Quality
Get PDFThis Article tells a story that is true but seems completely wrong: Trees can make air pollution worse. Smog and ground-level ozone require two chemical ingredients to form: nitrous oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). On a warm, sunny day, these two precursors combine to form smog and ground-level ozone, a pollutant. While NOx are pollutants that are largely human-created, VOCs can originate with plants. In fact, emissions of just one type of VOC from trees exceed all human-caused emissions.
This Article presents new research on the impact of plants, especially trees, on air quality. The science is complicated and evolving, but some conclusions are possible. Different species emit greater or lesser amounts of VOCs, and emissions vary through the year. Some plant species also consume atmospheric VOCs, enough to outweigh their own emissions and thus remove VOCs from the air on net. Trees generally have an outsize impact as compared with other plants because trees are large plants and therefore large emitters. Thus, the mix of species in a given area has an impact on air quality. Building on new science, this Article argues that choosing the right trees can improve air quality. Governments should encourage the planting of trees that clean the air, while discouraging or restricting the planting of trees that contribute to air pollution. Many cities are already encouraging tree planting for a variety of environmental and other benefits, but planting the wrong trees will worsen air quality
Comments on Executive Rulemaking and Democratic Legitimacy: Reform in the United States and the United Kingdom\u27s Brexit by Susan Rose-Ackerman
Get PDFIndiana University Maurer School of Law: the first 175 years
No full textThroughout its 175-year history, the Indiana University Maurer School of Law has grown, diversified, and flourished to become of a nationally recognized law school. With strong and dedicated leadership, the school has emerged into the 21st century stronger than ever and has partnerships among with leading institutions in the world, and an alumni base that spans the globe. Preparing student for the practice of law, promoting the best interests of society, and taking a leadership role in providing solutions to the most pressing problems of society, are among the many achievements of the school and its faculty. Filled with historical photographs and engaging sidebars, this book tells the story of the individuals who built, sustained, and strengthened the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1287/thumbnail.jp
Brown at 65: How Does the Changing Racial and Ethnic Ancestry of Blacks Impact the Interpretation of School Desegregation
Get PDFINTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................2
I.RISE AND FALL OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION.........................................7
A.The Rise of School Desegregation ............................................................... 7
B.The Fall of School Desegregation................................................................ 11
II. CHANGING RACIAL ANCESTRY OF BLACKS IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHY IT MATTERS IN TERMS OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION...................16
A. Increases in Interracial Marriage Rates ...................................................... 18
B. Demise of the One-Drop Rule and the Recognition of Black Multiracials .. 21
C. Impact of Increasing Numbers of Black Multiracials ................................... 24
III. CHANGING ETHNIC ANCESTRY OF BLACKS ........................................ 28
CONCLUSION: IMPACT OF THE CHANGING RACIAL AND ETHNIC ANCESTRY OF BLACKS ON HOW TO THINK ABOUT SCHOOL DESEGREGATION ..........3
Sites of Storytelling: Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
Get PDFSupreme Court confirmation hearings have an interesting biographical feature: before nominees even say a word, many words are said about them. This feature—which has been on prominent display in the confirmation hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh—is a product of how each senator on the confirmation committee is allowed to make an opening statement. Some of these statements are, as Robert Bork remembers from his own confirmation hearing, “lavish in their praise,” some are “lavish in their denunciations,” and some are “lavish in their equivocations.” The result is a disorienting kind of biography by committee, one which produces not one all-encompassing narrative—with tensions reconciled, discrepancies explained, and the presentation of a coherent, if complex, portrait of the nominee—but rather several competing biographies, many of which directly war with each other.
For Bork, those competing biographies included a biography by Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire, in which Bork was hailed as a brilliant constitutional law scholar, a dedicated former Solicitor General, a respected judge, a real “lawyer’s lawyer”—indeed the “best qualified [Supreme Court] nominee in 50 years.” But another Bork biography communicated a much different message: Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy characterized Bork as someone who was “hostile to the rule of law,” “publicly itching to overrule” established Supreme Court precedent, and antagonistic to the rights of women and racial minorities. Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio created still another biography. In this telling, Bork was someone who “could weaken, literally with a few years, fundamental constitutional freedoms which the Supreme Court has protected throughout its history.”
By the time this biography by committee had been assembled, the portraits of Bork contradicted each other over and over again. One made Bork out to be the poster boy for judicial restraint; another made him out to be the poster boy for judicial activism. At a certain moment, he was a kind, compassionate man with a wonderful sense of humor; at another, he was a heartless ideologue with attitudes that were at once racist and sexist. Listen for a little while and you’d hear Bork portrayed as a selfless public servant; keep listening and you’d learn he sat in the pocket of big business.
In other words, Bork’s biography by committee contained two stories: one that made him out to be essentially the best of all judges, and another that made him out to be essentially the worst of all judges. All this of course unfolded before Bork was even allowed to respond with his own autobiographical retort. So, it is no wonder that, while sitting in his nominee chair listening to these competing biographies, Bork felt as if he were listening to the description of “not one person . . . but several,” as he later recounted in his post-confirmation memoir The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law.
This experience has repeated itself in virtually every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since confirmation hearings became a regular part of the nomination process in 1955. There is a lot to regret about this. Partisan bickering doesn’t need any additional forums nor is the country really at a loss for grandstanding. At the same time, however, the hearings do offer a rare opportunity to study how this very public stage serves as an important site for storytelling about America’s highest court, about the people we deem fit to sit there, and about justice more generally
LEAD Us Not into Temptation: A Response to Barbara Fedders’s “Opioid Policing”
Get PDFIn “Opioid Policing,”1 Barbara Fedders contributes to the law review literature the first joint scholarly analysis of two drug policing innovations: Seattle’s Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program and the Angel Initiative, which originated in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Even while welcoming the innovation and inspiration of these programs, she remains clear-eyed about the need to scrutinize their potential downsides. Her work is crucially timed. While still just a few years old, LEAD has been replicated many times2 and appears likely to be replicated still further—and to be written about much more. Inspired by Fedders’s call for a balanced take, this Response examines a variety of sources that have described the LEAD program, investigating what they tell us about the ability of commentators to examine (and contribute to) the list of the program’s costs and benefits. Part I examines the way in which the positive potential of this program is described, and possible tendencies to paint a picture that may be unnecessarily rosy. Part II turns to the other side of the equation and highlights potential risks that commentators may downplay, or even compound