The Relationship Between Parents’ Perceptions of School Climate and their Inclination to Report a Bullying Incident to a School Administrator

It is common for school administrators to be unaware of school bullying that has occurred because students typically conceal it. Yet recent legislation has made schools responsible for eliminating bullying. Research indicates that students who choose to reveal victimization are more likely to tell a trusted parent than school personnel.Consequently, the information gained through parental reporting is essential to the school’s ability to help students and conduct interventions and prevention efforts in general. Examining the relationship between parental perceptions of the school climate and their inclination to report student victimization offers valuable information that can aide schools in combating bullying. The current study was based on the following overriding research question: What relationship, if any, exists between suburban elementary school parents’ perceptions of the school’s climate and their inclination to report a bullying incident to a school administrator? The three underlying research questions were as follows: 1) What relationship, if any, exists between suburban elementary school parents’ perceptions of the degree to which parents are incorporated into school life and their inclination to report a bullying incident to a school administrator? 2) What relationship, if any, exists between suburban elementary school parents’ perceptions of the school’s academic climate, including their satisfaction with the overall instructional quality, and their inclination to report a bullying incident to a school administrator? 3) What relationship, if any, exists between suburban elementary school parents’ perceptions of the degree to which the school’s communications and administrative efforts are open, honest, sincere, and fair and their inclination to report a bullying incident to a school administrator? This quantitative study employed primary data consisting of New Jersey School Climate Parent Survey results and responses to four bullying questions and six demographic questions. The parents of students in kindergarten through fifth grade served as the participants. The results were statistically significant but moderately weak for the first research question and statistically significant but weak for the third. Given the important goal of assisting victimized youth and ameliorating bullying, it is essential for even moderately weak and weak results to lead to action. Therefore, resources should be allocated toward improving school climate because of its link with increasing parental willingness to reveal their child’s victimization. Through increased collaboration, parents and administrators can better understand victimization in their schools and be more capable of intervening effectively

Enlisting the U.S. Courts in a New Front

The time has come to extend the national approach that has been used successfully to dismantle the infrastructure of hate groups to the international realm against terrorist groups. The foundation of this approach is a private right to a cause of action apart from any military or diplomatic efforts by the government. In this Article, Professor Strauss analyzes case precedents under several federal statutes--the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claim Act--as well as state common-law tort claims, including aiding and abetting liability. Professor Strauss proposes an aggregate model for lawsuits by victims against terrorist groups, organizations, and state sponsors of international terrorism, combining these claims and the types of damages and defendants accessible. Professor Strauss also outlines important tools for plaintiffs in the civil battle against terrorism by exploring the obstacles to and avenues for enforcement of these judgments through the rule of international law and access to the frozen assets of terrorist states and organizations

Defying Nature: The Ethical Implications of Genetically Modified Plants

This article explores the ethical implications of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in food that originate from plants that have been genetically altered through bioengineering. Despite noble goals to increase the food supply on the planet, biotechnology has not been applied towards that end. Instead, companies have developed terminator seeds that cannot reproduce, forcing farmers and impoverished developing countries to buy additional seeds, and herbicide resistant plants engineered to survive the spraying of pesticides. From an ethical perspective, the problem is not that this technology exists, but how it is being used-for the greater good or for potentially greatest harm to human health and the environment? Ultimately these ethical issues cause us to reflect on the current regulatory scheme in the United States. Does the failure to require labeling and monitoring violate our responsibility to others by not allowing consumers a choice as to whether they knowingly and willingly assume the risks of ingesting GMOs

Reaching Out to the International Community: Civil Lawsuits as the Common Ground in the Battle against Terrorism

