Title VI and the Constitution: A Regulatory Model for Defining ‘Discrimination’

In recent years confusion has surrounded the proper interpretation of title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance. Some courts have held that the title prohibits only intentional discrimination. Others have held that it proscribes actions having discriminatory effects as well, an interpretation that imposes a great burden on federal grantees. The Supreme Court heightened the confusion when five individual justices in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke questioned the propriety of the Court\u27s earlier adoption of an effects test for title VI. Professor Abernathy argues that this confusion results from a misdirected inquiry on the part of the courts. After a comprehensive review of pertinent legislative history, Professor Abernathy concludes that Congress did not intend title VI to require either an intent or an effects test Instead, Congress accepted a compromise position, delegating the definition of discrimination to the administrative agency responsible for implementing each affected program. As a result of his analysis, Professor Abernathy suggests standards under which agencies should adopt regulatory decisions

There is no such thing as an audit society

[First Paragraph] Any discussion of Power’s Audit Society paper of 1994 has to start by acknowledging that it has enjoyed an extraordinary degree of success for an academic paper, let alone for an academic paper about audit. His terms audit society and audit explosion have gained very wide currency within the social sciences and on the wider stages of quality journalism and serious-minded websites. Some of this is, admittedly, due to Power’s own copious output on the topic (Power, 1994a,1994b, 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2005a, 2005b), some to exegeses of it (see for instance Bowerman et al 2000, Humphrey and Owen 2000 and Courville, Parker, and Watchirs 2003)) but a great deal to admirers from all sorts of disciplines

Note: Bilingual Education - A Problem of Substantial Numbers

This unsigned note argues that the Supreme Court should reexamine the rights of language minority students under 42 U.S.C. §2000d in order to clarify its holding in Lau v. Nichols. In that case, the Court established the right of non-English speaking children to receive compensatory language instruction under that statute. The note analogizes language minority children to handicapped children who the Court has held are entitled to receive a minimal education which is geared toward their needs. Since language minority students may not be able to obtain minimal education without compensatory language instruction, they may be entitled to such instruction

Ensuring Linguistic Access in Health Care Settings: An Overview of Current Legal Rights and Responsibilities

Focuses on the language access responsibilities of healthcare and coverage providers pursuant to federal and state laws and policies

There is no such thing as an audit society

Tny discussion of Power’s Audit Society paper of 1994 has to start by acknowledging that it has enjoyed an extraordinary degree of success for an academic paper, let alone for an academic paper about audit. His terms audit society and audit explosion have gained very wide currency within the social sciences and on the wider stages of quality journalism and serious-minded websites. Some of this is, admittedly, due to Power’s own copious output on the topic (Power, 1994a,1994b, 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2005a, 2005b), some to exegeses of it (see for instance Bowerman et al 2000, Humphrey and Owen 2000 and Courville, Parker, and Watchirs 2003)) but a great deal to admirers from all sorts of disciplines.

POLICY options

End of project reportThe incomes of Irish cattle farmers benefited greatly from the reform of the CAP for beef and cereals in 1992 and more recently under Agenda 2000. In both of these reforms the institutional support prices were reduced and animal-based direct payments (DPs) were used to compensate farmers for the anticipated market price reductions

The Tutor's Role

This chapter addresses three questions about being an effective online tutor: 1. Why do we still think that online tutoring can principally draw its basis from face-to-face group processes and dynamics or traditional pedagogy? 2. Does the literature tell us anything more than we would make as an intelligent guess? 3. Do we really know what an ‘effective’ online tutor would be doing? The OTiS participants have gone some way to answering these questions, through the presentation and discussion of their own online tutoring experiences. Literature in this area is still limited, and suffers from the need for timeliness of publication to be useful. Intelligent guesses are all very well, but much better as a source of information for online tutors are the reflections and documented experiences of practitioners. These experiences reveal that face-to-face pedagogy has some elements to offer the online tutor, but that there are key differences and there is a need to examine the processes and dynamics of online learning to inform online tutoring