In defense of the progressive stack: A strategy for prioritizing marginalized voices during in-class discussion

Progressive stacking is a strategy for prioritizing in-class contributions that allows marginalized students to speak before non-marginalized students. I argue that this strategy is both pedagogically and ethically defensible. Pedagogically, it provides benefits to all students (e.g., expanded in-class discourse) while providing special benefits (e.g., increased self-efficacy) to marginalized students, helping to address historic educational inequalities. Ethically, I argue that neither marginalized nor non-marginalized students are wronged by such a policy. First, I present a strategy for self-disclosure that reduces the risk of inadvertent, unwanted disclosure while respecting marginalized student autonomy in a manner analogous to accommodations provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Second, I argue that non-marginalized students are not wronged because such students are not silenced during discussion and because non-marginalized students benefit from the prioritization of marginalized voices

Preservation of the Family Unit in Adolescent Novels

This thesis discusses the development of the family story from the late nineteenth century to the present, beginning with What Katy Did as an example of the earlier moral story from which this genre grows. It then focuses on Little Women as the beginning of the modern family story and uses Jo from Little Women as the starting point to discuss the development of the female adolescent protagonist in these stories. And lastly, comparing Little Women to modern family life stories which began to appear about 1940, the thesis discusses changes in didacticism which have occurred since the late nineteenth century. (In the years between 1890 and 1940, stories with adolescent female protagonists focused mainly on the female alone, often as an orphan, rather than as part of a family.) In the hundred years since What Katy Did appeared, codes of female behavior and family structure have changed extensively. However, the family story has not changed as much as might be expected. Modern families in these stories (like their real counterparts) deal with such crises as divorce, abandonment, and illegitimacy. No matter what the cause of the disruption, the message underlying these novels is that the family unit is worth preserving in some form. Jo in Little Women became the prototype for the modern adolescent female in the family story. Jo is allowed to be a tomboy, to make mistakes, to be a person. In stories like What Katy Did, however, tomboys who do not automatically conform to traditional female roles are forced to accept those roles or are punished until they do. The more modern characters, who follow in Jo\u27s footsteps, are not perfect daughters, nor do they automatically become perfect mothers. They have strengths and weaknesses; they do not always know the right answer. But there is no implication that God gets even with them for their shortcomings as there is in What Katy Did. As we move to the newer family stories, the family unit is still functional. In stories such as Vera and Bill Cleaver\u27s Where the Lilies Bloom (1969) and Cynthia Voigt\u27s Dicey\u27s Song (1982), the importance of the family is clear. The preaching in these stories, however, is even less obvious than it was in Little Women. The value of the family is inherent in the novel, but the codes of behavior are not as strict. Proper behavior in the Victorian sense does not apply as much as the individual family\u27s ability to determine what behavior best serves its needs. These families can no longer depend upon society to impose traditional codes of behavior. In their isolation they have to find answers for themselves. These books show the value of the family unit and endorse ways in which the families can remain functional in a world which provides little support for the family unit

The regular army as a factor in maintaining peace in the United States.

The function of the army of the United States is to protect the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Everyone is cognizant of the accomplishments of the American forces against its foreign enemies; but there is another work, of equal importance, fraught with as great a danger, which is too often overlooked that is, the use of the army as an auxiliary force to strengthen the arm of municipal authority, in the suppression of riots and disturbances; and to maintain order, where for some reason or other, the municipal authority has been unable to cope with the situation. Wars against foreign enemies are usually of very short duration, but the war against the disturbers of the peace within the continental limits of the United States has gone on from day to day. The Armistice was signed November 11, 1918 but hardly a day has passed since then but that somewhere in this country regular troops were in some capacity or other helping in the maintenance of law and order. In the year July 1919-20, for instance regulars were on duty practically every day of the year. It is important to note the variety of occasions which called for troops and the universality of the appeal for their use. There were strikes, I.W.W. activities, race riots and floods that called for regular troops; and to name but a few of the states whence the appeal came – there was Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Indiana, Washington, Montana and Georgia. The whole history of the work of the regular army in the United States shows that although these last few years have been rather troublesome and have called for more than a due show of force the army has been doing such work since the earliest times

American Constitutional Conventions: The Judicially Unenforceable Rules That Combine With Judicial Doctrine and Public Opinion to Regulate Political Behavior

