RFI Identification and Mitigation Using Simultaneous Dual Station Observations

RFI mitigation is a critically important issue in radio astronomy using existing instruments as well as in the development of next-generation radio telescopes, such as the Square Kilometer Array (SKA). Most designs for the SKA involve multiple stations with spacings of up to a few thousands of kilometers and thus can exploit the drastically different RFI environments at different stations. As demonstrator observations and analysis for SKA-like instruments, and to develop RFI mitigation schemes that will be useful in the near term, we recently conducted simultaneous observations with Arecibo Observatory and the Green Bank Telescope (GBT). The observations were aimed at diagnosing RFI and using the mostly uncorrelated RFI between the two sites to excise RFI from several generic kinds of measurements such as giant pulses from Crab-like pulsars and weak HI emission from galaxies in bands heavily contaminated by RFI. This paper presents observations, analysis, and RFI identification and excision procedures that are effective for both time series and spectroscopy applications using multi-station data.Comment: 12 pages, 9 figures (4 in ps and 5 in jpg formats), Accepted for publication in Radio Scienc

Bong Hits 4 Jesus: Making Sense of Free Speech in High Schools

The Supreme Court’s most recent high school speech case, Morse v. Fredericks, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007), generated much attention, perhaps more than the specific issue before the Court was worth. Much of that attention, of course, was attributable to the informal name for the case - “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” By itself that was enough to create a groundswell of curiosity and allowed the media to make the normally dry and stuffy workings of the Supreme Court sound downright fun. Beyond that, however, the case involved the intersection of a highly valued liberty, free speech, with the tumultuous setting of American high school life. Both free speech and high schools have a special place in the American psyche, and when the two collide we take special attention. Not surprisingly, the Court has often struggled with how to handle such situations, acknowledging that as emerging adults high school students have speech rights, and yet seeing schools as special environments whose primary purpose is education and not speech. For that reason the Court has struck a balance between these competing concerns, but one which typically favors the need to preserve order in schools over the speech rights of students

Property Rights and Land Use Controls: Balancing Private and Public Interests

Among the many competing interests in the field of land use controls, there is perhaps none more fundamental than the potential conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of the more general public. Indeed, at bottom land use controls can be viewed as limitations on the rights of private property owners in order to advance broader social concerns. Thus, though it is important to give attention to the variety of interest group conflicts in the land use field, any serious effort at "building cooperation across communities" must pay particular attention to the relationship of private and public rights. This article will examine the issue of the balance between private and public interests in land from three perspectives. Part I will first examine what the current balance is as reflected in federal constitutional protection of property rights under the Takings Clause. Part II will then discuss five principles of property jurisprudence that should inform any discussion of the public/private balance in use of privately-owned land. Finally, Part III will discuss whether the current balance of private and public interests is a reasonable one and whether fairness requires compensation when land use restrictions cause a substantial diminution in value of the regulated property

Religion as Speech: The Growing Role of Free Speech Jurisprudence in Protecting Religious Liberty

This article explores the role of free speech jurisprudence in protecting religious liberty, both describing how that role has grown in recent years and evaluating its propriety for the twenty-first century. The article begins by briefly examine the historic role free speech doctrine has played in protecting religious liberty through the mid-1980’s, when the Rehnquist Court began. Part two will then discuss how during the Rehnquist Court free speech became perhaps the primary vehicle to protect religious liberty. Although the Rehnquist Court largely followed earlier holdings regarding religious speech, it changed the analysis in two significant ways: first, by characterizing the exclusion of religious speech from public for a as viewpoint, rather than subject-matter discrimination, and second, by making neutral treatment of religion the defining feature of the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Taken together, these two development made free speech a potent vehicle to protect religious activity and expression in American public life. At the same time, the Rehnquist Court also greatly limited the scope of protection under the Free Exercise Clause, further shifting protection of religious liberty toward the Free Speech Clause. Finally, part three will briefly discuss what this increasing focus on free speech as the primary basis to protect religion means and what role it might play in the twenty-first century. Part A discusses how the Supreme Court’s recent cases suggest that the Court itself views religion as a full co-participant in America’s public life, to be received on the same terms as any other world view or value system. Under this vision, religion is neither privatized on the one hand nor given special constitutional protections on the other, in contrast to views often advocated by legal scholars. This more minimalist approach to the religion clauses deprives religion of much, though not all, of its unique status under the Constitution, but also grants its full entry into the public square. Part B then assesses how well this “religion as speech” approach fits with America in the twenty-first century, arguing that in most respects it does quite well. In particular, treating religion as a co-participant poses little threat to American values and political stability at this stage of our nation’s history, and in fact enhances, rather than detracts from the core American values of equality and individual liberty. It arguably is also well suited to the challenges that religion itself will face this century, which will more likely focus on societal attempts to privatize religious influences, rather than intentional interference with or promotion of religion. Free speech doctrine, which requires equal treatment, is well-positioned to address such societal pressures

