text:
Those who continue to doubt the wisdom of Justice Louis Brandeis's famous statement "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" should pay close attention to the news from Pennsylvania. A House Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom is conducting an investigation into the state of liberty and genuine intellectual diversity in Pennsylvania's public universities, and the academic establishment is fighting back.
It has become a common tactic for defenders of the academic status quo to equate scrutiny with "McCarthyism" and criticism with censorship. For example, at Brooklyn College, the local professors' union went so far as to declare that press stories about academic misconduct (such as punishing students who dissented from a professor's radical views) were part of an effort to "intimidate" the school's faculty. The union also asked the school's chancellor to condemn the New York Sun for its attempts to investigate and report faculty wrongdoing. In other words, a group of public officials (and public university professors are public officials) was calling on another public official to condemn the free press for investigating potential unlawful acts of the local government.
Brooklyn College's faculty is not alone in confusing criticism for censorship and equating oppression with academic freedom. In the June 8, 2005, issue of Al-Ahram, Joseph Massad, the Columbia University professor at the center of a firestorm of controversy regarding the treatment of pro-Israeli students in Columbia's Middle East Languages and Culture Department, wrote to decry "the campaign of the last three years . . . to attack U.S. universities as the last bastion where a measure of freedom of thought is still protected." And what was one of the prime movers in this alleged campaign against academic freedom? Once again, it was the free press – specifically the New York Times, a paper that Massad accused of disseminating "Israeli propaganda" as "objective truth."
In the distorted world of university censorship, actual violations of the law (such as Brooklyn College's absurd punishment of dissenting students) represent legitimate exercises of academic freedom, while free speech (such as the New York Sun investigation) is the equivalent of "intimidation" that has a "chilling effect" on academic expression.
It is thus not surprising that the academic establishment has reacted negatively to the decision of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to establish a Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom to investigate potential abuses in Pennsylvania's public universities. Scrutiny is anathema to the academic establishment. While academics often applaud meticulous regulation of other governmental bodies (such as the Pentagon) and various private industries, their stance regarding the massive government bureaucracy that is public higher education is: "move along; nothing to see here." Even Pennsylvania's brief investigation (with no legislation under consideration) stirs calls of "McCarthyism" and fears of a "chilling effect."
On September 19, 2005, I testified before the Select Committee and sought to both dispel the fears of a so-called "chilling effect" and to explain the constitutional obligations of public universities to their students – and to the citizens of the state (for a complete transcript of my testimony, click here). First, I made it clear that the critical issue is not whether professors offend students or students offend professors – since no one has a right not to be offended – but whether a true marketplace of ideas exists on campus. The question is not whether an individual professor teaches in a provocative manner but instead whether that professor has the academic freedom to teach his or her subject and whether students have the academic freedom to dissent from that teaching without suffering retaliation. Also, given that a true marketplace of ideas cannot exist without diversity of viewpoints, the Select Committee should investigate to determine whether such diversity exists on Pennsylvania's public campuses, and if it does not exist (and there is no reason to believe that Pennsylvania's public universities are any less ideologically uniform that public universities elsewhere), the Select Committee should investigate the reasons why not.
At the hearing, I presented compelling evidence that Pennsylvania public universities have plainly failed to protect student free speech. A review of posted harassment policies reveals that the vast majority of Pennsylvania's public universities have enacted speech codes that prevent students from speaking freely on matters relating to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and class. For example, Indiana University of Pennsylvania prohibits the posting of material that is "insensitive to affirmative action issues." Is affirmative action so enshrined in Pennsylvania public policy that students are prohibited from being "insensitive" to the very issue? (This of course begs the question as to exactly how one can demonstrate insensitivity to something as impersonal as an "issue"). Millersburg University of Pennsylvania bans the transmission of any "messages and materials deemed offensive by university policy." Yet the state simply does not have the power to deem some messages "offensive" and then ban their transmission. Penn State's speech code includes a ban on "acts of intolerance" – a ban all the more remarkable given the recent decision by federal court in Pennsylvania to strike down a speech code at Shippensburg University that contained those same words. So, to university administrators and establishment academic defenders who say there is nothing wrong with higher education in Pennsylvania, there is a decisive response: your own written policies violate the Constitution.
