The Echo: April 30, 1993

Campus visits wind down with Vision ’93 – Taylor shows gratitude to donors – Taylor honored for tradition, high principles – Perspectives and Issues – Chemistry, physics field day challenges high schoolers – Library to obtain new on-line system – Burundi to receive computers – English Hall to honor National Day of Prayer – Taylor to make first trip to China – Archives inventories Bibles – New ministry to assist local housing needs – My 2 Cents Worth – The competition continues… – Trojan horse returns to ICC competition, tradition continues – Rules, regulations established, boundaries mapped out for Trojan horse escapades – Taylathon race course – Bikers, trikers to overtake pedestrian paths tomorrow – Student Echoes – Play ball – Taylor team falls in semi-finals – Track teams win home invitational – Spring weather kind to Trojan athletics – High school students to compete in field day – Upcoming concerts: – Users group to provide ‘Mac’ tips – Mens’, womens’ choruses set for next yearhttps://pillars.taylor.edu/echo-1992-1993/1023/thumbnail.jp

The Echo: May 6, 1994

Felon spotted on campus – Chapel to recognize achievements – Harrison to retire – Little Theatre to host final production tomorrow – Letters to the editor submissions: – Letters to the editor – Students to receive new IDs – Dimos play at pinball tourney – My 2 Cents Worth – The tradition rolls on …1954–1994 – Bikers, trikers set to ‘hit the sidewalks’ – Taylathon teams ready to race – Taylathon race course – Trikers ready to r ace – Trojan Horse waiting to make an appearance – Ringley battles cancer; undergoes treatment – Winterholter nears end of college baseball career – Teams enjoy successful week – U Make The Callhttps://pillars.taylor.edu/echo-1993-1994/1024/thumbnail.jp

Britishness and Muslim-ness: differentiation, demarcation and discrimination in political discourse

The Britishness agenda found in political speeches, reporting and opinion editorials is here posited as a form of ‘new racism’, as it emphasises the difference between ‘them’, Muslims, and ‘us’, non-Muslim Britons, and uses that difference as a defining demarcation. Twenty-first-century political discourse invested in the Britishness agenda works to eradicate distinctions between British Muslims and non-British Muslims, and even the distinction between those guilty of terrorist atrocities and those who have nothing to do with them. Muslims are framed within this discourse as the problem within multiculturalism, and the problem with multiculturalism. The difficulty of a demand to ‘be more British’ is laid bare

Whose Trojan Horse? The Dynamics of Resistance Against IFRS

The introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) has been debated in the United States since at least the accounting scandals of the early 2000s. While publicly traded firms around the world are increasingly switching to IFRS, often because they are required to do so by law or by their stock exchange, the Securities Exchange Com-mission (“SEC”) seems to have become more reticent in recent years. Only foreign issuers have been permitted to use IFRS in the United States since 2007. By contrast, the EU has mandated the use of IFRS in the consolidated financial statements of publicly traded firms since 2005. In the United States, IFRS, which are promulgated by the London-based Inter-national Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”), are often seen as an at-tempt by Europeans to colonize U.S. accounting standard setting, and as an element of a foreign legal system alien to U.S. capital markets and securities law. In this article, we suggest that this perception is actually a myth, which we attempt to debunk. In fact, the introduction of IFRS in Europe, particularly Continental Europe, was far from controversial. IFRS were promoted by Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions and strongly support-ed by the United States, particularly when capital markets internationalized in the 1990s. They were—and still are—in many ways at odds with the Continental European accounting cultures of countries such as France and Germany, on whose examples we draw. In spite of the EU mandate for publicly traded firms, accounting law in these jurisdictions has still not fully absorbed IFRS; nevertheless, for now a solution that reconciles traditional and international accounting has been found. In this article, we explore the problems and resistance of IFRS in Continental Europe and seek to draw lessons for the United States. We argue that given the shared heritage of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and IFRS as investor-oriented accounting standards, their introduction in the United States should be considerably easier than it was on the other side of the Atlantic

Is I-Voting I-Llegal?

