Suchergebnisse

American military institutions importantly shaped the popular sport of college football. From support at its two oldest service academies, interest in football spread through military units across the country with military actors involved in the formation of the country's first collegiate athletic conference and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Subsequently, the US military functioned as an agent of authoritative diffusion, fostering interest in college football after the First World War. Furthermore, military institutions, including the draft, affected not only which team would be most successful during the Second World War but also how civilians would play the game. These effects call to mind Charles Tilly's work on state formation and security-driven resource extraction as well as Harold Lasswell's garrison state idea. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

At first glance, Britain's decision in 1957 to end conscription appears to be explainable solely by external factors since that change coincided with the decision of Harold Macmillan's government to bolster its nuclear capability following the embarrassing Suez Crisis. Furthermore, the decision was framed as a cost-cutting move amid budgetary challenges. However, that decision was substantially influenced by the fact that deployment of conscripts was heavily constrained by British domestic politics. Similarly, the merits of conscription for generating a large pool of reservists had limited utility given the political sensitivity of mobilizing reservists. The nature of the domestic constraints-both political and social-on conscription are also evident in the fact that London opted to forego selective service and scrap mandatory military service altogether. This action accelerated British imperial decline after independence was granted to India, which had previously been a sizeable colonial reservoir of British military manpower. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

What happens when two deeply held American values, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination, clash? In any well-established democratic society, people have the right to free speech as well as the right to equal treatment and protection under the law. But when one person's speech harms another person on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, it may qualify as hate speech and be subject to restriction. Cortese argues that restricting hate speech does not violate the guiding principle behind the First Amendment, but he is not eager to see more lawsuits