1,985 research outputs found

    Growth and developmental plasticity of Chaoborus americanus populations

    Get PDF
    Includes bibliographical references.The larval stage of the phantom midge Chaoborus americanus (Chaoboridae) is an important predator on zooplankton in temperate, fishless ponds. Chaoborus have distinct development stages typical of holometabolous insects: egg, larva (four larval instars), pupa, and adult. Temperature and food levels can significantly affect development rates in insects. The purpose of this study was: (1) to compare developmental patterns of populations of C. americanus from different latitudes (northern Wisconsin, northern Illinois), which experience different annual temperature regimes; and (2) to construct a mathematical model to predict larval development patterns (Developmental Model) and another to predict abundance patterns for C. americanus populations based on temperature and food regimes (Abundance Model). The Chaoborus americanus population in northern Wisconsin (Tender Bog) completed one generation per year. The northern Illinois population (Meiner Pond) had two to three generations per year. Pupae that developed from overwintering fourth larvae in Meiner Pond were nearly twice the mass of the pupae in the summer generation. The pupae of the overwintering population of fourth instar larvae in Tender Bog were comparable in mass to the pupae from the first generation (late May) in Meiner Pond. Using laboratory estimates for growth and development rates, and the appropriate field temperature data, the Developmental Model correctly predicted a one-year generation time for a C. americanus population in Tender Bog and three generations per year for the Meiner population. Similarly, the results generated by the abundance model were consistent with the phenology and patterns of instar abundance observed in the respective populations.B.S. (Bachelor of Science

    Ending the Internal Affairs Farce

    Get PDF

    Doing Away with Disorderly Conduct

    Get PDF
    Disorderly conduct laws are weapons the powerful wield against the unpopular. All fifty states and many municipalities have disorderly conduct laws that criminalize speech and conduct ranging from unreasonable noise to opprobrious language. Although these laws are facially neutral, their astounding breadth and vagueness serve as a rubber stamp for law enforcement to surveil and criminally charge marginalized people. Their targets include communities of color, people with unpopular religious or political beliefs, and people whose mental health struggles render them incapable of complying with societal expectations of order. Although courts and scholars have criticized these laws for decades, none have explicitly called for their abolition. This Article does so. The Article examines both the constitutional flaws of disorderly conduct laws and the many societal harms they enable, before ultimately concluding that any minimal good they accomplish cannot justify the damage they inflict. Amidst a growing national reckoning over the crisis of abusive and discriminatory policing, this Article provides a timely critique of the criminal laws that empower such policing. It uses disorderly conduct laws as a lens through which to examine the extraordinary costs of overcriminalization and the vulnerable people who most often bear the brunt of such costs. Although disorderly conduct laws are not the only criminal laws legislatures should consider eliminating, they are both constitutionally and socially problematic to a degree few other criminal laws achieve

    Police Privacy

    Get PDF

    Diversity, Distance, and the Delivery of Higher Education

    Get PDF

    Dreamers Interrupted: The Case of the Rescission of the Program of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

    Get PDF
    In 1994, California voters went to the polls to pass Proposition 187, a measure designed to deter unauthorized immigration by denying a range of public benefits to the undocumented. Twenty-five years later, undocumented immigration remains a deeply polarizing issue in our country. But if the political discourse seems similar, the civil rights toolkit is not. In an earlier era, equal protection arguments had pride of place, but today, advocates rely heavily on structural and institutional arguments to constrain official discretion.In 1982, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe declared unconstitutional a Texas statute that denied undocumented students access to public elementary and secondary schools. The Justices emphasized the harm to our democracy that would result from dehumanizing innocent children and relegating them to a permanent underclass of illiterates. In truth, Plyler was a jurisprudential anomaly even at the time it was decided. As a result, in the intervening years, the decision was narrowly limited to its facts, and resolution of the treatment of undocumented immigrants was largely left to the political process. With no clear place in the polity, the undocumented were especially burdened by processes that depend heavily on striking political bargains to influence discretionary policies. In the absence of a right to vote and a robust set of constitutional rights, unauthorized immigrants have mainly been able to bolster their claims to full inclusion through appeals to decency and desert.The struggles of the Dreamers, undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, illustrate the limits of these calls for basic fairness. The Dreamers’ assertions of innocence, even though expressly legitimated in Plyler, have not allowed them to escape what sociologist Roberto G. Gonzales describes as a “transition to illegality” when they graduate from high school. Despite their academic achievements, they could not find a secure path to higher education, lawful employment, or American citizenship. When President Barack Obama’s administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program in 2012, undocumented youth received temporary relief from the threat of deportation as well as access to a renewable authorization to work legally in the United States. However, President Donald Trump’s administration rescinded the program just five years later. In the ensuing litigation, lower courts have split on the rescission’s permissibility, and the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the issues in the 2019-2020 term. As the Justices deliberate about these questions, they must consider the unique situation that the Dreamers face. Beneficiaries of the DACA program have come out of the shadows to apply for driver’s licenses and get jobs. The program’s abrupt termination has significantly destabilized their lives, and they cannot turn to the ballot box to rectify the situation. Although the Dreamers have asked for the “right to have rights,” the Court has not reinvigorated its equal protection jurisprudence to confer basic entitlements on persons or even citizens. Because the Court has construed the constitutional entitlements of marginalized groups parsimoniously, government officials operate in a steadily expanding realm of discretionary authority. In response, civil rights advocates have been forced to focus on just how much latitude these officials enjoy before they abuse their discretion. In the DACA cases, undocumented youth have contended that they at least have a right to settled expectations when relying on benefits under federal programs. By requiring administrative agencies to weigh reliance interests in a meaningful way, the Court can make clear that more is at stake than mere deference to government officials’ exercise of discretion. The Justices have the opportunity to remind agencies that program beneficiaries also have significant interests at stake that deserve official recognition and respect

    Angela Harris: The Person, the Teacher, the Scholar

    Get PDF
    Angela Harris has written eloquently about the creative tensions that define her as a person, a teacher, and a scholar. She has explored the challenges of maintaining a private identity when called upon to share her life experience with a public audience, whether in the classroom, at a conference, or in an essay. She has reflected on the ways in which legal teaching privileges reason over emotion, wondering whether this dynamic impoverishes the exchange of ideas and undervalues the joy that can motivate a caring advocate. And, she has explored the dialectic between identity politics and the structural forces that entrench inequality. Angela argues that whatever post-modern doubts critical race theorists may harbor about the utility of law in effecting change, they must act as pragmatic modernists who strive to combat injustice. In all of this work, Angela demonstrates the creativity, candor, courage, and compassion that inspire all of us to dedicate ourselves to making a difference

    School Finance Reform and Professor Stephen D. Sugarman’s Lasting Legacy

    Get PDF
    Once, over lunch, I recall a law professor reflecting on scholarly work’s ephemeral nature. Legal academics, he thought, should consider themselves lucky if their articles sparked a discussion that lasted for even a few years. By that standard, Professor Stephen Sugarman’s seminal work on school finance reform, done in collaboration with John Coons and William Clune, must count as a Methuselah of academic concepts. Decades later, this research continues to prompt scholarly debate, legal advocacy, and legislative reform. In this essay, I first describe the origins of the theory of school finance reform. I then turn to the ongoing influence that this approach has had on how schools are funded. I close with some thoughts on the reasons for this idea’s tremendous staying power
    • …
    corecore