Review of European and Comparative Law, 2020, Vol. 41, No 2

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12153/1841

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 14
  • Item
    Community Partnerships
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020-09-01) Thomas, Adrainne; Casale, Carolyn
    An egalitarian model of university-school partnerships starts with a theoretical frame of equity and social justice. This qualitative research study sought to understand high school students’ perception of community service through an intergenerational university-high school-elementary school partnership. Data analysis consisted of detailed notes collected from university faculty who oversaw the focus group discussions and two graduate assistants who took observational notes. These notes were analyzed and thematically organized. The findings indicate that the students enjoyed the experience and were highly motivated to complete and read their community themed book for the younger children in their community. This research contributes new knowledge to the field of community engagement and to the field of informal and formal education through its analysis of discussions on meaningful community service pertaining to university-school collaborative partnerships.
  • Item
    Campus Governance in U.S. Universities and Colleges
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020-09-01) Laforge, William N.
    The governance of universities and colleges in the United States basically follows the concept and spirit of democracy embraced by the nation from its birth. The systems and practices in place at most U.S. institutions of higher learning include collaborative, representative, or collective decision-making arrangements known as shared governance. However, these systems and practices are hardly uniform due to the diversity of governance patterns that reflect the unique and different history, needs, and mission of a particular institution. Sometimes they are differentiated from, and contrasted with, corporate, business, and more authoritarian or centralized forms of institutional governance. In contrast with university governance elsewhere in the world—that can range from strong central government control to private self-regulated operations—the U.S. forms of campus governance have emerged in a country that does not have centralized authority over education. U.S. institutions of higher learning respond to a variety of controls and interests that are on display variously at public, private non-profit, private for-profit, and religious universities. Governance, authority, and administration are spread across a wide spectrum of players, including governing boards; presidents, chancellors, and other administrators; the academy/faculty; administrative staff; campus committees; students; and, even some external factors. Shared governance is not a perfect formula or panacea for university administration and decision-making. It does, however, provide a methodology, system, and concept that can help guide the leadership of a university as it approaches the administration and conduct of its educational responsibilities. In today’s higher education environment, the term governance is rather expansive. In one sense, it means top-down governance that is the rightful role and authority of an institutional board charged with overseeing policy, programming, performance, and executive guidance and evaluation. But, it also variously means the use of institutional strategies, operations, and components to distribute, disseminate, and “share” authority and responsibilities for a university’s administrative, management, and decision-making functions, i.e., “on-campus governance.” In this respect, shared governance “borrows” many of the attributes and principles of democratic government. In any case, shared governance, in its many forms and applications, is widely practiced in U.S. universities, including Delta State University.
  • Item
    Prosecuting Attorneys in a Democracy – A California Perspective
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020-09-01) McKinley, Patrick
    A prosecuting attorney in a democracy is very important in the processing of criminal cases- from pre-filing to final appeal. Much of the involvement of the District Attorney, both before a criminal case is filed, and during the prosecution of the case, stems from the “Exclusionary Rule”. It is the usual case that the police will bring their investigation, their arrest warrant or search warrant affidavit to a District Attorney to review it prior to taking it to the judge. In this connection, District Attorneys will themselves reject 5-10% of the warrant requests submitted to them for approval, often asking law enforcement to do some further investigation before resubmitting the warrant. Furthermore, because of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, only the District Attorney or the California State Attorney General can make the decision to file or not file a case. This Article illustrates the impact of such discretion. The problem of democracy is strictly connected to the process of DA’s selection, what has also been here presented. Another fundamental issue is a role of DA in voir dire, mainly because jury trials are guaranteed by the federal Constitution and are associated with the idea of democracy. Separation of Powers and Judicial Control of the DA, the police, and the sentencing of those convicted of crimes have been analyzed from the perspective of the California law. Additionally, the article includes final comments on the technological progress and its impact on criminal law and democracy. All the conclusions have been made in reference to Author’s experience as Assistant DA in California.
  • Item
    Business in the U.S. Democracy
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020-09-01) Solymossy, Emeric
    This paper discusses a model of business in a “democracy” by identifying the three underlying concepts; the individual, the collective (society), and the government (system and mechanics). Furthermore, each of these elements is also a multi-factor construct. The foundations and development of the United States is discussed. The exploration, discovery and development of any new country require risk taking and innovative behavior, which was instrumental in the creation of heroes and myths, which shaped much of the culture. From this background, some of the principle characteristics of the entrepreneur are explored and correlated to some generally accepted measures of national culture. The concepts are developed; their inter-relationships and the resulting dynamics are presented. The foundation(s) and uniqueness of the U.S. form of democracy is explored as a government typology. Data is presented exhibiting the variability of business confidence, and a conclusion is reached that the attitudes and policies of the government have a greater impact on business formation and success than the form of government.
  • Item
    Academic Freedom: a Choice Between Conservative or Liberal Perceptions – the Case of the United States
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020-09-01) Maćkowska, Katarzyna
    It is only the minimum extent to which the law becomes the instrument of coping with social tautness regarding the academic freedom. On the one hand, legal provisions significantly limit the number of cases related to hate crimes but on the other, they sometimes narrow a discussion due to difficulties in harmonizing individual’s rights and campuses’ perception - a phenomenon, which in the U.S. had been called as “chilling” the freedom. Undoubtedly, the enactment of free speech or academic freedom regulations at universities is necessary as it helps to prevent from a “hate speech” but the legal shape of this process has been strictly connected to a determination for either liberal or conservative description of the academic freedom. Regarding the newest Niche’s rankings, ten universities have been selected, five out of the most liberal and five the most conservative public ones. Furthermore, two catholic universities have been added to describe differences in defining the academic freedom. Moreover, some references have been made to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the very fundamental documents, namely the 1940 Statement and Harvard Free Speech Guidelines. In the separate article a problem of legislative acts that had been enacted for the past two years in a response to Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression by the University of Chicago of 2014 will be covered. A few remarks upon this matter have been hereby made, though. The article is based on a dogmatic legal method, including quotations of legal sources and their subsequent analysis.