DOCSLIB.ORG

Upcoming Issues in the Court Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upcoming Issues in the Court Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2000 Section 8: Looking Ahead: Upcoming Issues in the Court Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 8: Looking Ahead: Upcoming Issues in the Court" (2000). Supreme Court Preview. 87. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/87 Copyright c 2000 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview LOOKING AHEAD: UPCOMING ISSUES IN THE COURT In This Section: * THE MICROSOFT CASE, Meredith Lugo .................................... 413 In Micrsosoft Case, Tipping Scales Both Ways; Weght of Issues Arguesfor, Against High Court Review James V. Grimaldi ........................................................ 414 U.S. vs. Microsoft: The Overview; U.S. Judge Says Microsoft ViolatedAntitrustLaws with PredatoUBehavior Joel B rinkley ......................................................................................... 4 16 M'soft Tying Test May FallShort K aren D onovan .................................................................................... 422 The Microsoft Breakup Ruling On Appeal, Firm may be Able to Avoid Breakup David G. Savage and Davan Maharaj ......................................... 425 * THE NAPSTER CASE: Free Musicfor Consumers or Illegal Copyrght Infringement? Meredith Lugo ........................................................... 428 Napster Ruling's Inpact Wide; Victoy over Music-Sharing Site Extends Beyond Recording Industry David Segal and Christopher Stern ............................................ 429 Napster Fights to Stay Online Brenda Sandburg ......................................................... 432 + SCHOOL VOUCHERS: UnconstitutionalGovernmentalAdvancement of Relgion or Better EducationalOpportunities ForAll Children? Meredith Lugo ........................................................... 434 Vouchers Violate U.S. Constitution,Judge Rules; Ohio School Program to go on DuringAppeals Michael Hawthorne ....................................................... 435 Cleveland Vouchers May Get Supreme Review Rachel Smolkin .......................................................... 437 410 RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, Meredith Lugo ......................... 439 Statehouse Can't Post Bible Laws; Governormay AppealJudge's Injunction, says Commandments' Display as a HistoricalText is Legal. Indiana Civil Liberties Union Attorny Ken Falk says his Group's Lawsuit is not an Attack on Religion R. Joseph Gelarden ....................................................... 440 Commandments Monument Barred;judge: Marker at Capitol Would Look Like Endorsement Joseph Gerth ...................................................... ...... 442 House Backs In God We Trust,' Urges Display of NationalMotto Bill McAllister ..... 444 ColoradoAsks: Is 'In God We Trust' a Religious Statement? Michael Janofsky..... ......... 445 Beliefs: Trusting in God is One Thing, But Saying All Things Are Possible with God is Quite Another. Or is it? Peter Steinfels ............................................................... 447 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, Meredith Lugo ................. 449 State Seeks Hopwood Case Reversal; Court HearsArguments On Affirmative Action Ron Nissimov ............................................................. 450 UGA Admissions Lawsuit Revived; Appeals Court Ordersjudge to Reconsider Ruling that Plaintiffs Lacked Standing Bill Rankin ......................................................... ..... 452 DRUG TESTS AND RECESS: JustAnother School Day In Lockng, Texas Meredith Lugo ................................................................. 454 Family in Texas Challenges Mandatory School Drug Test Jim Yardley ....................................................... 455 Child Casualtiesof the Drug War; Testing Schoolchildren Without Cause Steve Chapman ........................................................ 459 School Drug Test Debate Sharpens;Lawsuit: A Texas DistricHts Requirementfor all Students has Provoked a ConstitutionalFi ght with Far-ReachingImplications Lyle Denniston ........................................................... 461 THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Does it Guaranteean IndividualRight to BearArms? Meredith Lugo ........................................................... 464 411 Texas Case CouldAffect Gun Ownership; Court willAddress Individuals' Right to Possess Firearms Richard Willing .......................................................... 465 Appeals Court to HearGun Rights Case From Texas; Ruling Could Earn Landmark Status Toni Heinzl ...................................................... 467 CircuitSi ghts Gun Right; Does 'Rzght to BearArms'Mean (Gulp) a Right to BearArms? David E. Rovella ......................................................... 469 FREE SPEECH FOR STATE EMPLOYEES, Meredith Lugo ...................... 473 Appeals Court Backs Sex Ban on State Computers Tom Campbell .......................................................... 474 Court Keeps Ban on Sex Viewing on Job Stephen Dinan .......................................................... 476 Internet Anti-Porn Law in Va. is Upheld Brooke A. Masters ........................................................ 477 A "DEATH WARRANT' FOR TOBACCO COMPANIES? Meredith Lugo ........................................................... 478 Flaws' Confuse Tobacco Verdict; Appeal is Certain, Payout is Not Terri Somers ............................................................ 479 Jury Awards $145 Billion in Landmark Tobacco Case; Record Punitive Damages in Class-Action Lawsuit in FloridaMultrplies Industrys Woes. Yet it Remains Confident of an Appeal. Myron Levin ............................................................ 482 GUN MANUFACTURERS: Can They be Held Liablefor the Marketing and IllegalSales of TheirProducts? Meredith Lugo ........................................................... 