Professor Strauss has previously proposed an aggregate model for lawsuits by victims against terrorist groups and state-sponsors of international terrorism, combining the claims available under several U.S. statutes, as well as state common law tort claims including aiding and abetting liability, to maximize the types of damages and defendants accessible. As the judgments from these civil lawsuits build, the United States is on the way to combating terrorism through a nonmilitary approach to compensate the victims of terrorism while depleting the funding for future terrorist acts. The current article explores ways to extend this successful approach to international organizations. This article also analyzes a new piece of legislation that has recently been signed into law - the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2007 - which will correct several limitations previously existing in the law to expand these lawsuits and to facilitate the collection of judgments for victims against terrorist states through U.S. subsidiary banks. Recognizing jurisdiction and enforcing these judgments at an international level would bring the community together with a common goal against terrorism. In view of the eroding support for military action, international organizations and nations could find common ground in bolstering these civil lawsuits and thereby promoting the rule of law

Genetically Modified Organisms in Food: A Model of Labeling and Monitoring with Positive Implications for International Trade

Biotechnology in the food industry has developed rapidly in recent years. In the United States, Genetically Modified Organisms in food have increased exponentially, while these products are largely banned and strictly regulated overseas. After examining the scientific issues, including unintended risks to human health and the environment, this article explores the rigorous regulatory scheme of the EU and international community in contrast to the relatively unrestrictive approach of the United States. This article proposes an expanded model of mandatory positive labeling, in combination with voluntary negative labeling, along with a system of pre-market and post-market testing, monitoring, and tracking of GM components. In responding to the concerns of its citizens and giving greater weight to unknown risks, the U.S. government would increase consumer confidence and strengthen the long-term viability of the biotechnology industry. Moreover, by implementing more stringent standards, the United States can regain entry for its agricultural products into the global marketplace

We Reap What We Sow: The Legal Liability Risks of Genetically Modified Food

Are the supposed benefits of genetically modified foods worth the risks? One of the most significant risks to consider is future liability from lawsuits, including lawsuits by and against farmers and/or biotechnology companies for possible harm and economic loss caused by bioengineered food crops. Most recently, the theory of liability for contamination has been successfully applied by the courts in the landmark LibertyLink® rice lawsuits on behalf of farmers whose fields have been contaminated with unwanted genetically modified organisms (GMOs) due to outcrossing and migration, imposing multimillion dollar jury verdicts on the biotech company for its negligence. In view of the scientific uncertainty and potential for harm, consumer claims for injuries may also arise in the future from the failure to warn of the presence of genetically engineered components. After exploring the potential liability of GMOs and analyzing significant cases, this article will discuss measures to manage these risks, proposing a regulatory approach of labeling, monitoring, and a stringent pre-market approval process; and legislation to mandate liability. Through this risk analysis, the industry might be persuaded that safety is good business to ensure that, in the long-run, they continue to reap what they sow

The Role of Courts, Agencies, and Congress in GMOs: A Multilateral Approach to Ensuring the Safety of the Food Supply

As part of the 2012 symposium issue, Genetically Modified Organisms: Law and the Global Market, this article presents a model for enhancing food safety through better integration and coordination of food safety agencies as well as the use of expert advisory panels. It considers the following critical question: the courts, other agencies, or Congress: who steps in when an agency fails to protect the food supply? In the area of genetically modified (GM) foods, the courts have been taking the role originally intended for regulatory agencies, reasoning that those agencies have not been doing their job properly by failing to enforce their own regulations. In Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, the U.S. Supreme Court recently concluded that the lower courts had gone too far in blocking a deregulation by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and ordering that the planting of GM alfalfa could not be allowed to proceed. As the first Supreme Court case on GM crops, this case merits detailed analysis as to its future impact in this area. Several other lower court cases have been initiated by consumer and environmental organizations against governmental agencies, particularly under environmental statutes. An exploration of these cases demonstrates the concurrent need for a separate, specific statutory and regulatory scheme for GM crops

Defying Nature: The Ethical Implications of Genetically Modified Plants

Genetic engineering is changing the semantics, the meaning of life itself. We\u27re trying to usurp the plant\u27s choice. To force alien words into the plant\u27s poem, but we [have] a problem. We barely know the root language. Genetic grammar\u27s a mystery.... We\u27ve learned a lot about the letters-maybe our ability to read and spell words now sits halfway between accident and design - but our syntax is still haphazard. Scrambled. It\u27s a semiotic nightmare