The Voting Rights Act was passed to prevent racial discrimination in all voting booths. Does the existence of a racial digital divide make Internet elections for public office merely a computer geek\u27s pipe dream? Or can i-voting withstand scrutiny under the current state of the law? This i-Brief will consider the current state of the law, and whether disproportionate benefits will be enough to stop this extension of technology dead in its tracks

Is I-Voting I-Llegal?

The Voting Rights Act was passed to prevent racial discrimination in all voting booths. Does the existence of a racial digital divide make Internet elections for public office merely a computer geek\u27s pipe dream? Or can i-voting withstand scrutiny under the current state of the law? This i-Brief will consider the current state of the law, and whether disproportionate benefits will be enough to stop this extension of technology dead in its tracks

Recrafting a Trojan Horse: Thoughts on Workplace Governance in Light of Recent British Labor law Developments

In June of 2000, Britain established a statutory union recognition procedure applicable to all private and public employers with more than twenty workers.For a country with a history of voluntarism in labor-management relations, the creation of a legal mechanism by which unions could compel recognition from employers was a major change. The Labour Party government modeled its new approach to a considerable extent on our National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).3 Unions seeking statutory recognition must apply through a government agency; disagreements over proposed unit size or scope are to be resolved early by the agency; the union must show majority support to succeed; this support can be demonstrated through nonelectoral means but upon agency review a supervised election may be ordered; and any such election is preceded by a campaign period of several weeks during which rules against employer threats and intimidation are enforced by the agency. In addition, paralleling a philosophy ascribed to our Taft-Hartley Amendments, Britain\u27s new recognition procedure reflects a commitment to employee freedom of choice. Workers may decide either to join a union that seeks legal recognition or to refrain from doing so. The public policy value attached to having union recognition and collective bargaining enforced through a government agency derives primarily from that arrangement being freely chosen by the employees, not from the preferred status of collective bargaining. Domestic criticism of the NLRA has persisted with some intensity since the early 1980s. Union leaders and many labor relations scholars in the United States believe that the statute as written and enforced has played an important role in the steady decline of union organizing and collective bargaining among private sector employees. British union leadership, aware of such widespread misgivings, had reason to fear the arrival of this gift from across the Atlantic The concern was that an American-style union recognition system, based on adversarial representation campaigns and government-supervised elections, would invite if not encourage many of the same problems of excessive delay, employer abuse, and protracted and bitter litigation that have become entrenched under the NLRA. The British statutory procedure is now in its seventh year of operation, and American-style problems have yet to materialize on any substantial scale. Although the number of employees organized through statutory recognition awards has been lower than anticipated, there has been a surge in voluntary recognition agreements negotiated in the shadow of the law. Further, the statutory procedure itself seems to have been well received by both labor and management, with only eight instances of judicial review sought for the first 600 agency determinations. It remains early in the life of this new approach-NLRA implementation in its seventh year (1941) hardly resembled or even foreshadowed the changed legal circumstances that emerged in ensuing years and decades. Further, there are culture-specific factors involved in British experience with workplace governance that caution against easy transplantation, even as concepts borrowed from the NLRA are likely to evolve very differently in British legal soil. Still, initial developments under this recognition procedure may offer some guidance as we contemplate ways to reinvent our own statutory approach to labor-management relations. This article briefly addresses two aspects of the new British procedure, with an eye toward what they might contribute in the American setting. Part I discusses the multi-stage recognition arrangement, and why it has stimulated both sides to seek voluntary recognition agreements at various points. Part II examines the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), the agency that administers and enforces the statute, focusing on how the CAC\u27s decisionmaking framework and its method of appointment have contributed to an efficient and non-partisan adjudication process. In each part, the article suggests ways in which elements of the British experience might relate to the American context. A threshold question is whether to bother with such an inquiry as part of a symposium addressing the future of governing the workplace. Both the United States and Britain have experienced a steady erosion in union membership since the 1970s, and there is reason to believe that union density may continue to decline, especially in the private sector. Given that collective bargaining agreements have been supplanted by statutes and regulations as the principal source of employee protections in the United States, why discuss ways to promote or preserve such collective agreements when examining possible new directions for workplace governance? Paul Weiler wrestled with this question nearly two decades ago, and as in so many other respects he was ahead of his time. Professor Weiler recognized that collective bargaining was unlikely to regain its former position of pre-eminence for reasons that went well beyond the inadequacies of the NLRA legal regime. He pointed unflinchingly to American workers\u27 general perception of the labor market as delivering decent wages and employment conditions under a loosely competitive structure, and to workers\u27 general reluctance to embrace traditionally hierarchical union organizations as an alternative to individual bargaining with their employers.9 At the same time, Weiler made a powerful case for why the nonunion labor market operates to distort workers\u27 perceptions and expectations regarding the economic advantages associated with their jobs.\u270 Absent some form of ongoing workplace representation, employees often are denied benefits in a market-oriented system. They also are left unable to remedy employer misconduct much of the time in a rights-based regime. Weiler\u27s proposed solution included a different kind of employee participatory mechanism-mandated by statute at the workplacespecific level and charged with addressing a range of distributional decisions inside the firm. 2 Political realities in the United States may well preclude such a distinctive statutory approach, although a version of Weiler\u27s proposal has been developing in Britain with assistance from the European Community. 3 Meanwhile, labor organizations authorized to speak for employees as a group remain relevant in the American setting for the economic and participatory reasons Weiler elegantly recounted. Accordingly, for present purposes I accept that unions should and will continue to play a role in overcoming certain market-based barriers to improved working conditions, in monitoring the effective delivery of statutory rights, and in offering employees a meaningful voice to address their employer\u27s resource allocation policies. I further assume (with guarded optimism) that incremental reform of our labor law statute may become possible within the foreseeable future. Against this background, I focus on two aspects of Britain\u27s recent statutory experience with union recognition that warrant attention when considering revisions to our own statutory scheme