486 Brooklyn Case is First to Put FirearmsIndustry Practices On Trial Robert Suro ............................................................. 487 Laners Debate Who Won Gun Suit; Contested Result Makes it Hardfor Others to Figure What Verdict Meansfor Them Bob Van Voris ..................................................... ...... 490 Verdict Against Gun Makers Upheld Mark Hamblett .......................................................... 492 412 THE MICROSOFT CASE Meredith Lugo* In a year in which the Supreme Court dealt with such hot-button issues as abortion, school prayer, and Miranda rights, it was a federal district court case dealing with antitrust law (not typically known for generating public excitement) that garnered the most national attention. The Justice Department, joined by nineteen states, contends Microsoft has harmed consumers by stifling competition. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson agreed, concluding in April that Microsoft "maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market," thus violating the Sherman Act. In a key point of the decision, Judge Jackson also found, applying the test set out by the Supreme Court in 1984 (in Jefferson Parish HospitalDistrict No. 2 v. Hyde), that Microsoft illegally tied Internet Explorer to its Windows operating system "to quell incipient competition." As a remedy, Judge Jackson ordered conduct restraints as well as the breakup of Microsoft into two companies, one of which would make Windows, the other of which would focus on software applications. Judge Jackson has sent the case directly to the Supreme Court under the Expediting Act, a federal law which since 1975 has permitted direct appeals to the Court of antitrust cases brought by the federal government. The Court will decide this fall whether to hear the case or send it back down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a step Microsoft prefers because of a favorable ruling by that court in a previous, related case. Observers believe the Supreme Court will choose this route in order to afford the Court of Appeals an opportunity to narrow the issues for its review. Either way, there is little doubt the Supreme Court will have the final word on the interplay between the antitrust laws of the nineteenth century and the technology of the twenty-first. * College of William and Mary School of Law, Class of 2002. 413 IN MICROSOFT CASE, TIPPING SCALES BOTH WAYS Weight ofIssues Argues for, Against High Court Review The Washington Post Tuesday, July 11, 2000 James V Grimaldi Microsoft Corp. plans to argue later this "Clearly the Supreme Court would benefit month that the Supreme Court should not from the work that the Court of Appeals could accept the direct appeal of its antitrust case provide," Burt said. "One [advantage] is because it is too complex and voluminous. But focusing the issues for Supreme Court the federal judge who sent it there says the case consideration so that it doesn't have to deal is too important for the high court to pass up. with dozens of issues, and secondly the In what could turn out to be a pivotal Supreme Court benefits from the rigorous decision in the case, the Supreme Court is set to application of brainpower. Why would it be in decide this fall whether to review U.S. District the public interest to skip that step?" Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's order that sees a less complex Microsoft be broken up into two
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Some Legal Considerations for E.U. Based Mnes Contemplating High-Risk Foreign Direct Investments in the Energy Sector After Kiobel V
    South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business Volume 9 Article 4 Issue 2 Spring 2013 Some Legal Considerations for E.U. Based MNEs Contemplating High-Risk Foreign Direct Investments in the Energy Sector After Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Chevron Corporation v. Naranjo Jeffrey A. Van Detta John Marshall Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scjilb Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Van Detta, Jeffrey A. (2013) "Some Legal Considerations for E.U. Based MNEs Contemplating High-Risk Foreign Direct Investments in the Energy Sector After Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Chevron Corporation v. Naranjo," South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business: Vol. 9 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/scjilb/vol9/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOME LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR E.U.- BASED MNES CONTEMPLATING HIGH- RISK FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR AFTER KIOBEL V. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM AND CHEVRON CORPORATION V. NARANJO Jeffrey A. Van Detta* INTRODUCTION In a two-year span, two major multinational enterprises (MNEs) in the energy-sector—Chevron and Royal Dutch Petroleum—have experienced the opposite ends of a similar problem: The impact of civil litigation risks on foreign direct investments.1 For Chevron, it was the denouement of a two-decade effort to defeat a corporate campaign that Ecuadorian residents of a polluted oil-exploration region waged against it since 1993 and its predecessor, Texaco, first in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon's Antitrust Paradox
    LINA M. KHAN Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox abstract. Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a re- tailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and ex- pand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e- commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny. This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competi- tion to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the ar- chitecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are height- ened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have re- warded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.
