DOCSLIB.ORG

95Th Annual Honors Convocation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
95Th Annual Honors Convocation 95TH ANNUAL HONORS CONVOCATION MARCH 18, 2018 2:00 P.M. HILL AUDITORIUM This year marks the 95th Honors Convocation held at the University of Michigan since the first was instituted on May 13, 1924, by President Marion LeRoy Burton. On these occasions, the University publicly recognizes and commends the undergraduate students in its schools and colleges who have earned distinguished academic records or have excelled as leaders in the community. It is with great pride that the University honors those students who have most clearly and effectively demonstrated academic excellence, dynamic leadership, and inspirational volunteerism. The Honors Convocation ranks with the Commencement Exercises as among the most important ceremonies of the University year. The names of the students who are honored for outstanding achievement this year appear in this program. They include all students who have earned University Honors in both Winter 2017 and Fall 2017, plus all seniors who have earned University Honors in either Winter 2017 or Fall 2017. The William J. Branstrom Freshman Prize recipients are listed, as well—recognizing first year undergraduate students whose academic achievement during their first semester on campus place them in the upper five percent of their school or college class. James B. Angell Scholars—students who receive all “A” grades over consecutive terms—are given a special place in the program. In addition, the student speaker is recognized individually for exemplary contributions to the University community. To all honored students, and to their parents, the University extends its hearty congratulations. Martin A. Philbert • Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Honored Students Honored Faculty Faculty Colleagues and Friends of the University It is a pleasure to welcome you to the 95th University of Michigan Honors Convocation. On behalf of the academic leaders on the Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Flint campuses, I thank you for joining us today. The Honors Convocation is an important University tradition that recognizes and celebrates the outstanding academic achievements of undergraduate students from all three of our campuses. Today we proudly recognize students whose deep learning and dedication to inquiry have led them to outstanding academic accomplishment. These students have a passion for learning: a willingness to challenge themselves, to question orthodoxy, and to seek new solutions to challenging problems. They exemplify what we mean by “the leaders and best.” The University’s mission statement includes our commitment to “developing leaders who will challenge the present and enrich the future.” The students we are honoring give life to that commitment through their purposeful engagement with the world. Today we also honor a group of distinguished faculty members who have joined us for this ceremony. Recently recognized by the University for their outstanding teaching and scholarship, they represent the many individuals in our community who inspire, challenge, and support our students. As we congratulate our students, we also recognize, with deep appreciation, the parents, family members, and friends who have nurtured and supported these remarkable students. The University of Michigan shares the pride you feel in their accomplishments. With you, we look forward to the contributions they will make to the future. Congratulations and Welcome! Martin A. Philbert Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs ORDER OF EXERCISES “What Does It Mean to Be Free in a World Such as Ours?” How does the desire for freedom intersect with civil and human rights, the pursuit of truth, and efforts to address pressing national and global problems? What roles might individuals, collectives, universities, and broader social movements play in the pursuit of freedom in today’s world? Carillon Selections Tiffany Ng University Carillonist and Assistant Professor of Music School of Music, Theatre & Dance Prelude University of Michigan Trombone Choir David Jackson Director and Professor of Music School of Music, Theatre & Dance *Processional Trumpet Voluntary Composed by Jeremiah Clarke James Kibbie University Organist and Professor of Music School of Music, Theatre & Dance *The National Anthem Goitsemang Lehobye, soprano Master of Music Performance Candidate, School of Music, Theatre & Dance Welcome Martin A. Philbert Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Honors Convocation Speaker Anushka Sarkar Senior, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts University Honors Presentation of Honors Students Martin A. Philbert Susan Borrego Chancellor, University of Michigan-Flint Daniel Little Chancellor, University of Michigan-Dearborn Robert M. Sellers Vice Provost for Equity and Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer Presentation of Wallenberg Fellowship Martin A. Philbert and Thurnau Professors 2 * Please stand Honors Convocation Speaker Deborah Loewenberg Ball Arthur F. Thurnau Professor William H. Payne Collegiate Professor of Education, School of Education Research Professor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research Musical Selections Lady of the Harbor Composed by Lee Hoiby, text by Emma Lazarus Goitsemang Lehobye, soprano Master of Music Performance Candidate, School of Music, Theatre & Dance Bernard Tan, piano Master of Music Performance Candidate, School of Music, Theatre & Dance Convocation Address Mark S. Schlissel President Closing Martin A. Philbert *The Alma Mater The Yellow and Blue Composed by Michael W. Balfe James Kibbie and the audience (see music and lyrics on