College Students’ Views about the Journalism Education in Spain

The paper presents the results of a survey with a sample of 1,552 journalism students from five public universities during the academic year 2011-12. The research addresses two objectives: how students evaluate the journalism studies and to know if they believe the studies are necessary to purpose of exercising the profession. The results indicate that most students believe appropriate the journalism studies, but almost but almost 25% considered them unnecessary. Students assess the quality of the training received in schools with an approved. There has been a multiple linear regression to find which variables explain this evaluation. The most influential is the course you are enrolled, followed by functions that respondents give to faculties. The paper presents the advantage of working with data from the largest sample used so far, which also includes all courses and the first promotions of students in the undergraduate studies according to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It can be a valuable starting point for further researchs to make decisions on the academic. The study is part of the Sudents Journalism Project with journalism students in seven countries: Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland and the United States

Subordination and the Fortuity of Our Circumstances

The antisubordination principle exists at the margins of equality law. This Article seeks to revive the antisubordination principle by taking a fresh look at its structure and underlying justification. First, the Article provides an account of the harm of subordination that focuses on one\u27s position in society, rejecting the focus on groups popular in the existing antisubordination literature. Second, it argues for a theory of state obligation that goes beyond both the existing state action doctrine of the Equal Protection Clause and the failure to protect doctrine associated with Charles Black. The Article argues instead that the antisubordination principle mandates affirmative action due solely to the existence of subordination, regardless of its causes. Third, the affirmative action required by the antisubordination principle requires preferential treatment that burdens innocent persons. Rather than defend affirmative action on past discrimination or diversity grounds, the Article argues that these sacrifices are justified given the arbitrary nature, or fortuity, of the circumstances into which we are born. Unlike John Rawls and other philosophers who have recognized this fortuity, but have argued that it only implicates what persons are entitled to, the Article instead argues that this fortuity provides the basis for a solidarity with those born into subordinated positions. Because anyone could have occupied positions of subordination but for the accident of birth, we all have reason to make reasonable sacrifices to end subordination

Confidentiality in The Courts: Privacy Protection or Prior Restraint?

In civil litigation courts often deal with information that is subject to a previously imposed restraint on the ability of a court or others to use the information. Such “evidentiary prior restraints” arise most prominently in settlement agreements, which may include nondisclosure provisions that prevent information concerning the settlement from being used by parties to the agreement. But evidentiary prior restraints can also arise from prior court action, as when parties seek information subject to a protective order or sealing order made by a different court. Although evidentiary prior restraints have received great attention given recent controversies concerning sexual harassment, products liability, and other areas of the law, the issue has not received much attention from scholars. This essay examines the effects of evidentiary restraints on the enforcement function of civil litigation. In general, the essay concludes that privacy interests alone do not justify the enforcement of litigation restraints because these privacy interests can, and often do, prevent courts from accurately assessing the liability of the parties. Moreover, such restraints prevent market pressure from regulating the conduct of market participants, leading to more harm. Nevertheless, the essay does discuss situations when the protection of privacy interests may aid, rather than hinder, enforcement objectives. Accordingly, the essay concludes that more empirical research should be done to guide courts in determining when evidentiary prior restraints should not be enforced