    [Show full text]
  • Wanting, Not Waiting
    WINNERSdateline OF THE OVERSEAS PRESS CLUB AWARDS 2011 Wanting, Not Waiting 2012 Another Year of Uprisings SPECIAL EDITION dateline 2012 1 letter from the president ne year ago, at our last OPC Awards gala, paying tribute to two of our most courageous fallen heroes, I hardly imagined that I would be standing in the same position again with the identical burden. While last year, we faced the sad task of recognizing the lives and careers of two Oincomparable photographers, Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros, this year our attention turns to two writers — The New York Times’ Anthony Shadid and Marie Colvin of The Sunday Times of London. While our focus then was on the horrors of Gadhafi’s Libya, it is now the Syria of Bashar al- Assad. All four of these giants of our profession gave their lives in the service of an ideal and a mission that we consider so vital to our way of life — a full, complete and objective understanding of a world that is so all too often contemptuous or ignorant of these values. Theirs are the same talents and accomplishments to which we pay tribute in each of our awards tonight — and that the Overseas Press Club represents every day throughout the year. For our mission, like theirs, does not stop as we file from this room. The OPC has moved resolutely into the digital age but our winners and their skills remain grounded in the most fundamental tenets expressed through words and pictures — unwavering objectivity, unceasing curiosity, vivid story- telling, thought-provoking commentary.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic
    \\server05\productn\H\HHL\5-1\HHL101.txt unknown Seq: 1 4-MAY-05 12:06 5 HOUS. J. HEALTH L. & POL’Y 1–73 1 R Copyright 2005 Jennifer S. Bard, Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy ISSN 1534-7907 RE-ARRANGING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC: WHY THE INCARCERATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS VIOLATES PUBLIC HEALTH, ETHICAL, AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE MADE RIGHT BY PIECEMEAL CHANGES TO THE INSANITY DEFENSE Jennifer S. Bard* Anyone who has spent any time in the criminal justice system—as a defense lawyer, as a district attorney, or as a judge—knows that our treatment of criminal defendants with mental disabilities has been, forever, a scandal. Such defendants receive substandard counsel, are treated poorly in prison, receive disparately longer sentences, and are regularly coerced into confessing to crimes * Associate Professor of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law, Lubbock Texas; J.D., Yale Law School, 1987; M.P.H., University of Connecticut, 1997; A.B., Wellesley College, 1983. This work grew out of an invitation to give the second Nordenberg Lecture at the University of Pittsburgh Law School in October 2002, where I had the honor of Chancellor Nordenberg’s presence at the lecture. I very much appreciate the questions and comments following the lecture, which informed this article. Thank you also to Professor Elyn Saks, Orrin B. Evans Professor of Law, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of South- ern California Law School, who read a late draft and made many helpful comments; Donna Vickers of the University of Texas Medical Branch; and to my primary research assistant at Texas Tech Law School, Kristi Ward ’05, for her invaluable contributions to the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Monopolizing Free Speech
    Fordham Law Review Volume 88 Issue 4 Article 3 2020 Monopolizing Free Speech Gregory Day University of Georgia Terry College of Business Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Gregory Day, Monopolizing Free Speech, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 1315 (2020). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MONOPOLIZING FREE SPEECH Gregory Day* The First Amendment prevents the government from suppressing speech, though individuals can ban, chill, or abridge free expression without offending the Constitution. Hardly an unintended consequence, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously likened free speech to a marketplace where the responsibility of rejecting dangerous, repugnant, or worthless speech lies with the people. This supposedly maximizes social welfare on the theory that the market promotes good ideas and condemns bad ones better than the state can. Nevertheless, there is a concern that large technology corporations exercise unreasonable power in the marketplace of ideas. Because “big tech’s” ability to abridge speech lacks constitutional obstacles, many litigants, politicians, and commentators have recently begun to claim that the act of suppressing speech is anticompetitive and thus should offend the antitrust laws. Their theory, however, seems contrary to antitrust law.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East