page 104) *Recessional Toccata from Symphony V Composed by Charles-Marie Widor James Kibbie *Those who are able are asked to stand for portions of the program asterisked (*). At the conclusion of the program, the audience will please remain standing until the platform party has left the auditorium. We are grateful to the Provost’s Council on Student Honors for their role in planning this event. Council members include: Barry Fishman, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Professor of Education and Professor of Information; Matt Lassiter, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Professor of History and Professor of Urban and Regional Planning; Robert Megginson, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Professor of Mathematics; Dana Muir, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Robert L. Dixon Collegiate Professor of Business and Professor of Business Law; Barry Rabe, J. Ira and Nicki Harris Family Professor of Public Policy, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Professor of Public Policy, Professor of Environmental Policy, Professor of the Environment and Professor of Political Science; Aaron Ridley, Professor of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering and Director of Academic Program; Kathleen Sienko, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director of Academic Program; Meg Sweeney, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor, Associate Professor of English Language and Literature, Associate Professor of Afroamerican and African Studies, Director of Academic Program and Associate Professor of Women’s Studies. The Council is sponsored by Vice Provost Robert M. Sellers and coordinated by Assistant Vice Provost Mary E. Boyce. We would like to thank Melody Racine, Interim Dean and Associate Professor of Voice, School of Music, Theatre & Dance, for her expert assistance in choosing the student soloist for our ceremony. 3 HONORS CONVOCATION SPEAKERS Anushka Sarkar Senior, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts Anushka Sarkar, a senior from West Bloomfield, is majoring in political science and minoring in law and policy in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts. As Central Student Government student body president, Anushka leads a student body of 45,000, manages an $800,000 budget, and gives voice to students’ priorities and concerns to the University administration and regents. Among other initiatives, she has advocated for affordable health care for students, stronger punitive measures for perpetrators of hate crimes, and a nighttime student-run ride-sharing service. She founded and chaired the Wolverine Consulting Group, which helps student groups with leadership development, fundraising, and other organizational functions. She served on U-M’s Edward Ginsberg Center Student Advisory Board and interned at the Washington, D.C.-based public relations and government affairs firm Dewey Square Group, where she contributed to messaging campaigns for businesses and political organizations. She worked with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, both as an assistant to the deputy national finance director and as an intern in the Hillary for America headquarters in New York. Following graduation, she plans to travel and live spontaneously, work on a 2020 presidential campaign, and then enroll in law school. Deborah Loewenberg Ball Arthur F. Thurnau Professor William H. Payne Collegiate Professor of Education School of Education Research Professor, Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research Professor Ball, a University of Michigan faculty member since 1996, was named a Thurnau Professor in 2000 in recognition of her contributions to research on teaching and teacher education. She holds three degrees from Michigan State University: a bachelor’s degree with highest honors in French and elementary education, a master’s in teacher education, and a doctorate in curriculum, teaching, and education policy. She taught elementary school for more than 15 years and continues to teach mathematics to elementary students each
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Majoritarian Difficulty and Theories of Constitutional Decision Making
    THE MAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY AND THEORIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING Michael C. Dorf* Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the “counter-majoritarian difficulty.” Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel’s worry, it raises a distinct one: Are courts that roughly follow public opinion capable of protecting minority rights against majoritarian excesses? Do American courts, in other words, have a “majoritarian difficulty?” This Article examines that question from an interpretive perspective. It asks whether there is a normatively attractive account of the practice of judicial review that takes account of the Court’s inability to act in a strongly counter-majoritarian fashion. After highlighting difficulties with three of the leading approaches to constitutional interpretation— representation-reinforcement, originalism, and living constitutionalism—the Essay concludes that accounts of the Court as a kind of third legislative chamber fit best with its majoritarian bias. However, such third-legislative-chamber accounts rest on libertarian premises that lack universal appeal. They also lack prescriptive force, although this may be a strength: Subordinating an interpretive theory—such as representation-reinforcement, originalism, or living constitutionalism—to a view of judicial review as a form of third-legislative-chamber veto can ease the otherwise unrealistic demands for counter-majoritarianism that interpretive theories face.
