Nonlinear viscoelastic characterization of polycarbonate

Uniaxial tensile creep and recovery data from polycarbonate at six temperatures and six stress levels are analyzed for nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive modeling. A theory to account for combined effects of two or more accelerating factors is presented

Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders

Every year, U.S. courts entertain hundreds of thousands of petitions for civil harassment orders, i.e., injunctions issued upon the request of any person against any other person in response to words or behavior deemed harassing. Definitions of “harassment” vary widely, but an often-used statutory formula defines it as “a course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose.” Civil harassment statutes can protect the safety, privacy, and autonomy of victims, but when courts declare that speech is harassing, or issue injunctions against future speech on grounds that it would harass, they may violate constitutional rules against vagueness, overbreadth, and prior restraint. Unfortunately, civil harassment litigation includes structural features that cause courts to systematically underestimate the free speech dangers. This Article proposes methods to interpret and apply civil harassment statutes that will avoid most serious free speech problems. The key is to define harassment as unconsented contact or surveillance that endangers safety and privacy. The long-established tort and criminal law concepts of battery, assault, threats, trespass, and intrusion into seclusion lie at the core of this definition. Conduct resembling outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress) lies at the periphery. Speech about the victim directed to other listeners (especially defamation and malicious prosecution) falls outside the definition altogether. By focusing on the nature of the contact between the parties, rather than on the content of one party’s allegedly harassing speech, courts will be better able to apply civil harassment statutes in a constitutionally acceptable manner

Stretching the Equal Access Act Beyond Equal Access

This article explores the ramifications of stretching the Equal Access Act ( EAA or the Act ) beyond equal access to school premises for meetings during noninstructional time. Part I provides background on the Equal Access Act, from its legislative origins through its interpretations by federal courts. This part includes a careful look at the statute\u27s often confusing language. Part II describes and criticizes Prince v. Jacoby. I argue that the decision is plagued with legal errors large and small, but that the main error is its failure to consider a central question: equal access to what? Both the EAA and the First Amendment public forum doctrine indicate that student groups should have access to forums for assembly and expression, but Prince mandated access to much more. Part III explores a parallel development in which the First Amendment public forum doctrine has been stretched beyond forums for assembly and expression. This part first describes the doctrine in its standard form and then considers how well it translates to other settings. The process reveals some of the tensions within the public forum doctrine even when applied to its usual locations. Part IV concludes the article with practical suggestions for living with Prince if it is not overturned by later court decision

Stretching the Equal Access Act Beyond Equal Access

This article explores the ramifications of stretching the Equal Access Act ( EAA or the Act ) beyond equal access to school premises for meetings during noninstructional time. Part I provides background on the Equal Access Act, from its legislative origins through its interpretations by federal courts. This part includes a careful look at the statute\u27s often confusing language. Part II describes and criticizes Prince v. Jacoby. I argue that the decision is plagued with legal errors large and small, but that the main error is its failure to consider a central question: equal access to what? Both the EAA and the First Amendment public forum doctrine indicate that student groups should have access to forums for assembly and expression, but Prince mandated access to much more. Part III explores a parallel development in which the First Amendment public forum doctrine has been stretched beyond forums for assembly and expression. This part first describes the doctrine in its standard form and then considers how well it translates to other settings. The process reveals some of the tensions within the public forum doctrine even when applied to its usual locations. Part IV concludes the article with practical suggestions for living with Prince if it is not overturned by later court decision

Proposed Ninth Circuit Split: Response. Malthus and the Court of Appeals: Another Former Clerk Looks at the Proposed Ninth Circuit Split

This Article argues that current proposals to split the Ninth Circuit are unnecessary and would be detrimental to judges, law clerks, lawyers, and litigants. Larger circuits offer various benefits, many of them arising from the diversity of cases and judicial personalities on the bench. Splitting the Ninth Circuit would not bring the benefits proponents predict

Freedom of Speech in School and Prison

Students often compare their schools unfavorably to prisons, most often in a tone of rueful irony. By contrast, judicial opinions about freedom of speech within government-run institutions compare schools and prisons without irony or even hesitation. This Article considers whether the analogy between school and prison in free speech cases is evidence that the two institutions share a joint mission. At a macro level, there is an undeniable structural similarity between the constitutional speech rules for schools and prisons. At a micro level, however, there are subtle but significant differences between the two. These arise primarily from the judiciary’s belief that differences exist between the purposes of schools and prisons—although, somewhat ominously, the differences appear even more subtle when comparing schools to jails. Just as judicial beliefs about social reality affect constitutional outcomes, the constitutional rules in turn affect social reality. Courts should be wary of language that equates schools with penal institutions, lest the analogy become a self-fulfilling prophecy

Reducing Disparities by way of a Cancer Disparities Research Training Program

Background: For minority populations, there is a continuing disparity in the burden of death and illness from cancer. Research to address this disparity should be conducted by investigators who can best understand and address the needs of culturally diverse communities. However, minorities are under-represented in health-related research. The goal of this project was to develop and evaluate an approach to motivating and preparing master’s degree students for careers dedicated to cancer disparities research. Method: A Cancer Disparities Research Training Program (CDRTP) was initiated in 2010. The program consists of coursework, practicum experiences, and research opportunities. Assessment of the curriculum is based on monitoring achievement of evaluation indicators and includes a quantitative assessment and qualitative approach. Results: In its first three years, the program graduated 20 trainees, all of whom were minorities (18 African Americans and two Asians). When asked about career goals, two-thirds of the trainees indicated interest in pursuing careers in research on cancer prevention and control. The trainees expressed high satisfaction with the courses, instructor, materials, and curriculum. Although trainees had suggestions about course details, evaluations overall were positive. Across focus groups, three recurrent themes emerged regarding activities to enhance the student experience: having a wider variety of topics, more guest speakers, and field trips. Conclusion: The CDRTP was intended to recruit students – primarily African Americans – into research on prevention and control of cancer disparities. Although final evaluation of the program’s overall outcome will not be available for several years, a preliminary evaluation indicates the program is being successful