    U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy January 2013 Acknowledgments The co-chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy thank the following for their assistance with various aspects of the Project roundtables and report: David Barnett, Beth Singer Design LLC, Toby Dershowitz, Erin Elfrink, Laura Grossman, Jamie Kamlet, Chen Kane, Elizabeth Kittrie, Galia Nurko, Lolan O’Rourke, Debbie Rubin, Jonathan Schanzer, Abram Shanedling, Andrea Stricker, and Christina Walrond. For inquiries, contact [email protected] © Copyright 2013, The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy Co-Chairs: David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector, Michael Yaffe January 2013 • Washington, D.C. U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy Co-Chairs: David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector, Michael Yaffe January 2013 • Washington, D.C. ABOUT THE CO-CHAIRS David Albright, a physicist, is Founder and President of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. He has written numerous assessments on secret nuclear weapons programs throughout the world. Mr. Albright has testified many times on nuclear issues before the U.S. Congress and advised many gov- ernments. He cooperated actively with the IAEA Action Team on Iraq in the 1990s. The media frequently cite Albright, and he has appeared often on television and radio. He is an American Physical Society (APS) Fellow.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Keith J. Hand
    KEITH J. HAND 200 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94019 Office: 415-565-4865 Email: [email protected] PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW Associate Professor of Law: January 2009 – January 2014 Professor of Law: January 2014 – Present Director, East Asian Legal Studies Program: January 2015 – Present Research Focus Legal reform in the Greater China, with particular attention to constitutional law; criminal justice; citizen efforts to use the law to promote legal, social, and political change; and the role and development of China’s procuratorate. Courses Taught Chinese Law and Legal Institutions (formerly Introduction to Chinese Law), China and the International Legal Order, Legal Reform in East Asia, Contracts, Criminal Procedure Distinctions 2015 UC Hastings Board of Directors Visionary Service Award 2015 Founder of UC Hastings East Asian Legal Studies Program (with Professor Setsuo Miyazawa) 2014 UC Hastings Foundation Faculty Award for Scholarship 2011–2013 Public Intellectuals Program Fellow at the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations YALE LAW SCHOOL, THE CHINA LAW CENTER, New Haven, CT and Beijing, China Senior Fellow and Lecturer-in-Law (New Haven): October 2005 – July 2006 Senior Fellow (Beijing): July 2006 – July 2007 Senior Fellow and Beijing Director: July 2007 – July 2008 Managed the Center’s Beijing operations; designed, negotiated, and executed cooperative legal reform projects with leading Chinese law schools, courts, and legislative institutions, including the Supreme People’s Court, the State Council Legislative Affairs Office, and the National People’s Congress Legislative Affairs Commission; and conducted research on constitutional and judicial reform issues. During the 2005-2006 year, jointly taught Yale Law School’s Workshop on Chinese Legal Reform.
    [Show full text]
  • The Garment Industry in Bangladesh: a Human Rights Challenge
    Journal of Business & Economic Policy Vol. 2, No. 4; December 2015 The Garment Industry in Bangladesh: A Human Rights Challenge Peter Stanwick Auburn University Department of Management Sarah Stanwick Auburn University School of Accountancy Abstract The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of the working conditions in the garment industry in Bangladesh. This case study describes past and current unsafe working conditions in the garment industry from the perspective of violations of human rights. Factors that are discussed in the case study include: the high incidence of injuries on the job by the workers, the very low wage rate of the workers, the lack of payment of wages to the workers, the use of gender discrimination, air quality issues in the factories, the lack of safety features in the factories, and the response of the garment industry to external stakeholders. Keywords: Human Rights; Bangladesh; Garment Industry. The Industry Bangladesh boasts some of the highest population density in the world with more than 164 million people living in the country. Of those 164 million, approximately 4.0 million people were employed in the garment industry in 2010 (ACCORD, 2015). In a country where poverty and overpopulation abound, the garment industry faces many human rights challenges. Due to favorable trade policies implemented by the government of Bangladesh in the early 1980s, textile manufacturing has skyrocketed in the country. When these policies were first introduced, there were approximately 50 textile factories were manufacturing garments and employing a few thousand workers. By 2000, there were over 3,000 factories which employed 1.8 million workers and generated total exports of over $6.4 billion US.