    [Show full text]
  • Rogan's List 2019
    Rogan’s List 2019 Greetings WFU parents! Fond thanks to the many of you who recommended this book or that movie or the new restaurant in your home city. Keep ‘em coming! Parents who’ve seen this previously skip this graf, but if you’re new to this odd enterprise: three inspirations converged a dozen-plus years ago. As a still-singleton, felt a response was necessary to my expanding circle of married-with-kids friends’ annual Holiday Letters, tinged with a certain “here’s how life works”-ness. And I loved pal Drew Littman’s roundup of his fave movies/books of the year (Drew also originated the B game/A game you’ll see on next page). Third, I grew up with Roger Angell’s annual New Yorker rhyming ‘poem’ of boldface names, & added my own pale imitation after Angell stopped…then NYer’s Ian Frazier picked up the tradition. Shifted therefore to a ‘found poem’ of lines from songs by millennial/rising-generation musicians; this year’s is after the best-of music page below. Speaking of poems, a stanza from one long beloved, WS Merwin’s To the New Year: so this is the sound of you here and now whether or not anyone hears it this is where we have come with our age our knowledge such as it is and our hopes such as they are invisible before us untouched and still possible On to my favorites of 2019. To adapt a venerable Welsh saying, may the best artistic creations of the decade just ending be the worst of the next.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Bickel's Philosophy of Prudence
    The Yale Law Journal Volume 94, Number 7, June 1985 Alexander Bickel's Philosophy of Prudence Anthony T. Kronmant INTRODUCTION Six years after Alexander Bickel's death, John Hart Ely described his former teacher and colleague as "probably the most creative constitutional theorist of the past twenty years."" Many today would concur in Ely's judgment.' Indeed, among his academic peers, Bickel is widely -regarded with a measure of respect that borders on reverence. There is, however, something puzzling about Bickel's reputation, for despite the high regard in which his work is held, Bickel has few contemporary followers.' There is, today, no Bickelian school of constitutional theory, no group of scholars working to elaborate Bickel's main ideas or even to defend them, no con- tinuing and connected body of legal writing in the intellectual tradition to which Bickel claimed allegiance. In fact, just the opposite is true. In the decade since his death, constitutional theory has turned away from the ideas that Bickel championed, moving in directions he would, I believe, f Professor of Law, Yale Law School. 1. J. ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST 71 (1980). 2. See B. SCHMIDT, HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: THE JUDICI- ARY AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT 1910-21 (pt. 2) 722 (1984) (describing Bickel as "the most brilliant and influential constitutional scholar of the generation that came of age during the era of the Warren Court"); Ackerman, The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution, 93 YALE L.J. 1013, 1014 (Bickel "revered as spokesman-in-chief for a school of thought that emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint").
    [Show full text]
  • Network Map of Knowledge And
    Humphry Davy George Grosz Patrick Galvin August Wilhelm von Hofmann Mervyn Gotsman Peter Blake Willa Cather Norman Vincent Peale Hans Holbein the Elder David Bomberg Hans Lewy Mark Ryden Juan Gris Ian Stevenson Charles Coleman (English painter) Mauritz de Haas David Drake Donald E. Westlake John Morton Blum Yehuda Amichai Stephen Smale Bernd and Hilla Becher Vitsentzos Kornaros Maxfield Parrish L. Sprague de Camp Derek Jarman Baron Carl von Rokitansky John LaFarge Richard Francis Burton Jamie Hewlett George Sterling Sergei Winogradsky Federico Halbherr Jean-Léon Gérôme William M. Bass Roy Lichtenstein Jacob Isaakszoon van Ruisdael Tony Cliff Julia Margaret Cameron Arnold Sommerfeld Adrian Willaert Olga Arsenievna Oleinik LeMoine Fitzgerald Christian Krohg Wilfred Thesiger Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant Eva Hesse `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas Him Mark Lai Clark Ashton Smith Clint Eastwood Therkel Mathiassen Bettie Page Frank DuMond Peter Whittle Salvador Espriu Gaetano Fichera William Cubley Jean Tinguely Amado Nervo Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay Ferdinand Hodler Françoise Sagan Dave Meltzer Anton Julius Carlson Bela Cikoš Sesija John Cleese Kan Nyunt Charlotte Lamb Benjamin Silliman Howard Hendricks Jim Russell (cartoonist) Kate Chopin Gary Becker Harvey Kurtzman Michel Tapié John C. Maxwell Stan Pitt Henry Lawson Gustave Boulanger Wayne Shorter Irshad Kamil Joseph Greenberg Dungeons & Dragons Serbian epic poetry Adrian Ludwig Richter Eliseu Visconti Albert Maignan Syed Nazeer Husain Hakushu Kitahara Lim Cheng Hoe David Brin Bernard Ogilvie Dodge Star Wars Karel Capek Hudson River School Alfred Hitchcock Vladimir Colin Robert Kroetsch Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai Stephen Sondheim Robert Ludlum Frank Frazetta Walter Tevis Sax Rohmer Rafael Sabatini Ralph Nader Manon Gropius Aristide Maillol Ed Roth Jonathan Dordick Abdur Razzaq (Professor) John W.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?
    Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful? William Baude* The doctrine of qualified immunity operates as an unwritten defense to civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for violations of their constitutional rights unless a government official violated “clearly established law,” which usually requires specific precedent on point. This Article argues that the qualified immunity doctrine is unlawful and inconsistent with conventional principles of statutory interpretation. Members of the Supreme Court have offered three different justifications for imposing this unwritten defense on the text of Section 1983. First, that the doctrine of qualified immunity derives from a common-law “good-faith” defense. Second, that it compensates for an earlier putative mistake in broadening the statute. Third, that it provides “fair warning” to government officials, akin to the rule of lenity. On closer examination, each of these justifications falls apart for a mix of historical, conceptual, and doctrinal reasons. There was no such defense; there was no such mistake; lenity ought not apply. Furthermore, even if these things were otherwise, the doctrine of qualified immunity would not be the best response. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38MG7FV8G Copyright © 2018 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications. * Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law, University of
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Pluralism
    Moral Pluralism Time: Friday 3pm to 5:30pm Location: online (Zoom link will be available on Canvas) Instructor: Julia Netter julia [email protected] http://julianetter.de/pols0920e Moral pluralism is an unmistakable characteristic of modern liberal societies. Even though the dire conflicts of religion which fuelled wars and civil unrest appear to be a thing of the past, fundamental moral disagreements are still plentiful today. Now as then, these disagreements expose tensions among the core of ideas upon which liberal societies are built. This course explores moral pluralism through the lens of classic and contemporary works in political philosophy and engages with questions such as: should the state be neutral in relation to different religious and moral convictions? Are there some values which we can expect all citizens to share despite their deep disagreements? How should citizens engage with each other when they debate controversial moral questions in the public forum? Approach and Objectives This course explores the challenges of moral pluralism in liberal societies through the lens of analytical political philosophy. Over the course of the semester, we will engage with a range of key texts and debates relating to liberalism and pluralism. The aim of this course is to equip you with the knowledge and skills to delve deeper into these topics and connect them to each other, as well as to political debates beyond the classroom. More specifically, this course will help you learn to think philosophically about these topics. You will develop the skills necessary for constructing critical arguments in political philosophy, and will apply them both orally and in writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Courier Gazette, Tuesday February 13, 1894
    1 a n y o th e b ec au se w q rth m o re. P is for Portland, the metropolis o f Maine* It also stands tor Pillsbury and for Popularity. Pillsbury’s Best Flour is more popular Ilian any other, not only in Portland but in the whole .1 / state ; also throughout the U. 8. A. M. AUSTIN Suropon and Mechanical Dentist, 441 MAIN ST., . ROCKLAND, MS. 4 < DR. F. E. FOLLETT Dental Surgeon A. K. HPKAK BI.OCK-Cor. Mulnsnd Pari Plar. Surgeon and Mechanical Mnyor Knlgh ill banquet at WALKER & PAYSON business meeting Attorneys and Counsellors at Law. BYNDICATK BUILDING, ROCKLAND. David E. Carleto 0. M. W a l k e r . ___ K. 0. P ath o s. tion of tbo Jones whi KEUEL ROBINSON street,and will open a Attorney at Law CA M D EN ........................................ Dunn & Carr have ha Late Judge of Probate and Insolvency made by C. B. Emery. RICE, BIRD & BARNEY York Roman letters, rai Insuranoe Agents, black. SYNDICATE BUILDING, ROCKLAND. First claan, strong and reliable English and Rockland has quite a nura American Compnnlea are represented by houses, this Winter, but no Telephone connect'on many as othor places of Rock A. J. ERSKINE & SON in Maine. Fire insurance Agents, ,17 MAIN STREET, - ROCKLAND, ME. The blossomed orchids at the Office rear ronm'over Rockland National Bank. Greenery have been admired 47-Loading English and American Fire Insnr anoe Companies represented visitors A new one bas TYaae/srs' Accident /nturance Co. bloomed, a Dendrobium. EVERETT A. JONES Mumps are somewhat prevalent Fire Insurance Broker.
