Good Faith and Effort? Perspectives on educational inclusion

This paper considers what might ‘count’ as educational inclusion from the perspectives of six women who are both mothers of and teachers of children with special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities. The mother-teachers draw on their own personal and professional experiences to consider meanings of inclusion in relation to ‘their’ children. Their voices suggest that it is the detail of daily interaction and the commitment to ‘good faith and effort’ on the part of both parents and educational professionals that matters. For the purposes of this paper I shall consider the discourses of SEN, learning difficulties and disability together, although I am aware of the danger of reductionism in doing so

The story of men's underwear

Men’s fashion, particularly the trends involving undergarments, was once reserved for the elite; today it has become democratised, clear proof of social progress. The aestheticism of the body so highly valued by the Greeks seems to have regained a prominent place in the masculine world. Mirroring the evolution of society’s values, the history of underwear also highlights the continuous, dancing exchange that exists between women’s styles and men’s fashion. Undergarments are concealed, flaunted, stretched or shortened, establishing a game between yesterday’s illicit and today’s chic and thereby denouncing the sense of disgrace that these simple pieces of clothing used to betray. In this work, Shaun Cole endeavours to re-establish for the first time, through well-researched socio-economic analysis, the importance of men’s underwear in the history of costume from ancient times to today. A reflection of technological progress, this study is full of surprises and powerful reflections on man’s relationship with his body

The cooling of spent carbon anodes in the aluminium smelting industry : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mathematics at Massey University

As part of the New Zealand Aluminium Smelters (NZAS) upgrade, a hot butt cleaning system has been proposed, this would remove the bath from anodes as they are removed from the cells. It is expected that the time to cool for hot cleaned anodes would be significantly less than for current method of allowing the butts to cool before the bath is removed. In this project a mathematical model of the cooling process of both the clean and dirty anodes is developed. This model will aid in the investigation of the hot butt cleaning system by showing the difference in cooling times between the clean and dirty anodes. The temperature profiles within both clean and dirty anodes is calculated for one-, two- and three-dimensional models. Temperature changes in the anodes with time are also compared to experimental data

Terrorizing Immigrants in the Name of Fighting Terrorism

It is often said that civil liberties are the first casualties of war. It may be more accurate to say that immigrants\u27 civil liberties are the first to go. In the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, we all feel vulnerable in ways that we have never felt before, and many have argued that we may need to sacrifice our liberty in order to purchase security. In fact, however, what we have done is to sacrifice the liberties of some-immigrants, and especially Arab and Muslim immigrants-for the purported security of the rest of us. This double standard is an all too tempting way to strike the balance-it allows citizens to enjoy a sense of security without sacrificing their own liberty, but it is an illegitimate trade-off. In the end, moreover, it is likely to be counterproductive, as it will alienate the very communities that we most need to work with as we fight the war on terrorism

Examining Facebook practice : the case of New Zealand provincial rugby : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Sport and Exercise at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Social media have become a defining feature of 21st century communications. Conceived in 2004 Facebook has risen from relative obscurity to become the most visited website in the world. While social media use has grown exponentially, so too has its influence. Sport organisations were quick to capitalise on Facebook’s popularity particularly with the introduction of brand pages in 2010. The trend is no different particularly in New Zealand Rugby’s (NZR) National Provincial Championship (NPC). However recent research indicates a lack of understanding and consistency in evaluating effectiveness within the context of Facebook. Scholars have further acknowledged a need to move beyond simple metrics as measures of performance. Using a mixed method approach this case study of four NPC rugby teams investigated the understanding of effective Facebook practice. Thematic analysis of qualitative questionnaires completed by each page’s main administrator explored their understanding of effective Facebook practice. The researcher also utilised an auto-ethnographic journal to document his own experience of managing one of the participating brand pages. Page performance was also investigated through analysis of Facebook insights data to establish how it may be more accurately interpreted to inform best practice. Results reveal that administrators perceive lack of control, maintaining credibility, guaranteeing reach and resource allocation to be the most prominent challenges faced by these brand pages. Such issues provide further tensions when attempting to justify social media use and effectiveness within sport organisations. Furthermore, teams are faced with commercial obligations to post sponsor content that may negatively impact user engagement. In addition, findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, greater total network sizes do not guarantee greater reach and engagement. It is proposed that teams consider proportional measures of performance when seeking to measure Facebook performance. Holistically the research sets a platform that can be used in future studies to tangibly connect Facebook effectiveness to organisational strategy and objectives

The First Amendment’s Borders: The Place of \u3ci\u3eHolder v. Humanitarian Law Project\u3c/i\u3e in First Amendment Doctrine

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project seems to contravene all three. This article assesses the place of Humanitarian Law Project in First Amendment jurisprudence. It argues that the decision departs so dramatically from precedent that it was wrongly decided. But it also maintains that if the decision is to do least damage to First Amendment freedoms going forward, and if it is to be construed as far as possible in harmony with its precedents, three limiting features of the decision are essential to understanding its rationale. At issue in Humanitarian Law Project was whether the government could make it a crime to engage in speech advocating only lawful, peaceful activity, when done in coordination with or for a foreign organization labeled “terrorist.” In Humanitarian Law Project, the Court properly ruled that the government may prohibit speech advocating lawful, peaceful activity based on its content only where it can satisfy the demanding standard that governs when laws prohibit speech on the basis of its content. But the Court’s application of that scrutiny bore no resemblance to any other speech case in the modern era and employed reasoning and reached results that are sharply inconsistent with substantial precedent. Where it had previously protected even direct advocacy of crime, it now denied protection to advocacy of peace and human rights. Where it had previously held that strict scrutiny placed a heavy burden on the government to demonstrate with concrete evidence that its specific speech prohibitions were necessary to further a compelling end, here it sua sponte advanced arguments that the government never made; said no evidence was necessary to support its speculations; and deferred to a legislative finding and an executive affidavit that did not even address the necessity of prohibiting speech, and were not based on any actual evidence. Where it had previously ruled that a desire to suppress particular viewpoints was enough to render a law presumptively invalid, here it took the government’s viewpoint-based motive in suppressing messages of legitimacy as a reason to uphold, not to strike down, the law. And where it had previously protected the right to associate with groups having both lawful and unlawful ends, and recognized that the right included the freedom to act in concert with one’s associates, in Humanitarian Law Project it reduced the right to an empty formalism. Such dramatic departures from precedent suggest that the decision was wrongly decided. But until it is overturned, we must live with it. And that puts a premium on considering whether its rationale can be limited. The Court itself offered three possible avenues of limitation, but offered no explanation for why those avenues were doctrinally significant. None of the three distinguishing features the Court identified is sufficient to reconcile the result with First Amendment precedent. But if the case is to be harmonized as much as possible with precedent, its application should be limited to situations in which all three of the factors identified by the Court are present—namely, when the government is prohibiting only speech coordinated with or directed to foreign organizations that have been subjected to diplomatic sanctions for compelling national security reasons. Short of outright reversal, such a reading provides the most persuasive ground for restricting the damage Humanitarian Law Project does to First Amendment doctrine