    [Show full text]
  • UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Moral pressure : American democracy and Chinese human rights Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4b27r7kp Author Chan, Stephanie Tze-Hua Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Moral Pressure: American Democracy and Chinese Human Rights A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology by Stephanie Tze-Hua Chan Committee in charge: Professor Richard Madsen, Chair Professor John Evans Professor Daniel Hallin Professor Susan Shirk Professor John Skrentny 2011 Copyright Stephanie Tze-Hua Chan, 2011 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Stephanie Tze-Hua Chan is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ (Chair) University of California, San Diego 2011 iii To my parents iv “Then you will understand what is right, just, and fair, and you will find the right way to go. For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will fill you with joy.” Proverbs 2:9-10 v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page
    [Show full text]
  • Adjudicative Justice in a Diverse Mass Society Jack B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Brooklyn Law School: BrooklynWorks Journal of Law and Policy Volume 8 | Issue 2 Article 1 2000 Adjudicative Justice in a Diverse Mass Society Jack B. Weinstein Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Recommended Citation Jack B. Weinstein, Adjudicative Justice in a Diverse Mass Society, 8 J. L. & Pol'y (2000). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol8/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. ADJUDICATIVE JUSTICE IN A DIVERSE MASS SOCIETY Jack B. Weinstein* INTRODUCTION Over the years, associating with scores of law clerks and thousands of students, lawyers, and judges, I have been amazed and humbled in observing the altruistic devotion to human welfare that exudes from the hearts of so many as they enter the legal profes- sion. Our duty of public service, particularly to the less privileged, is based on more than personal satisfaction. The protected status and virtual monopoly of lawyers as actors within the adjudicatory system comes with an implied promise to work for the public good. In a larger sense, this obligation is founded upon the recogni- tion that each of us stands on the shoulders of 10,000 generations. While, of course, personal achievement should be recognized, it was the fool of ancient times who is quoted in Deuteronomy as saying that in his heart, "[m]y power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth."' What we have done, we have done because of all that was done by others before us.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Ethics MSB 287 a & B (3 Credits) King's College, Winter
    Business Ethics MSB 287 A & B (3 credits) King’s College, Winter/Spring 2017 Dr. Bernard G. Prusak Associate Professor of Philosophy Director, McGowan Center for Ethics and Social Responsibility Office: McGowan 203 Office hours: MWF 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and by appointment [email protected]; extension 5689 Class meeting time and location: MWF 9:00-9:50 a.m. and 10:00-10:50 a.m., McGowan 109 Course description Examination of the vocation and moral context of business; critical reflection, through engagement with the philosophical and Catholic traditions, on how to make a living and live well; and extended consideration of issues and problems that arise in contemporary business settings. Prerequisite: Core 280. Course objectives By the end of this course, students should have: developed familiarity with several theories of morality and the basic principles of the Catholic social tradition; become more proficient at recognizing, formulating, and addressing moral problems in the business context; developed the capacity to implement ethical decisions; and begun to develop an answer, for themselves, of what moral and spiritual values they want to live out in making a living. McGowan School of Business Mission Statement This course directly serves the mission of the McGowan School of Business. To quote (emphasis added): The William G. McGowan School of Business seeks to develop in its students the professional knowledge and skills needed to function successfully in the dynamic environments of business with a commitment to exercising their professional responsibilities in an ethical and socially responsible manner in a global marketplace. 1 Learning Goals The delivery of our business education program is guided by the following learning outcomes: A student graduating from the William G.
    [Show full text]
  • Pulitzer Prize Winners and Finalists
    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
    [Show full text]