    [Show full text]
  • The Judicial Function Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Anne F Bayefsky
    The Judicial Function under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Anne F Bayefsky* The author surveys the various American L'auteur resume les differentes theories am6- theories of judicial review in an attempt to ricaines du contr61e judiciaire dans le but de suggest approaches to a Canadian theory of sugg6rer une th6orie canadienne du r8le des the role of the judiciary under the Canadian juges sous Ia Charte canadiennedes droits et Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A detailed libert~s. Notamment, une 6tude d6taille de examination of the legislative histories of sec- 'histoire 1fgislative des articles 1, 52 et 33 de ]a Charte d6montre que les r~dacteurs ont tions 1, 52 and 33 of the Charterreveals that voulu aller au-delA de la Dclarationcana- the drafters intended to move beyond the Ca- dienne des droits et 6liminer le principe de ]a nadianBill ofRights and away from the prin- souverainet6 parlementaire. Cette intention ciple of parliamentary sovereignty. This ne se trouvant pas incorpor6e dans toute sa intention was not fully incorporated into the force au texte de Ia Charte,la protection des Charter,with the result that, properly speak- droits et libert~s au Canada n'est pas, Apro- ing, Canada's constitutional bill of rights is prement parler, o enchfiss~e )) dans ]a cons- not "entrenched". The author concludes by titution. En conclusion, l'auteur met 'accent emphasizing the establishment of a "contin- sur l'instauration d'un < colloque continu uing colloquy" involving the courts, the po- auxquels participeraient les tribunaux, les litical institutions, the legal profession and institutions politiques, ]a profession juri- society at large, in the hope that the legiti- dique et le grand public; ]a l6gitimit6 de la macy of the judicial protection of Charter protection judiciaire des droits garantis par rights will turn on the consent of the gov- la Charte serait alors fond6e sur la volont6 erned and the perceived justice of the courts' des constituants et Ia perception populaire de decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Rule of Recognition in the United States?
    _________________ COMMENT _________________ WHAT IS THE RULE OF RECOGNITION IN THE UNITED STATES? † STEPHEN V. CAREY INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1162 I. HART,DWORKIN, AND INCLUSIVE POSITIVISM: THE DEBATE IN THE BACKGROUND .............................................1165 A. Hart and the Rule of Recognition.........................................1165 B. Dworkin’s Critique ..............................................................1168 C. Inclusive Positivism: The Positivist Answer to the Problem of Morality........................................................1170 II. PREVIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE U.S. RULE OF RECOGNITION: GREENAWALT AND HIMMA...........................................................1175 A. Kent Greenawalt’s The Rule of Recognition and the Constitution...............................................................1176 B. Kenneth Einar Himma’s U.S. Rule of Recognition ................1180 C. Objections to Himma’s Rule.................................................1183 1. Empirical Objections ............................................1184 2. Philosophical Objections......................................1188 III. THE RULE OF RECOGNITION FOR THE UNITED STATES: APROPOSAL AND DEFENSE ..........................................................1192 CONCLUSION........................................................................................1197 † J.D. Candidate, 2009, University of Pennsylvania Law School; B.A., 2001, Boston College. I would like to
    [Show full text]
  • The Ringling Annual Review 2019-2020
    2019–2020 ANNUAL REVIEW FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY John E. Thrasher President Dr. Sally E. McRorie Provost EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Steven High BOARD OF DIRECTORS Jeffrey R. Hotchkiss, Chair Sarah H. Pappas, Vice Chair Edward M. Swan, Jr., Treasurer Judith F. Shank, Secretary Dennis W. Archer Ellen S. Berman H. Michael Bush Warren R. Colbert, Sr. Rebecca Donelson Leon R. Ellin Darrel E. Flanel Margaret Hausberg Robert D. Hunter Thomas F. Icard, Jr. James A. Joseph Michael A. Kalman Nancy Kotler Lisa A. Merritt Tina Shao Napoli Leslie V. Pantin Cynthia L. Peterson Kelly A. Romanoff Margaret A. Rolando Mayra N. Schmidt Debra J. Short Mercedes Soler-Martinez Javi Suarez Howard C. Tibbals Kirk Ke Wang Larry A. Wickless EX-OFFICIO BOARD