And yet the investigation has barely begun. I also emphasized the importance of intellectual diversity in higher education. Not even the higher education establishment can deny the importance of a broad range of viewpoints to a quality college education. When arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States in favor of affirmative action, the American Association of University Professors stated in its brief: "A diverse educational environment challenges [students] to explore ideas and arguments at a deeper level, to see issues from various sides, to rethink their own premises" (emphasis added). The American Council on Education's recent Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities states, "Colleges and universities should welcome intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas" (emphasis added). In theory at least, there is broad agreement that a university education is enhanced by an exposure to a broad range of ideas.
In practice, ideological uniformity is a national problem, with the vast majority of professors on one side of the political spectrum (in fact, there tends to be more intellectual diversity in your average suburban church than in university humanities departments). The Select Committee should determine whether this national problem also infects Pennsylvania, and it should determine whether this problem is at least in part caused by actual violations of the law. Recent studies have shown, for example, that "observant Christians" are dramatically underrepresented on college faculties; yet religious discrimination in hiring, retention, and promotion is prohibited by law. Moreover, job advertisements and departmental mission statements are often explicitly ideological and send a clear message: conservatives need not apply. While self-selection is certainly one factor to consider when looking for reasons for ideological uniformity, it would be irresponsible not to consider whether Constitutional and statutory law are being violated. Certainly if the racial or gender disparities were so large, the university establishment would not be (and has not been) content with a simple explanation of "self-selection."
David French gave the following testimony before the Pennsylvania House Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom on Monday, September 19, 2005.
DAVID FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to address you.
Let me begin with a quote from the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not the quote that begins the report that has been issued. It is a different one. It's from the case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire.
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any straightjacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our nation. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die.
Those are very powerful words from the Supreme Court. And, in fact, those words were, in part, the inspiration for the founding of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Very briefly, what we are is a nonpartisan, secular, civil liberties organization that defends free speech, religious liberty, freedom of conscience and due process on campuses across the country. We are based in Philadelphia. We have offices in the Curtis Center overlooking Independence Hall, which is appropriate for the defense of free speech. Our agenda is very simple. Our agenda is to preserve the marketplace of ideas on campus and, where the marketplace of ideas has been destroyed for whatever reason, to restore the marketplace of ideas on campus. To that end, the investigation of this Committee is central because the Committee obviously plays a central role in defining how higher education is run in this state and has a central role in defining what is and is not academic freedom in this state.
So my goal here is really quite simple. I want to discuss what academic freedom is and, importantly, what it is not, what the constitutional rights of students and professors are and are not; and what are the institutional responsibilities of Pennsylvania public universities. What are the responsibilities that these arms of the state have towards their citizens, The students who attend, the professors who teach. Quite simply, the best place to begin is with the First Amendment. The First Amendment – this comes sometimes as a, unfortunately, as a surprise to administrators – it applies to students and it applies to faculty. There's a very good short rule of thumb that if speech is constitutionally protected outside of the academy, it's generally constitutional protected inside of the academy.
There is no zone in the academy – or the academy is not an unfree zone and it's not an area where those who have responsibility for the academy have a greater latitude to restrict speech. In fact, the Supreme Court has long recognized that our school – our institutions of higher education, as distinct from secondary schools or elementary schools, are supposed to be marketplaces of ideas. They're supposed to be places where the uncomfortable questions are asked; where traditional notions of truth are challenged; where students can expect to sometimes be offended, sometimes be encouraged by the things that they hear and see on campus. The goal of the university is to be a place where truth can be discovered through inquiry, through debate, through exchange, not just scientific truth, but also historical truth, arguments about political truth – I'm not sure it's accurate to use the phrase political truth. The goal of the university is to create a place, a marketplace where you can debate and you can discuss, you can disagree, and you can even offend in the goal of exchanging ideas and the goal of advancing human knowledge and the goal of advancing our culture.
