The Logician Versus the Linguist- an Empirical Tale of Functional Discrimination in the Legal Academy

This paper, focusing exclusively on gender, asks whether male and female law students express different preferences for logic-based learning models. A wide variety of educational theories and other theories have been used to conceptualize different learning preferences among law students but until now, none has focused on logical intelligence compared with the other intelligences. Using Harvard educational psychologist Howard Gardner\u27s theory of Multiple Intelligences, this paper describes an empirical study establishing that male and female law students express differences in preferring logical intelligence over the other intelligences. This paper introduces the concept of functional discrimination, addressing the ways in which law school functionally discriminates against women by significantly favoring logical intelligence. Law School functionally discriminates against women (1) by not providing women access to the prime benefits of the institution an

You\u27re Fired! Donald Trump, No Child Left Behind, and The Limits of Dissonant Leadership in Education

In Part I of this article, I explain the theory of Primal Leadership and Dissonant Leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). In Part II, I enunciate the ways in which key No Child Left Behind Act provisions encourage and, in some cases, mandate that schools utilize Dissonant Leadership strategies. In Part III, I explain why the Dissonant Leadership strategies espoused by the No Child Left Behind Act undermine the purported purposes of the statute. In Part IV, I consider the ability of an education statute to mandate or encourage Primal Leadership strategies

Is Race in Public Schools Still Compelling?Parents Involved in Community Schools v.Seattle School District No. 1Justice Breyer\u27s Theory of Active Liberty, andPractical Considerations of Democracy

This article explores why the promise of ending our dual society, as first articulated in Brown v. Board of Education, has not been fulfilled. Specifically this article examines a more recent case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, addressing the lost promise of Brown and the implications for our dual society

You\u27re Fired! Donald Trump, No Child Left Behind, and The Limits of Dissonant Leadership in Education

In Part I of this article, I explain the theory of Primal Leadership and Dissonant Leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). In Part II, I enunciate the ways in which key No Child Left Behind Act provisions encourage and, in some cases, mandate that schools utilize Dissonant Leadership strategies. In Part III, I explain why the Dissonant Leadership strategies espoused by the No Child Left Behind Act undermine the purported purposes of the statute. In Part IV, I consider the ability of an education statute to mandate or encourage Primal Leadership strategies

You\u27re Fired! Donald Trump, No Child Left Behind, and The Limits of Dissonant Leadership in Education

In Part I of this article, I explain the theory of Primal Leadership and Dissonant Leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). In Part II, I enunciate the ways in which key No Child Left Behind Act provisions encourage and, in some cases, mandate that schools utilize Dissonant Leadership strategies. In Part III, I explain why the Dissonant Leadership strategies espoused by the No Child Left Behind Act undermine the purported purposes of the statute. In Part IV, I consider the ability of an education statute to mandate or encourage Primal Leadership strategies

Is Race in Public Schools Still Compelling?Parents Involved in Community Schools v.Seattle School District No. 1Justice Breyer\u27s Theory of Active Liberty, andPractical Considerations of Democracy

This article explores why the promise of ending our dual society, as first articulated in Brown v. Board of Education, has not been fulfilled. Specifically this article examines a more recent case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, addressing the lost promise of Brown and the implications for our dual society

What would Harry Potter say about BONG HiTS 4 JESUS?

In Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court considered whether a high school principal, Morse, violated a student’s First Amendment right to free speech by suspending the student, Frederick, for refusing to take down a banner reading, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” while students were watching the Olympic torch relay pass in front of their school. In a divided decision, the Supreme Court held that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the banner and subsequently suspending the student. The majority’s reasoning, in large part, is based on the fact that “schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be reasonably regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.” The majority’s emphasis on the notion that schools are entrusted with the care of vulnerable minors draws on the principle of in loco parentis. In loco parentis, coming from Latin, means “in place of parent” and refers to the legal authority and obligations teachers, administrators, and other school personnel have to safeguard students. Moreover, it is significant that the majority uses this in loco parentis reasoning to cast aside the stringent student-centered speech test from Tinker v. Des Moines in favor of the more liberal school-centered speech test from Bethel v. Fraser. Thus, the majority explains that the principal could restrict Frederick’s speech because she was keeping him and other students safe from what she reasonably interpreted as a harmful pro drug message on his banner. The dissent, on the other hand is concerned about the slippery slope and ensuing consequences of using in loco parentis with such a broad brush to cast aside the student-centered test from Tinker in order to curtail student speech. As Justice Stevens explains, “Under the Court\u27s reasoning, must the First Amendment give way whenever a school seeks to punish a student for any speech mentioning beer, or indeed anything else that might be deemed risky to teenagers?” Moreover, the dissent raises concerns about the dangers for democracy in adopting a ruling that overly values protection over preparation-- “Among other things, the Court\u27s ham-handed, categorical approach is deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students…” Finally, this law review article uses Princeton and University of Pennsylvania scholar Amy Gutmann’s Theory of Democracy in Education to discuss the implications of Morse v. Frederick on student speech and democracy

When Good Enough Is No Longer Good Enough: How the High Stakes Nature of the No Child Left Behind Act Supplanted the Rowley Definition of a Free Appropriate Public Education

This Article asks the basic question whether the good enough education standard required by the Rowley Court is still good enough in the high-stakes context of the No Child Left Behind Act. In Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, the Supreme Court provided a framework to determine whether students with disabilities are provided with a free and appropriate public education in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA ). The Rowley Court interpreted IDEA as focusing more on students with disabilities accessing some educational benefits, rather than on assessing and maximizing their educational performance