15 research outputs found
Dimensions of Liberal Education at Brockport
Get PDFEditor: H. Larry Humm (College at Brockport emeritus). Editorial board: Robert W. Strayer (professor emeritus, College at Brockport) ; W. Bruce Leslie, (College at Brockport faculty member) ; Robert S. Getz (professor emeritus, College at Brockport) ; J. Douglas Hickerson (former Director of Student Affairs, College at Brockport), Kenneth L. Jones (former College at Brockport faculty member) ; Charles R. Edwards (professor emeritus, College at Brockport).
Also includes chapters by the following emeriti and former faculty members and professionals of The College at Brockport: Donald S. Douglas (former provost), Harold L. Rakov (emeritus), Roger M. Weir (emeritus), Owen S. Ireland (current), Edward J. Gucker (emeritus), Warren Fraleigh (emeritus), Lynn H. Parsons (emeritus), Ian H. Henderson (emeritus), Robert J. Gemmett (emeritus), J. Emory Morris (emeritus), Beth E. VanFossen (former faculty member), Peter L. Marchant (emeritus), Gladdys W. Church (former Director of the Learning Skills Center).
An instructional development project of the Educational Communications Center, State University College at Brockport, Brockport, New York.
Contents: On coming to college for the first time : Great expectations, yours and ours / Donald S. Douglas -- High school and college, what’s the difference? / Harold L. Rakov -- Living in a college community / Roger M. Weir -- A liberal arts education: what, why and how: The liberating arts and personal freedom / J. Douglas Hickerson -- The liberal arts, preparation for a career / Roger M. Weir -- Liberally educated people, knowing them when you see them: Perspective 1, Gaining knowledge, discipline, and values / Owen S. Ireland -- Perspective 2, Nurturing curiosity, creativity, and commitment / Edward J. Gucker -- Perspective 3, Cultivating freedom / Warren Fraleigh -- Democracy and the liberal arts, Is there a connection? / Lynn H. Parsons -- From Socrates to Brockport, your place in a long tradition / W. Bruce Leslie -- Why study the fine arts? / Ian H. Henderson -- Why study the humanities? / Robert J. Gemmett -- Why study the sciences? / J. Emory Morris -- Why study the social sciences? / Beth E. VanFossen -- More than making it: getting the most out of college : Where am I going? How do I get there? Some thoughts on academic planning / Robert S. Getz -- Thinking about thinking / H. Larry Humm -- How not to be a victim of time, a first letter to an anxious student / Peter L. Marchant -- Reading in college, more than turning pages / Charles R. Edwards -- Going to class-- being there is not enough / H. Larry Humm -- How not to be a victim of essay assignments, a second letter to an anxious student / Peter L. Marchant -- Making the most of tests / Gladdys W. Church.https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/bookshelf/1328/thumbnail.jp
Talking About Speech or Debate: Revisiting Legislative Immunity
Get PDFThe Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution states that for any Speech or Debate in either House, [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place. Its purpose is to protect the independence and integrity of the legislature. The Framers of the American Constitution incorporated centuries of English history and experience into this Clause, but they left little in the way of specifics about what they intended it to mean. This Article traces the development of how the Speech or Debate Clause has been understood and proposes a new framework for implementing the Clause\u27s protections in view of how Congress works
Captured by Evil: The Idea of Corruption in Law
Get PDFCorruption is one of the most powerful words in the English language. When it comes to the treatment of corruption by law, however, corruption is a troubled concept. With increasing recognition of the costs of corruption for economic development, democratic governance, international aid programs, and other world goals, attempts to articulate what this destructive force is have led to an avalanche of theoretical writing. In the last fifteen years, corruption has been variously defined as the violation of law, a public servant\u27s breach of public duty, an agent\u27s betrayal of a principal\u27s interests, the pursuit of secrecy, the denial of equality in political influence, and other ways. In the end, however, all of these efforts fall short. Corruption is more than law-breaking: it is more than breaching public duties. To say that A is a thief or that A has breached his duty is not to say that A is corrupt. The latter is far more powerful, far more emotional, far more essential than the others. It is more than secrecy, or the denial of equal opportunity. It is a searing indictment, somehow, not only of A\u27s act but of A\u27s character. It is a statement not only of what A has done, but of what A has become. Corruption