Introduction to School Counseling Services Articles

Introduction to School Counseling Services Article

Can the Accommodationist Achieve Pluralism?

This paper is based on my brief remarks on a panel dedicated to “reimagining the relationship between religion and law” and focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s church and state jurisprudence. In particular, I ask whether an approach to the Establishment Clause known as accommodation is consonant with the larger concept of pluralism, particularly in the context of public religious symbols and displays, and offer some proposals and tentative conclusions. I propose two alternatives, signs and disclaimers, and tentatively conclude that the use of either might relieve the perceived tension between accommodation and pluralism

Exploring leaders\u27 sensemaking of emergent global norms for open science: a mixed methods discourse analysis of UNESCO’s multistakeholder initiative

In November 2021, all 193 United Nations Member States adopted the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Recommendation on Open Science (UNESCO, 2021a), which signaled a shared commitment to globally recognized standards for open science. However, as with other normative instruments established by intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as UNESCO, the ways in which local, national, and regional leaders will implement the recommendation can and will vary (Finnemore, 1993). Top-down and bottom-up coordination across international stakeholders in the research system is critical for the framework to be effective in driving global policy implementation and enabling sustained research culture change. Such international coordination necessitates an understanding of the complex economic, socio-political, and cultural dimensions that exist among these stakeholders and may influence local implementation efforts and norm-setting (Martinsson, 2011; Nilsson, 2017). This mixed methods study explores leaders’ sensemaking of emergent global norms for open science through public discourse during the development of UNESCO’s recommendation. The central research question is: How did institutional leaders make sense of emergent global norms for open science during UNESCO’s multistakeholder initiative? The study is situated at the intersection of systems thinking, global norms, and sensemaking, using a social constructionist lens. A synthesis of study findings draws two conclusions: That there is evidence in the discourse of accelerating self-organization toward open science among Member States who responded to UNESCO’s call for commentary on the draft recommendation; and that there is also evidence in the discourse of a degree of instability around prospective norm diffusion and internalization of the Recommendation on Open Science (2021a) related directly to matters of implementation. The tension between emergence and instability is well documented throughout the literature across complex systems, global norms, and sensemaking. Therefore, the study supports the ongoing exploration of global norms development and, specifically, the critical progression from norm emergence to norm diffusion. Given the theoretical coherence of complex systems, global norms, and sensemaking as evidenced throughout the findings, the novel integrative analytic frame that was developed during the design of this study may support other global norms development studies

Salazar v. Buono: The Perils of Piecemeal Adjudication

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Salazar v. Buono, a case involving a Latin cross placed on federal land in the Mojave Desert by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, approaches what many would assume to be the central issue in the case from an oblique. Does the Mojave Desert cross, sitting atop Sunrise Peak in a federal park preserve, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Neither Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion nor any of the concurring or dissenting opinions in Salazar answers that question. Salazar’s complicated web of facts and procedural history precluded the Court from resolving the most compelling issue in the Salazar litigation. Instead, most of the opinions in Salazar circle the merits of the constitutionality of the Mojave Desert cross in language ostensibly directed at the remedy—the land transfer statute enacted to preserve the cross—but arguably aimed at the cross itself. On a charitable view, the plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions simply make the best of the facts and law given the tortured path of the case through the lower courts. But it is not folly to speculate that a different path would have presented cleaner issues for decision and resolution, and would have given some closure to the litigants involved. Perhaps most important, a decision on the merits of the constitutionality of the Mojave Desert cross could have clarified the trajectory of the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause doctrine for future cases

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum: Monuments, Messages, and the Next Establishment Clause

The facts of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum are well known by now: Summum, a small religious group, argued that Pleasant Grove City violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it refused to display Summum’s monument in the city’s Pioneer Park, which already contained fifteen other monuments, including a Ten Commandments display. Summum’s unlikely claim won in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, a request for rehearing was denied, and the case ultimately was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. During the oral arguments, the Justices (along with commentators, Court watchers, and, of course, the litigants themselves) were fully aware that the Summum litigation presented a double-edged sword. If Pleasant Grove argued too vigorously the theory that the existing Ten Commandments monument constitutes the city’s own message, then it risked violating the Establishment Clause in a follow-up lawsuit based on the same facts. If, on the other hand, Pleasant Grove attributed the monument’s message to its 1971 donor, then the city would be hard-pressed to explain why Pioneer Park was not, as Summum claimed, a public forum that must be potentially open to all monuments without discrimination based on content or viewpoint. The tension pervaded the oral argument. Chief Justice Roberts opened the discussion with an observation that the city was in a double-bind. Justice Scalia guided the city’s lawyer into a discussion of Van Orden v. Perry, a 2005 case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a public Ten Commandments display. Justice Souter pondered the possibility of discrimination. And Summum’s lawyer frankly acknowledged that the city was “on the horns of a dilemma” facing either a Free Speech or an Establishment Clause violation. Ultimately, however, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that in selecting monuments for Pioneer Park the city was engaged in government speech; the city could therefore control the content of its message without violating the Free Speech Clause. Significantly, the Court found that the city need not formally adopt the message of an existing park monument in order for that monument to constitute government speech. The stage was set for Summum’s Establishment Clause claim, but that claim would have to wait for another day

Can the Accommodationist Achieve Pluralism?

This paper is based on my brief remarks on a panel dedicated to “reimagining the relationship between religion and law” and focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court\u27s church and state jurisprudence. In particular, I ask whether an approach to the Establishment Clause known as accommodation is consonant with the larger concept of pluralism, particularly in the context of public religious symbols and displays, and offer some proposals and tentative conclusions. I propose two alternatives, signs and disclaimers, and tentatively conclude that the use of either might relieve the perceived tension between accommodation and pluralism