The concept of nonjusticiability, reflected primarily through the “political question” and the “standing” doctrines, fails to give the Supreme Court (and the rest of us) adequate guidance on how to resolve many constitutional disputes, such as impeachment procedures and standards, congressional expulsions, the scope of federal court jurisdiction, and the use of force abroad. These two doctrines put the Supreme Court on the horns of a false dichotomy. The Court tends to withdraw completely from an issue and from enforcing a textual passage, such as the Republican Guarantee Clause, whenever it makes a determination of nonjusticiability. Conversely, once the Court has determined that it can competently handle an issue, as it did in a recent Origination case, it tends to intervene aggressively.The Court, for example, decided in early 1992 to hear District Judge Walter Nixon\u27s claim that he should not have been impeached for bribery because the Senate did not provide sufficient procedural safeguards. Judge Nixon asserted that his case should have been heard by all the Senators, not by a committee of twelve Senators that reported back to their colleagues. If the Court feels obligated to eliminate all unfair procedures, it might resolve Nixon\u27s case on the merits. It could extend its existing procedural due process doctrine to impeachment proceedings. But once the Court starts reviewing impeachment proceedings, where can it stop? Could the Court review the impeachment of one of its own members? Later in this article, I will propose that the Court should not provide any meaningful review of either the process or substance of impeachment proceedings. But such judicial abstinence can excessively legitimate political behavior that violates constitutional norms. What if Judge Nixon had only been allowed to appear before a single, biased Senator? If the Court refused to correct that procedural abuse because it was “nonjusticiable,” the citizenry might interpret the Court\u27s decision as acomplete validation of such an impeachment. A finding of nonjusticiability in the pending Walter Nixon case may convince the Senate that it can do whatever it wants, because there is no constitutional recourse or restraint. Another perspective is needed

American Constitutional Conventions: The Judicially Unenforceable Rules That Combine With Judicial Doctrine and Public Opinion to Regulate Political Behavior

The concept of nonjusticiability, reflected primarily through the “political question” and the “standing” doctrines, fails to give the Supreme Court (and the rest of us) adequate guidance on how to resolve many constitutional disputes, such as impeachment procedures and standards, congressional expulsions, the scope of federal court jurisdiction, and the use of force abroad. These two doctrines put the Supreme Court on the horns of a false dichotomy. The Court tends to withdraw completely from an issue and from enforcing a textual passage, such as the Republican Guarantee Clause, whenever it makes a determination of nonjusticiability. Conversely, once the Court has determined that it can competently handle an issue, as it did in a recent Origination case, it tends to intervene aggressively.The Court, for example, decided in early 1992 to hear District Judge Walter Nixon\u27s claim that he should not have been impeached for bribery because the Senate did not provide sufficient procedural safeguards. Judge Nixon asserted that his case should have been heard by all the Senators, not by a committee of twelve Senators that reported back to their colleagues. If the Court feels obligated to eliminate all unfair procedures, it might resolve Nixon\u27s case on the merits. It could extend its existing procedural due process doctrine to impeachment proceedings. But once the Court starts reviewing impeachment proceedings, where can it stop? Could the Court review the impeachment of one of its own members? Later in this article, I will propose that the Court should not provide any meaningful review of either the process or substance of impeachment proceedings. But such judicial abstinence can excessively legitimate political behavior that violates constitutional norms. What if Judge Nixon had only been allowed to appear before a single, biased Senator? If the Court refused to correct that procedural abuse because it was “nonjusticiable,” the citizenry might interpret the Court\u27s decision as acomplete validation of such an impeachment. A finding of nonjusticiability in the pending Walter Nixon case may convince the Senate that it can do whatever it wants, because there is no constitutional recourse or restraint. Another perspective is needed

Adult Education Principles in a Teacher Mentoring Program: A Grounded Theory

A qualitative study using grounded theory was conducted to determine the use of adult education principles in a school mentoring program. The study was conducted in a middle school in rural South Georgia during the 2006-2007 school year. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews with 25 participants: 11 proteges, nine mentors, and 5 mentor program coordinators. Insights into the dynamics of mentoring relationships and administration of the mentoring program were illustrated by stories of selected participants. In this study, adult education principles were identified as (a) respect, (b) participation, (c) collaboration, (d) dialogue, (e) problem posing as a catalyst toward problem solving, (f) critical reflection, (g) self-direction, (h) praxis or learning for action, and (i) empowerment. By constantly sifting and sorting the data and looking at the program’s data holistically, patterns and themes emerged. Patterns showed that volunteer status, level of training, and participants’ readiness played an important role in the quality of mentoring relationships. Themes that emerged from the data included (a) communication and rapport between mentors and proteges, (b) readiness for the roles of mentors and proteges and (c) interrelation of rapport and readiness. Through the use of grounded theory methodology, it was determined that the school’s mentoring program was not conceptualized or administered as a form of adult education. Mentoring relationships within the school reflected no consistent awareness or use of adult education principles. Principles most likely to be used were respect, dialogue, collaboration, and participation. Least obvious were problem posing as a catalyst to problem-solving, critical reflection, incorporation of previous experiences, self-direction, praxis, and empowerment. Recommendations were made for more conscientious pairing of mentors and proteges, improved participant readiness, and enhanced mentor training. Most importantly mentoring programs should be viewed as adult education and mentors should be willing and trained to accept this role. Further study was recommended regarding the concept of group or multiple mentors and the general use of adult education principles in workplace training