Chesnut-Miller-Manning Papers - Accession 771

The Chesnut-Miller-Manning Family Papers consist of financial and property records, correspondence, estate records, legal documents, and other items. Included are the papers of John Chesnut (1743-1818), James Chesnut, Sr. (1773-1866), James Chesnut, Jr. (1815-1885), Stephen Decatur Miller (1787-1838), and John Laurence Manning (1816-1889). Papers pertain to the business, financial, and plantation affairs and political activities of three generations of the Chesnut family, John Chesnut, James Chesnut, Sr. and James Chesnut, Jr., as well as James Chesnut, Jr.’s father-in-law Stephen Decatur Miller and John Laurence Manning.https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/manuscriptcollection_findingaids/1760/thumbnail.jp

Madaba Plains Project 9: The 2004 Season at Tall al-Umayri and Subsequent Studies [review]/Herr, L. G., D. R. Clark., and L. T. Geraty

This is a book review by Owen Chesnut

But I\u27m a Language Teacher! Dual Immersion Teacher Identities in a Complex Policy Context

This qualitative study examined dual immersion teachers’ identities as they engaged in policy implementation within their school, collaborating in professional learning communities (PLC) with one-way immersion teachers. Data derived from participant observation, interviews, and interpersonal process recall were analyzed through a theoretical lens blending communities of practice theories with theories on identity formation. Findings suggested that the requirement to collaborate across instructional contexts helped the dual immersion teachers to form strong and unique identities that sometimes conflicted with the requirements of their PLC work. The dual immersion teachers’ identities were shaped by their roles in the dual immersion program working with ELL students and by their work on PLC teams, and they often felt misunderstood by their colleagues who were not dual immersion teachers. This study has implications for leadership practice and policy research, suggesting that teachers’ identities can impact on their engagement with school policies

Regulatory acceptance of read-across

n/

Strict Scrutiny & Fisher: The Court's Decision and its Implications

During the 2012-2013 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, many were in suspense over how the Court would rule on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the latest higher education case involving race-conscious admissions. Because it has been less than ten years since the Supreme Court ruled on Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, some expected the Court to overrule the use of race in deciding admissions into colleges and universities. Instead, the Supreme Court affirmed that diversity is a compelling state interest and race-conscious admissions are permissible under a strict scrutiny review. However, the Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit because it did not properly review the University’s admissions plan to determine whether it was narrowly tailored. In Fisher, Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian Texas resident, claimed that the University of Texas at Austin denied her admission because of her race and that other minority students with fewer qualifications were admitted instead of her. Affirming the district court’s opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the University presuming that the University’s decision to use race was made in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that deference to the University under the narrow tailoring prong does not follow the standard of strict scrutiny. After briefly explaining the equal protection analysis and earlier Supreme Court decisions involving race-conscious admissions, we provide a background on the Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin case and ruling. We further analyze the case under the strict scrutiny judicial review standard and explore how social science could play a role in determining the outcome. The article then expands on the ruling’s implications in higher education, K-12 education, private colleges and universities, and the hiring of faculty and teachers