The Muslim problematic: Muslims, state schools and security

Muslims are folk-devils that mark the ubiquitous moral panic. For some, the idea of the Muslim problematic signifies a long and worrying trend of creeping ‘Islamification’ of state schools. For others, the discourse of the Muslim problematic reflects the ongoing racial patholigisation of Britain’s minoritised communities. One thing is for certain, the current debate marks a significant moment in the nature and function of the neoliberal state as it reframes race relation policy in Britain in the light of the security agenda. The Trojan Horse affair, surrounding claims of infiltration of radical Islam in state-run schools, marks a significant moment in the embedding of the security agenda in Britain’s inner city schools through the medium of the Prevent agenda. It argues that one of the best ways of understanding the security agenda is by locating it within a broader sociological and historical context of the functioning of the racial state

THE “TROJAN HORSE” PLOT AND THE FEAR OF MUSLIM POWER IN BRITISH STATE SCHOOLS

In 2014, an alleged “Trojan Horse” plot to Islamise education in a number of schools attended predominantly by diverse Muslim pupils in the inner-city wards of Birmingham raised considerable questions. Ofsted investigations of 21 schools explored these concerns at the behest of the then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove MP. At the head of this so-called plot, a certain Tahir Alam, once a darling of New Labour’s policies on British Muslim schools, faced the brunt of the media and political furore. Based on a series of face-to-face interviews with Alam in 2015 and 2016, this paper provides a detailed insight into the allegations, the context in which they emerged, and the implications raised for young Muslims in the education system. Ultimately, as part of the government’s counter-terrorism policy the accusations of the “Islamisation” of education in these “Trojan Horse” schools foreshadowed the additional securitisation of all sectors of education. However, there was neither the evidence nor the legal justification to ratchet up anti-extremism education measures that eventually followed; namely the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The consequences of the negative attention heightened existing Islamophobia but, paradoxically, they also limited the opportunities for de-radicalisation through education