Preparing Minority Students for Law School: The Program for Minority Access to Law School

Students of color traditionally have been under-represented in law school admissions, and those admitted have higher attrition rates than their white counterparts. In response to these concerns, law schools have instituted a number of programs in recent years designed to increase minority enrollments and retention rates. Most of these programs target minority students immediately before or during their time in law school. Receiving less attention have been programs designed to provide instruction and motivation to minority undergraduates interested in law early in their college careers. In 1991, the law schools at Northern Illinois University, the University of Illinois, and Southern Illinois University co-sponsored a pilot instructional program for minority undergraduate students. Entitled the Program for Minority Access to Law School (PMALS), the project involved six weeks of on-campus instruction at Northern Illinois University from June 17 to July 26, 1991. The primary goals of the program were to stimulate interest in the legal profession and to enhance the analytical and writing skills necessary to success in law school, thereby increasing the pool of qualified minority law applicants. This article will describe the purpose, structure, and evaluation of the pilot PMALS program. Part I will discuss the background and goals of the program. Part II will discuss the program's structure, including student recruitment and curricular design. Part III will discuss the evaluation of the program. Finally, the conclusion will discuss the role that programs such as PMALS might play in the minority recruitment and retention process

Takings, Fairness, and Farmland Preservation

In a recent article published in this Journal, Professor Jesse Richardson attempted to refute the arguments proposed by myself and others that support the fairness of downzoning land without compensation to property owners. Central to most farmland preservation efforts is agricultural zoning, which typically involves downzoning farmland to agricultural use, precluding more intensive development. This article will briefly comment on the role compensatory programs like PDRs and TDRs should play in effective farmland preservation programs. This is true even if downzoning results in substantial diminution of land values, which means that local governments can pursue farmland preservation by putting the cost of regulation on affected landowners. Indeed, in a perfect world, I would make generous use of both PDRs and TDRs to help mitigate the sometimes harsh effects of downzoning farmland. Thus, although PDRs and TDRs both have a role to play in a comprehensive farmland system, most efforts at farmland preservation must rely heavily on agricultural zoning, without compensation, to succeed. Contrary to the impression created by Professor Richardson, I am not opposed to compensatory farmland preservation programs such as PDRs and TDRs. He emphasized the individual status of the landowner in relation to the single restriction in question

Sign Regulation After Ladue: Examining the Evolving Limits of First Amendment Protection

This article examines the law of sign and billboard regulations, with particular attention to the dual concerns noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo of restricting "too much" speech and restricting "too little." It addresses three general issues surrounding the permissible limits of sign and billboard regulation. In particular, it examines 1) the extent to which a municipality must accommodate signs or billboards, 2) the permissible limits of content-neutral yet under-inclusive restrictions on signs and billboards, and 3) the extent to which municipalities can create content-based distinctions in sign and billboard regulation. The Article further examines the First Amendment framework, focusing on time, place, and manner regulations of speech and the commercial speech doctrine. It then examines several decisions in which the Supreme Court has addressed restrictions on signs: Linmark Associates v. Township of Willingboro, Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, and City of Ladue v. Gilleo

The Public/Private Balance in Land Use Regulation

The topic of the balance between public and private interests in land is one of growing importance and increasing controversy. The environmental movement of the last three decades has generated significant and varied government regulation, much of it placing restrictions on the use of privately owned land. In turn, the past few years have seen a growing property rights movement, largely in response to such regulation. The interplay between private and public interests affects all types of land ownership and property uses, but is perhaps most pronounced with regard to environmentally sensitive land. Effective protection of such property often requires that it be left in its natural state, thus minimizing development opportunities. This raises an increasingly critical question in our society: what rights do private property owners have in privately owned land and what rights should the public have in the same resource. In addressing this topic this article will do three things. Part One will first present a thumbnail sketch of the current balance of public and private rights as reflected in constitutional law, commonly known as the “takings” issue. This balance leans heavily towards the private side concerning the right to possess property and exclude others, as well as protecting against state interference with current uses. Part Two will then present what I consider to be the big picture rationale for striking the balance in this way, which is that property is a social construct designed to serve social as well as individual purposes. As such, private property rights have always been viewed as being subject to broader public interests, and private interests must end when they inflict harm on the broader public. Finally, Part Three will discuss whether recognizing a strong public or social interest in privately owned land is fundamentally unfair to private landowners, especially when the effect is to substantially lower property values