Expanding reality

This article was originally published in The Prophet -- a journal created by and for the students at the Boston University School of Theology (BUSTH) to amplify the voices of STH students by promoting and sharing a range of perspectives on matters of concern including, but not limited to, spiritual practices, faith communities and society, the nature of theology, and current affairs. It serves as a platform for STH students to share their academic work, theological reflections, and life experiences with one another and the wider community."He drew a circle that shut me out. Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and... " [EXCERPT

Stewarding Biodiversity and Food Security in The Coral Triangle: Achievements, Challenges, and Lessons Learned

The management team of the US Agency for International Development (USAID)- supported Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) commissioned this report to take a qualitative look at the achievements, challenges, and lessons learned from investment in CTSP. CTSP is part of a broader USAID investment supporting the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF), a six-nation effort to sustain vital marine and coastal resources in the Coral Triangle located in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific

So What If I\u27m Gonna Hurt Myself: The ADA\u27s Direct Threat Defense

A high-beam walking ironworker atop a skyscraper develops a severe case of vertigo. A power saw operator develops narcolepsy. Must the employers of these individuals with disabilities tolerate the risk that they pose to their own safety in fear of facing disability discrimination charges by removing the employees from their jobs? The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) clearly provides a defense to a discrimination claim by an individual with a disability when the employer takes action based on the individual’s posing a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace. This is commonly referred to as the direct threat defense. But what if the employee poses a direct threat to his own health or safety, but does not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace? Will the direct threat defense shield an employer who discriminates against an individual with a disability in those circumstances? Framed another way, does the ADA’s direct threat defense include a direct threat (to self) defense? This article thoroughly addresses the sometimes thorny and complex direct threat defense. The article describes the ADA’s textual direct threat defense, which applies only to threats to others, and illustrates how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) expanded the direct threat defense to include direct threats to one’s own health or safety in addition to the safety of others in the workplace. The EEOC defines direct threat as “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” The EEOC’s expansion of the direct threat defense prompted confusion among federal courts. Some federal courts deferred to the EEOC’s regulations, which inherently limited protection for employees with disabilities; other federal courts refused to defer to the EEOC’s expanded direct threat defense, concluding that the ADA itself was the proper standard for the direct threat defense and that the ADA’s text did not include threats to self in the direct threat defense. Still other courts adopted a hybrid approach, which inherently transported the direct threat defense from the employer’s case to the employee’s case by requiring them to establish that they are able to perform the essential functions of a job without risk of injury to themselves. After letting the authorized scope of the direct threat defense percolate in the lower courts for a few years, the Supreme Court then addressed the disagreement among circuit courts. The Court held that the ADA permits the EEOC’s enhanced regulation and allows deference to the EEOC’s interpretation of the direct threat defense. The Court reasoned that Congress included the harm-to-others provision in the ADA as simply an example of a legitimate qualification standard that is job-related and consistent with business necessity. But the use of that example did not limit the scope of the ADA’s direct threat defense only to threats to another and not to oneself. The Court rejected the idea that the EEOC’s direct threat defense encourages discriminatory paternalism. Instead, the Court concluded that the EEOC reasonably interpreted the ADA in a way that would not force employers to ignore “specific and documented risks to the employee himself, even if the employee would take his chances for the sake of getting a job.” Even though the Supreme Court validated the EEOC’s expanded direct threat defense, this article explains how to properly analyze the scope of the defense in light of the Supreme Court’s narrow and strict interpretation of it. Despite the Court’s validation of the expanded direct threat defense, including threats to self, attorneys must understand that such a defense only applies in limited circumstances and that employment decisions based on unsubstantiated fears and stereotypes will not (and must not) be accommodated by the defense. Moreover, the direct threat defense does not permit an employer to exclude an individual with a disability when that individual’s disability might pose a direct threat to his own health or safety; rather, the employee must pose a significant risk to his health or safety. Additionally, an employer still must conduct an individualized assessment based on the most current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence to determine whether an individual poses a significant risk of substantial harm to himself. Even if an individual’s disability poses a direct threat to his health or safety, an employer is still required to conduct a reasonable accommodation analysis to determine whether the individual with a disability can perform the position’s essential functions. In sum, the Supreme Court’s blessing of the EEOC’s expanded direct threat defense does not open additional avenues of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Indeed, the use of the direct threat defense in cases involving direct threats to oneself should not be readily attainable and most likely will be sparingly utilized in practice. If an attorney for either an employer or employee with a disability uses the framework outlined in this article to navigate the direct threat defense when faced with the difficult question of whether an individual poses a direct threat to his own health or safety, a workable and humane balance can be achieved between ensuring that individuals with disabilities do not unnecessarily endanger themselves while ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not unlawfully discriminated against based on stereotypes, myths, speculation, or unfocused paternalism

Mathematical models for space shuttle ground systems

Math models are a series of algorithms, comprised of algebraic equations and Boolean Logic. At Kennedy Space Center, math models for the Space Shuttle Systems are performed utilizing the Honeywell 66/80 digital computers, Modcomp II/45 Minicomputers and special purpose hardware simulators (MicroComputers). The Shuttle Ground Operations Simulator operating system provides the language formats, subroutines, queueing schemes, execution modes and support software to write, maintain and execute the models. The ground systems presented consist primarily of the Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen Cryogenic Propellant Systems, as well as liquid oxygen External Tank Gaseous Oxygen Vent Hood/Arm and the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) High Bay Cells. The purpose of math modeling is to simulate the ground hardware systems and to provide an environment for testing in a benign mode. This capability allows the engineers to check out application software for loading and launching the vehicle, and to verify the Checkout, Control, & Monitor Subsystem within the Launch Processing System. It is also used to train operators and to predict system response and status in various configurations (normal operations, emergency and contingent operations), including untried configurations or those too dangerous to try under real conditions, i.e., failure modes

Water quality issues in the Illinois River watershed: A proposal for new voluntary incentives

Concerns about water quality degradation exist in Northwest Arkansas. The purpose of this study was to analyze the potential usefulness of U.S. conservation programs in addressing water quality concerns on farms in the Illinois River watershed as well as greater Washington County, Arkansas. It was hypothesized that neither the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) nor the Conservation Security Program (CSP) in their current forms effectively assists farmers in meeting water-quality management goals. That hypothesis was tested by 1) examining agricultural characteristics of the watershed, 2) actual adoption of EQIP and CSP in Washington County and Arkansas, and, 3) identifying factors that influence program adoption. Results show that based on watershed and farmer characteristics, neither program can meet water quality goals for the region. EQIP adoption is hindered by high rejection rates of applications and farmer dissatisfaction with the program. CSP adoption is unlikely because it does not consider watersheds with degraded water quality and allowable best management practices (BMPs) do not include those related to waste management – precisely the practices most often used by these watershed farmers. Suggestions are offered to modify both EQIP and CSP and use them as a two-part plan to better serve the needs of farmers and improve both adoption rates of BMPs by farmers and water quality in the region