18062 research outputs found
Sort by
Developing the Content of an Online Support System for International Students Using a Participatory Designer Approach
No full textExploring Students’ Experiences of an Internationalized University Through a Person-in-Context Lens
No full textCodes of conduct for undergraduate teaching in the top-400 universities on the Times Higher Education World University Rankings
No full text
Built for Business: The Commercial Need for Aggregate Litigation
No full textCommercial actors long have argued that class actions are bad for business. But for even longer, business groups have supported other types of aggregate litigation that closely resemble class actions, such as expansive federal bankruptcy. While critics have successfully limited national aggregation via class actions, they have not even attempted to criticize aggregation via bankruptcy.
Why have business groups attacked aggregate litigation in some cases and supported it in others? This Article provides an answer by examining aggregation’s origins and development, and what emerges, it turns out, is very much the opposite of what aggregation’s pro-business critics would have us believe. Aggregate litigation is not bad for business—it was built for business. Lawmakers throughout history have provided aggregate litigation in response to demands and advocacy by wealthy commercial actors, who always have been aggregation’s foremost advocates and beneficiaries. Over time, different aggregate devices have emerged, prospered, and perished based on their benefits to contemporaneous market actors.
Aggregation critics never have grappled with this long history. When business groups criticize aggregate litigation, they are attacking a foundational tool of their own prosperity. Any assertion that group lawsuits stymie commercial enterprise is woefully incomplete if it does not account for the pervasive commercial need for aggregate litigation
The Right to Personality: Navigating the Brave New World of Personality-Altering Interventions
No full textAs neuroscience progresses, policy makers will have an increasing arsenal of behavior-modifying interventions at their disposal to deploy in the hopes of reducing recidivism and making the criminal justice system more rehabilitative. While these interventions are promising, they also can pose grave risks to individual liberty interests that are insufficiently acknowledged, much less protected, by current jurisprudence. Specifically, the current legal regimes and proposed alternatives either fail to identify the nature of the liberty at stake by overly focusing on physical side effects to the exclusion of thought- and personality-altering side effects, reject completely the potential for these interventions to improve the justice system, or inadvertently invite the medicalization of crime. This Article proposes a balancing test centered around the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in “personality integrity.” This liberty interest has roots in the “intellectual prong” of the liberty interest referenced in the Supreme Court’s forced medication jurisprudence. This approach allows for the adoption of some beneficial interventions as technology progresses, avoids subjective assessments of “good” or “bad” personality traits, and properly protects against the coercive alteration of the core identity of the individual
Preface
No full textThis Preface is a cherished personal memory of my dear friend, colleague, and mentor, Lenore (Lee) Pogonowski. It provides a glimpse of Lee as a young college professor in the early 1970s at Western Connecticut State University, when she was integrating and expanding her knowledge gleaned from her work with the Manhattanville Music Curriculum Project into the development of a new curricular approach for teaching college freshman music education majors. Her thinking about the teaching-learning process was years ahead of its time and a small group of us were the beneficiaries of this tremendous gift. Every author in this Journal has shared vignettes of their interactions with Lee throughout the following forty decades of her teaching career. I have reviewed each and used our collective voices to develop a concluding statement regarding Lee’s legacy in the field of music education
A Work in Progress: The Legacy of Lee Pogonowski
No full textLee Pogonowski’s legacy lives on through the work of her students. I have found my own expression of this legacy through the EcoSonic Playground Project (ESPP), a community engaged music education program that I created at University of Massachusetts Lowell. This paper discusses how Lee’s work infuses the ESPP’s curriculum and program design and shows how it is a direct descendent of her philosophy, teaching, and mentoring