Where the Right Went Wrong in Southworth: Underestimating the Power of the Marketplace

When the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared in March 2000 that mandatory student activity fees at public universities do not offend the First Amendment if distributed in viewpoint-neutral fashion, the decision dealt a severe blow to the conservative movement that had both supported the challenge to fee assessments and long railed against a perceived leftist/liberal bias in higher education. The New York Times, acknowledging the political implications of the case, hailed the Court\u27s decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth as “a surprisingly broad and decisive victory for universities on an ideologically charged issue that has roiled higher education.” The decision, however, should have been anything but surprising to Scott Southworth and his right-wing benefactors. This Article argues that conservative legal advocates either seriously underestimated, or simply failed to appreciate, the sheer power of the marketplace of ideas metaphor in First Amendment jurisprudence and its inextricable connection to academe. The marketplace of ideas, it is asserted here, provides the pivotal premise for nearly all judicial decisions affecting freedom of speech on the nation\u27s college campuses. The backers of Scott Southworth failed, in turn, to realize that the Court will—quite predictably—support measures that facilitate and enhance the academic marketplace of ideas in even-handed fashion. The Article concludes that Southworth signals the willingness of the United States Supreme Court to continue its embrace of the public university as a marketplace of ideas and, perhaps more importantly from the perspective of educators such as the Author of this Article, its desire to promote that academic marketplace—however flawed and imperfect it may be— through affirmative, viewpoint-neutral programs that enhance the educational opportunities of all university students

Development of Integrated Programs for Aerospace-Vehicle Design (IPAD)

Integrated Programs for Aerospace Vehicle Design (IPAD) system design requirements are given. The information is based on the IPAD User Requirements Document (D6-IPAD-70013-D) and the Integrated Information Processing Requirements Document (D6-IPAD-70012-D). General information about IPAD and a list of the system design requirements that are to be satisfied by the IPAD system are given. The system design requirements definition is to be considered as a baseline definition of the IPAD system design requirements

Peptic hydrolysis of ovalbumin modified by acetylation,

1. 1. Two types of acetylated ovalbumin derivatives designated as N-and N,O-acetylovalbumin were prepared by treatment with ketene at pH's 5.6 and 9.0, respectively.2. 2. Both limited and extensive acetylation decreases the digestibility of ovalbumin by crystalline pepsin.3. 3. The limited digestion of the N,O-acetylovalbumin may be attributed to three influences: the acetyl groups on the seven amino groups unsubstituted in the N-acetyl derivative, those on the tyrosyl residues, and those in unidentified positions, rather than to any one of these.4. 4. The results are in agreement with the view that pepsin is of broad specificity toward protein substrates.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/32500/1/0000587.pd

Re‐evaluation of stannous chloride (E 512) as food additive

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of stannous chloride and stannous chloride dihydrate (E 512) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Stannous chloride is only permitted as food additives in one food category and no reply on the actual use level of stannous chloride (E 512) as a food additive and on its concentration in food was provided by any interested party. According to the Mintel's Global New Products Database (GNPD), stannous chloride was not labelled on any products in the EU nor in Norway. The regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is based on the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for stannous chloride (E 512), which is 25 mg Sn/kg. The mean exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) from its use as a food additive was below 1.3 μg Sn/kg body weight (bw) per day for all age groups. The 95th percentile of exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) ranged from 0.0 μg Sn/kg bw per day in all groups to 11.2 μg Sn/kg bw per day in adults. Absorption of stannous chloride from the gastrointestinal tract is low there is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Gastrointestinal irritation was reported in humans after ingestion of a bolus dose of 40 mg Sn. The Panel concluded that stannous chloride (E 512) is of no safety concern in this current authorised use and use levels

Where the Right Went Wrong in Southworth: Underestimating the Power of the Marketplace

When the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared in March 2000 that mandatory student activity fees at public universities do not offend the First Amendment if distributed in viewpoint-neutral fashion, the decision dealt a severe blow to the conservative movement that had both supported the challenge to fee assessments and long railed against a perceived leftist/liberal bias in higher education. The New York Times, acknowledging the political implications of the case, hailed the Court\u27s decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth as “a surprisingly broad and decisive victory for universities on an ideologically charged issue that has roiled higher education.” The decision, however, should have been anything but surprising to Scott Southworth and his right-wing benefactors. This Article argues that conservative legal advocates either seriously underestimated, or simply failed to appreciate, the sheer power of the marketplace of ideas metaphor in First Amendment jurisprudence and its inextricable connection to academe. The marketplace of ideas, it is asserted here, provides the pivotal premise for nearly all judicial decisions affecting freedom of speech on the nation\u27s college campuses. The backers of Scott Southworth failed, in turn, to realize that the Court will—quite predictably—support measures that facilitate and enhance the academic marketplace of ideas in even-handed fashion. The Article concludes that Southworth signals the willingness of the United States Supreme Court to continue its embrace of the public university as a marketplace of ideas and, perhaps more importantly from the perspective of educators such as the Author of this Article, its desire to promote that academic marketplace—however flawed and imperfect it may be— through affirmative, viewpoint-neutral programs that enhance the educational opportunities of all university students