Love and Refusal: Contrasting Dialectical Interpretations and its Implications in the Works of Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, 1941-1969

This thesis is an intellectual history of dialecticism and its use in the works of the Frankfurt School members, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Famously, these two men had a ferocious and polemical debate in the pages of Dissent Magazine in 1955-56. The Fromm-Marcuse Debate has since become almost the sole lens in which the intellectual differences and similarities between these men are analyzed. Through a comparative and historical analysis of their individual work, largely removed from the Dissent Debate, I offer a new interpretation of their conflict, their personal relationship, and a new perspective on critical theory and its relationship to political action. I argue that Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse\u27s intellectual ideas are better juxtaposed through their interpretation of dialectics, rather than psychoanalysis, and that through this, they present us with starkly different prescriptions for individual and collective political engagement. Thus, both Fromm and Marcuse are outliers within the field of critical theory, and certainly within the Frankfurt School, even as their ideas remain in firm conflict with one another

The National Park System and Development on Private Lands: Opportunities and Tools to Protect Park Resources

34 pages. Contains footnotes

The National Park System and Development on Private Lands: Opportunities and Tools to Protect Park Resources

34 pages. Contains footnotes

IMMUNE MODULATION OF METABOLISM: THE ROLE OF MACROPHAGES, NKT CELLS AND DENDRITIC CELLS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE METABOLIC DISTURBANCES OF OBESITY

It is now established that adipose tissue macrophages, which accumulate in obese individuals and rodents, play a key role in the generation of a low-grade, chronic inflammation, as well as the development of steatosis and insulin resistance, when faced with chronic overnutrition. The hypothesis of this dissertation is that other cells of the immune system and inflammatory responses within other insulin sensitive organs are also involved in the metabolic regulation of nutrient utilization. Specifically, we tested the responses of dendritic cells (DC), Kupffer cells (KC, the resident macrophages of the liver) and Natural Killer T (NKT) cells in the liver, as well as in adipose tissue. To address this hypothesis, we developed two model systems to artificially alter the immune system while monitoring changes within the liver and/or adipose tissue. First, we established an in vitro co-culture model of the liver with mouse hepatocytes and KC to study interactions between the two cell types. Second, we established an adoptive transfer protocol to exogenously increase the numbers of macrophages and various types of DC in mice consuming a high fat diet. Finally, we utilized the CD1d-/- mouse line to clarify an important controversy regarding the involvement of NKT cells in the metabolic disturbances of obesity. We found that KC decrease hepatocyte palmitate oxidation and identified prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) as a potential mediator of this effect. Furthermore, the liver and adipose tissue of mice receiving weekly injections of immature bone marrow-derived DC are skewed towards a predominantly TH2, or anti-inflammatory, phenotype. Additionally, these mice accumulate less fat and are partially protected against diet-induced insulin resistance. Also, we illustrate that removal of NKT cells does not alter insulin resistance or steatosis when consuming a high fat diet (HFD). In conclusion, we have demonstrated that responses of immune cells within the liver alter lipid metabolism and can induce changes consistent with the development of steatosis. Additionally, DC play an integral role in the determination of body composition and insulin sensitivity when challenged with a HFD. And finally, NKT cells may not be involved in the development of the metabolic disturbances of obesity

Pretext After \u3cem\u3eBostock\u3c/em\u3e—Disproving One of the Employer’s Reasons is Enough

When an employer gives a pretextual reason for an employee’s termination, that falsehood can help prove that the true reason was discrimination. The dishonesty constitutes “affirmative evidence of guilt.” The trier of fact may “infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer’s explanation.” However, when an employer provides multiple reasons for firing an employee, there has been a split of opinion whether the plaintiff must disprove one or all of those reasons. The Supreme Court’s recent discussion of multiple motives in Bostock v. Clayton County provides the tools to resolve this split and compels rejection of disprove-all-reasons. Bostock held that gender discrimination is actionable, even if the employer was motivated by other legitimate reasons, so long as gender was a but-for cause. A plaintiff need only show that the termination was based “in part” on a discriminatory motive and need not show that bias was the sole, or even the primary reason. Since plaintiffs need only show that bias was “in part” the reason for discharge, and can agree with employers that other lawful reasons contributed, it would be absurd to require plaintiffs to disprove the other reasons. Bostock’s recognition of multiple, independent, but-for reasons for an employment action, and rejection of a sole or primary reason standard, highlights in new ways the dysfunctional nature of the disprove-all-reasons test. This Article discusses various errors and flaws in the disprove-all-reasons standard. Simply put, when a plaintiff can show that discrimination was one of the determinative reasons for an adverse employment action, there is no longer a need to disprove the other reasons. Social science confirms that bias is often expressed in the presence of other, valid factors that contribute to a decision. When a plaintiff disproves one of the employer’s but-for excuses, a jury should be permitted to infer that discrimination inhabits the same causal space that the employer ascribed to its false explanation. The jury is permitted to find that a false explanation was offered to obscure the presence of discrimination, even if other explanations are also offered