Unfortunately, our universities across this country – and, unfortunately, Pennsylvania is no exception – have to a large degree abdicated that responsibility.
For the interest of larger goals, or presumed larger goals, there are now speech codes that govern student conduct on campus. A speech code, if you would like a definition, is any policy or practice that prohibits speech that the First Amendment would otherwise protect. Pennsylvania's public universities have several speech codes: Prohibitions against speech that one or another group would find subjectively offensive. Speech codes have been struck down in every single court in the United States where they have been challenged, including a federal district court in this state at Shippensburg University where a Shippensburg University speech code was struck down – or the enforcement of it was enjoined in late 2003. Unfortunately, despite this judicial decision, speech codes still exist. Students, professors, and institutions have academic freedom. Students, professors, and institutions have certain rights of expression. I'll begin with the students.
Students have a right to enjoy the fullest First Amendment rights. They have a right to dissent from the mainstream in politics. They have a right to protest peacefully and lawfully. They have a right to disagree with teachers. They have a right to disagree with administrators. They have a right to publish and publicize their disagreements.
When you talk about the First Amendment rights of students, you are talking about the First Amendment rights of citizens of the United States.
Their rights are extremely broad, extremely broad, limited only by lawful prohibitions and certain very small categories of speech such as fighting words; such as obscenity, as that term has been constitutionally defined; such as certain kinds of speech that rises actually to the level of harassment. But outside of these narrowly defined exceptions, the speech of students is widely protected. Now, to be clear – and I know that this has been an issue in public discussions – students do not have a right – their broad rights do not include a right to be taught what they want to hear. Their broad rights do not include a right not to be offended. Their rights do not include a right to have a teacher tell all sides of the story as they see all sides of the story. But their rights do include the ability to criticize a teacher into dissent even in class so long as dissenting or disagreeing is done in a way that's not disruptive and doesn't prevent the ability of the teacher from conducting the class. So students have very broad First Amendment rights.
Teachers do, as well, although, there are some limits that have been defined traditionally and have been defined by the American Association of University Professors.
On page 3 of our report, we quote from an AAUP statement, which I think, stands to this day. It was written in 1940 and stands to this day. It's still the single best statement of professors' academic freedom:
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline…[T]hey should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, and should show respect for the opinions of others and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution…Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject; but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.
What does this mean? What it means is that a teacher who is teaching, for example, sociology or political science or history has an enormous amount of latitude in determining the curriculum, the readings of the class, the precise topics covered within the subject of the class; they have an enormous amount of freedom in the classroom discussion so long as the classroom discussion remains germane to the topic of the class; and that they in truth should be free from state oversight into those kinds of decisions. Because that is the core academic freedom function of a professor.
What is a professor not free to do? A professor is not free to use a class – let's say a mathematics class – to advance a particular political agenda. That is something that a university, an institution, can properly restrict without interfering with that professor's First Amendment rights. Their First Amendment rights do not extend to the ability to use the state-provided platform to advocate for personal political goals if those personal political goals are not the subject are germane to the topic of the class.
This is a source of enormous controversy on campus. But we need to be clear: There is a difference between a teacher teaching something that a student gets upset at, that a student is offended by. A student does not have a right not to be upset or not to be offended in the teacher misappropriating the use of a classroom for a partisan political end. Those are different things.
Now, institutionally, a university has an ability to shape its own message and curriculum to a large degree. In fact, if there's one kind of academic freedom that the federal courts have been virtually unanimous on finding is that there is institutional academic freedom.
Private universities have an enormous amount of institutional academic freedom. If you want to in this country, you have a constitutional right to set up a religious college where you only allow people to attend that college who agree with the statement of faith of the religion and then can actually exclude teachers and fire teachers who don't agree with the basis of faith of the college. That's for a private university.