is, I argue, a far more powerful idea than these existing legal understandings have articulated: it is the idea of capture by evil, the possession of the individual by evil, in law. Just as we once believed in corruption of the blood in American law, which decreed that offspring of those who had committed crimes were believed to be irrevocably tainted by their parents\u27 depravity, so we still retain - through the idea of corruption - the belief that individual evil extends beyond acts of wrongdoing, or the denial of equal opportunity, or breach of the public trust. It is this idea of corruption, I argue - the idea of capture by evil - that, although unarticulated, drives our understandings of corruption in law. It drives our understanding of corrupt judges, who, once corrupt, we believe will act so in every case. It drives our understanding of campaign finance reform, where we fear deep corruption of the process from the occurrence of corrupt acts. It drives our understanding of corruption as a systemic effect and systemic influence, which presents institutional dangers that are greater than other crimes, and that requires purgation rather than simple law enforcement. This Article explores this deeper understanding of corruption, its impacts in areas such as judicial corruption and campaign finance reform, and its implications for the principle of the rule of law
Captured by Evil: The Idea of Corruption in Law
Get PDFCorruption is one of the most powerful words in the English language. When it comes to the treatment of corruption by law, however, corruption is a troubled concept. With increasing recognition of the costs of corruption for economic development, democratic governance, international aid programs, and other world goals, attempts to articulate what this destructive force is have led to an avalanche of theoretical writing. In the last fifteen years, corruption has been variously defined as the violation of law, a public servant\u27s breach of public duty, an agent\u27s betrayal of a principal\u27s interests, the pursuit of secrecy, the denial of equality in political influence, and other ways. In the end, however, all of these efforts fall short. Corruption is more than law-breaking: it is more than breaching public duties. To say that A is a thief or that A has breached his duty is not to say that A is corrupt. The latter is far more powerful, far more emotional, far more essential than the others. It is more than secrecy, or the denial of equal opportunity. It is a searing indictment, somehow, not only of A\u27s act but of A\u27s character. It is a statement not only of what A has done, but of what A has become. Corruption is, I argue, a far more powerful idea than these existing legal understandings have articulated: it is the idea of capture by evil, the possession of the individual by evil, in law. Just as we once believed in corruption of the blood in American law, which decreed that offspring of those who had committed crimes were believed to be irrevocably tainted by their parents\u27 depravity, so we still retain - through the idea of corruption - the belief that individual evil extends beyond acts of wrongdoing, or the denial of equal opportunity, or breach of the public trust. It is this idea of corruption, I argue - the idea of capture by evil - that, although unarticulated, drives our understandings of corruption in law. It drives our understanding of corrupt judges, who, once corrupt, we believe will act so in every case. It drives our understanding of campaign finance reform, where we fear deep corruption of the process from the occurrence of corrupt acts. It drives our understanding of corruption as a systemic effect and systemic influence, which presents institutional dangers that are greater than other crimes, and that requires purgation rather than simple law enforcement. This Article explores this deeper understanding of corruption, its impacts in areas such as judicial corruption and campaign finance reform, and its implications for the principle of the rule of law
Congressional Accountability and Denial: Speech or Debate Clause and Conflict of Interest Challenges to Unionization of Congressional Employees
Get PDFIn 1995, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which applied federal workplace and anti-discrimination laws to Congress. Under the terms of the Act, Congress can prevent legislative staff from unionizing if the presence of organized employees would raise constitutional problems or present a conflict of interest. In this Article, Professor Brudney argues that these constitutional conflicts and issues do not pose sufficient concern to outweigh the workplace rights of congressional staff. Rather, he maintains that Congress, should either fulfill its obligations under the Act and allow legislative staff to unionize, or else enact a statute and explain the need for such an exception