MEMBERS Joan Uranga, Chair, Volunteer Services Advisory Council Leslie Young, Chair, Docent Advisory Council 5401 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 941.359.5700 ringling.org Accredited by the American Alliance of Museums 2 THANK YOU! I am pleased to present our highlights of the past year to our Members, thank you for your support and encouragement. Despite our COVID-19 closure to the public, from March 17 to May 27, The Ringling accomplished a number of major projects in the 2019–2020 fiscal year. Most notably the Museum achieved its reaccreditation from the American Alliance of Museums (AAM). The year-long process to achieve reaccreditation is rigorous and focused on a self-study that reviews all aspects of our operations. The process and our final site review were both extremely successful and resulted in our reaccreditation through 2030. AAM has requested the use of a number of our core documents as examples of best practice to be shared with other museums and The Ringling was commended for the highly collaborative involvement of staff and board members in the reaccreditation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Stanhopeplc.Com Stanhope 2021 Stanhope 2021
    2021 STANHOPEPLC.COM STANHOPE 2021 STANHOPE 2021 “Every project is different. We start with a blank canvas and our collective experience.” Stanhope are fortunate to have been involved in some of London’s major placemaking projects. We provide innovative responses to complex development opportunities and are known for delivering high quality developments within budget and time constraints. Stanhope’s overriding objective is to leave a legacy of sustainable improvement to the built environment. We aim to create memorable places for living, working and enjoyment that provide a range of uses supporting local communities and acting as a catalyst for further renewal. DAVID CAMP CEO 2 3 STANHOPE 2021 STANHOPE 2021 Trusted partners creating sustainable buildings and urban places Stanhope is a multi-skilled property developer. We deliver projects from inception to operation. Our multi-disciplinary in house team can offer the right experience at every stage of the development process. Originate Design Build Manage Defining the overall vision and brief Establishing the foundations to for the project make the project possible Managing the process to make the Delivering ongoing asset project a reality management and growth RESEARCH CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROCUREMENT STRATEGY Site | Area | Trends | Uses Uses | Product | Massing Strategy | Implementation | Risk Objectives | Financials | Approach ACQUISITION PLANNING TECHNICAL DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION Appraisals | Legals | Risk Analysis Strategy | Consultation | Consents Buildability | Efficiency | Supply Chain
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Political Philosophy: Citizenship and Rights Jurisprudence & Social Policy (JSP) Program, U.C
    Law 215.5: Foundations of Political Philosophy: Citizenship and Rights Jurisprudence & Social Policy (JSP) Program, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Spring 2014) Prof. Sarah Song [email protected] Mondays 2:10-5:00, Selznick Seminar Room, 2240 Piedmont Ave. Office hours: Wednesdays 3:00-4:00 and by appointment (office location: 422 North Addition) Course Description: This course aims to introduce students to some central topics and approaches in political philosophy through close reading of texts and with some attention to developing a toolkit for normative analysis of law and legal institutions. We will focus on the concepts of citizenship and rights as well as explore connections between the two. Some of the questions we will pursue include: How should we conceive of citizenship – as a formal political and legal status; entitlement to a set of rights; active participation in self-governance; an identity; or something else entirely? How have racial, ethnic, gender, and class identities and hierarchies shaped people’s access to rights? Which rights and protections have historically been attached to citizenship status? What difference should citizenship status make for the rights one is entitled to? Are there any human rights, and how might they be justified? Do we have special obligations to our fellow citizens to protect certain rights that we don’t have to the rest of humanity? What does it mean to have a right in the first place? Most of our readings are by political and legal theorists and philosophers; we will also read some work by historians, political scientists, and sociologists for historical context and background.
    [Show full text]