Secular private universities have an equivalent level of freedom. They can decide to define themselves according to a particular agenda.
Public universities are different. They do have a degree of academic freedom, certainly, to advocate for certain kinds of ideas; but that is strictly limited by the Constitution of the United States. For example, a state university can't advocate for or against religion. A state university's academic freedom doesn't extend to endorsing or condemning any particular religious point of view, whereas a private academic university does extend that far. State universities can put forward things like mission statements. State universities can advocate for particular cultural solutions to societal problems. However, in furtherance of their mission, they cannot, they cannot impose litmus tests on employees, on students. In other words, it is unconstitutional for a state university to condition the receipt of a state benefit, such as employment or a degree from the school, on the abandonment of certain constitutional rights such as free speech or freedom of association.
Now, with that very broad overview – and I'm going to welcome any questions – we get to two fundamental issues that I think are being addressed by the Committee.
One is free speech: Mostly free speech by students, but also free speech from professors. Free speech has two – there's two primary sources of censorship.
One is censorship by policy. Those are written policies in university handbooks, in student catalogs, in faculty handbooks that actually on their face restrict free speech.
On their face, they say to students, your free speech rights are contingent upon, for example – contingent, for example, to the extent to which another individual is offended or they are contingent upon the subjective feelings of another person.
There are two primary ways that speech codes work. One is by being overbroad. An overbroad speech code is one that actually prohibits more than just the unlawful behavior; it prohibits lawful behavior as well. An example of a overbroad speech code, here's one from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania, which prohibits behavior of a sexual nature that is directed toward another individual, based on their gender, which is demeaning or diminishing to their character.
The fact of the matter is that no one has a right not to feel demeaned. Because what does it mean to feel demeaned? I may say something to one person and it doesn't feel demeaning to them. And I may say the exact same thing to another individual and it feels demeaning to them. Have I in the one instance committed a lawful act and in the other instance committed an unlawful act in spite of the fact that I did the same thing both times? This kind of subjective uncertainty is absolutely unconstitutional. It is absolutely and has long been the case that you cannot test, you cannot test free speech based on subjective listener reaction. Now, does that mean that there are some demeaning things that I could say that could constitute harassment? Certainly there are some demeaning things that one could say that could constitute harassment. But that term is overbroad.
Millersville University of Pennsylvania prohibits the transmission of electronic messages and materials deemed offensive by university policy and by local, state, and federal laws. Now, who is deeming what offensive? Does any state official have the right to deem written material or communicated material offensive? No, absolutely not. The state does not have the ability to deem words offensive and, therefore, completely out of bounds.
Further, codes can be not just overbroad, but vague. It's a constitutional rule that a policy or a code has to be clear enough that a person of average intelligence and understanding can know what's prohibited and what isn't.
If you don't know what's prohibited, it begins to have a chilling effect on speech as you – to go on the safe side, say less than what you might think so as to not run afoul of the vague rule. For example, a classic example and one from this state that was found to be unconstitutional as vague is a prohibition on acts of intolerance.
Shippensburg University had a speech code which, among other things, prohibited acts of intolerance on campus. The problem was, that's a term that's virtually impossible to define. If you ask a hundred people what is an act of intolerance, you may get a hundred different answers. And, in fact, at the oral argument when the judge on the case, when the judge directly asked the attorney representing Shippensburg, What is intolerance, there was no good answer forthcoming because, quite simply, there's no good answer. Nobody knows really what it is. And so that phrase, "act of intolerance," has been struck down, but it still lives in some speech codes in this state.
Edinborough University of Pennsylvania prohibits offensive or inappropriate sexual behavior. What is inappropriate sexual behavior? That's an excellent question. I mean, I have my own moral sense of what would be inappropriate sexual behavior. I'm sure it differs with many people in this room. Everyone has his or her own moral sense regarding what is or is not inappropriate. But what this does is it delegates the decision of what is not inappropriate to state officials; and state officials, using their own subjective terms and their own subjective beliefs, then decide for members of the community.
