Suchergebnisse

Recent laboratory work has suggested a defensive attribution interpretation of the attribution of responsibility following an accident. The present study was an attempt to test these notions in a field situation. A questionnaire was devised concerning a campus stabbing incident in which
one girl suffered severe consequences and her companion suffered less severe consequences. Results were compatible with defensive attribution. Those Subjects who most closely identified with the victim (females) perceived chance as a contributing factor less often when consequences were severe,
and held the victim more responsible for her fate, than did Subjects who did not identify with the victim (male).

Under the Constitution, voters choose their elected officials. Partisan gerrymanders, however, enable elected officials to choose their voters and, in the process, dilute the votes of citizens who do not support them. From this perspective, partisan gerrymanders undermine the sovereignty of the people and, thereby, undermine the foundation of this democratic republic. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court declared that partisan gerrymandering raises a nonjusticiable political question beyond the competence of the federal courts. This Article asks: How did this happen? How could the Supreme Court abdicate its duty to protect the sovereignty of the people and its duty to provide access to justice? The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, located the issues raised in these cases not in the jurisprudence of voting and voting rights but in a series of narrow claims about the competence of federal courts to craft appropriate legal standards. The dissent, penned by Justice Elena Kagan, focused on voters, voting, and the sovereignty of the people. Grounded in the constitutional values of a democratic republic, the dissent offered a passionate repudiation of virtually every element of the majority opinion. Yet, in the end, it was the dissent that developed a methodology, based on the work of the lower federal courts, for a workable standard for addressing the challenges that the majority rejected as impossible. It was the dissent that found a way forward based on the recognition of the modern technology of vote dilution that provides the basis for preserving the voters' access to justice. Nevertheless, the crafty and at times disingenuous framework of the majority opinion that ignored voting rights and democracy prevailed. This Article suggests that this may well be only a temporary victory as a younger generation of lawyers, judges, and citizens with more experience with the technology of partisan gerrymandering will find the majority's framework and strategy as implausible and unpersuasive as the dissent already did in Rucho.

Even as certain policy makers press for mandatory payouts from endowments, the concept of an endowment remains surprisingly elusive. In the absence of either operational concepts of endowments or well-established metrics for identifying and measuring endowments, public policy discussions proceed with an implicit model of an endowment as "money in waiting" that is not currently in use for exempt educational purposes. This Article suggests that endowments, however conceptualized or measured, are better understood as "money in use" even though it is not being distributed. It argues that most endowment money is currently in use for at least two purposes. The earnings on endowments are funding both current operations and long-term commitments. The endowment principle itself is used for various forms of credit enhancement for numerous forms of university borrowing. Because the endowment is in use, its distribution would have a far greater impact than policy makers understand. The Article also suggests that mandatory distributions would have little impact on the public policy issue of access to education. Very few universities have substantial endowments and even fewer have endowments that could make a difference over the long term. Although Congress has the authority to require mandatory distributions as a condition of continued tax exemption, such a requirement has been used only in cases where there was reason to doubt that various types of exempt entities are using their funds for exempt activities. This is not the case with colleges and universities. Recommendations for mandatory distributions do not address any problem with the operation of colleges and universities for exempt purposes and do not offer any realistic hope for a solution of the very serious problem of financing the education and research mission of universities. Universities depend fundamentally on government funding in the form of student loans and grants and contracts for research. Universities are "parastatal" enterprises that are publicly funded but privately operated. Much more research is needed on this aspect of university operations and on the actual uses of the endowment that are inconsistent with distribution. Imposing a mandatory distribution requirement on universities is not a substitute for public policies that offer realistic prospects for addressing the problems of access to education by students and adequate funding for research on which our economy and society depend.

To say that this is now Dr. Kissinger's world is more or less indisputable. But to say that his world includes the whole of the globe is inaccurate, In all Africa below the Mediterranean fringe there is not one leader who can refer to "our friend Henry." As Dr. Kissinger admitted in his confirmation hearings as Secretary of State, he had, after a quarter century as one of our leading academic authorities on foreign policy, not yet formulated any "philosophy" of African-American relations. He spoke vaguely of calling some of our ambassadors to Africa back to Washington "to give me their judgment on what the best U.S. philosophy should be in that area."

The persistent vitality of groups that are neither traditional nor modern nor transitional poses one of the most stubborn conceptual and practical problems of political development. An examination of the political-religious sects of South Vietnam from the perspective of the paradox of non-modern and untraditional institutionalization questions the common hypothesis of unilinear development. It is facile to assume that such groups as tribes, castes, or millenarian movements will conveniently wither away under the onslaught of modernity or to condemn them as causes of the lack of development in the new states. Far from being aberrant vestiges of a past that is being overcome, the sects are but particular manifestations of historic and contemporary factionalism. What South Vietnam lacks is not a vigorous development of sub-national groups but a central government with responsive and directive capacity. Without such a center the concept of a system becomes meaningless and the sects have little reason for seeking security in interaction rather than incapsulation.

The role and importance of entrepreneurship and new business creation to the economy have been the subject of increased attention in recent years. Indeed, it is now widely recognised that the promotion of entrepreneurship is not only necessary for a healthy economy, but also critical for sustaining prosperity and creating new jobs. The authors discuss the debate on intervention in the business creation process, and pay particular attention to one aspect of such intervention, namely entrepreneurship training. The issue of the effectiveness of this type of training is also addressed, and the results of a comparative study of eight enterprise training programmes in five European countries, are presented. In addition to the intercountry comparison of entrepreneurship training programmes, the research undertaken comprised a three-year longitudinal study of participants in one of these programmes (CCNEA). The combination of the analysis of the comparative study with the more in-depth case study, has highlighted a number of issues which should be of particular interest to enterprise policymakers throughout Europe. These include the need for early stage awareness-raising through the education system, and the importance of providing secure funding for programmes; for pre-programme screening; for evaluation; and the need to ensure wide access.