That's vague. If you asked a hundred people to list all the examples they can think of, of inappropriate sexual behavior, you would get quite a few different answers.
Further, public universities, in addition to enacting rules that are overbroad and vague, tend to also enact rules that prohibit free exercise of religion on campus. And they do it in a very subtle way, but in a way that dramatically restricts free expression of religious ideas.
It is very typical now for large universities to have expansive non-discrimination rules that they apply to their student organizations. Now, in the abstract, there's nothing wrong with applying a nondiscrimination rule to a student organization to say that you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race or gender, for example. But some of these non-discrimination rules include non-discrimination on the basis of religion and they ask religious organizations to sign on to that. The upshot of that is that religious organizations are no longer able to use religious principles when making their decisions if they expect to be a student organization on a public campus.
Ironically, although on-discrimination on the basis of religion or creed is undoubtedly designed to protect religious individuals, it ends up restricting religious freedom. For example, at Penn State, no organization can obtain or maintain university recognition if it discriminates on the basis of, amongst other things, religious creed. Innumerous groups, from the Muslim Student Association to Campus Crusade for Christ to, you name it, make religious decisions. That's their reason for being; yet they face the possibility of expulsion from campus just by being religious.
Across the United States, there have been at least 60 instances where this exact kind of policy has been used to restrict religious expression on campus or to evict from campus religious organizations. Currently, such policies are enjoined by federal courts in North Carolina and in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals; yet Pennsylvania's public universities have some of these very policies on their books.
Another way that students' freedom is restricted is not just by policy, but by practice; in other words, someone – there may be no speech code in place, but in spite of the lack of speech code, the university will take action anyway.
Now, this is a category that nationally is quite prevalent. Nationally, it's quite common for students to be punished for their speech even when they haven't violated any university rule. But I would suggest for this Committee it would be an interesting line of inquiry to determine whether that is, in fact, happening here; although, Pennsylvania is so laden with speech codes that you can almost always find a policy restricting free speech to punish a student in this state.
But by practice, the problem with determining the extent of that there's a difficulty with determining the extent of that problem in that it relies on self-reporting.
Students who are censored must
(A) know that they can complain; and
(B), know who they can complain to.
At FIRE, we receive hundreds of complaints per year; but all the information that we've received indicates nationally that that's a drop in the bucket.
We have not received extensive complaints from Pennsylvania. There have been some specific incidents at Pennsylvania public universities, but not in the numbers that we have seen in the other states. Whether that is a function that Pennsylvania public universities are protecting free speech in reality or just that students don't know to complain, we don't know the answer to that.
Moving from student free speech to intellectual diversity, there is a powerful and almost self-evident argument that a broad range of ideas on campus is a desirable thing; that, in fact, a university that's supposed to be a marketplace of ideas can and should have a broad range of ideas on campus to foster debate, to test hypotheses, to test theories, to challenge historical assertions.
A broad range of viewpoints is a good thing. It's a non-controversial statement. The
American Association of University Professors, in fact, made that clear in its own arguments to the Supreme Court of the United States when arguing to preserve race-based Affirmative Action policies in the University of Michigan, declaring in its own brief that universities should provide a broad range of ideas and a broad range of viewpoints, that that is part of the function of the university, and the university is enhanced by that. So it's really not controversial to say that there should be a broader range of ideas in the university. What is controversial is the answer to this question: Does a broad range of ideas exist?
There are national studies that would tend to indicate that universities are rather ideologically monolithic. There are a variety of studies indicating that those who self-identify on the left side of the political spectrum outnumber those who self-identify on the right side of the political spectrum by a substantial margin; in some cases, 9-to-1, 10-to-1, 30-to-1 in some departments, according to recent studies.
Now, the question is, Does that matter from a standpoint of intellectual diversity? And, more importantly for this Committee's purposes, if such disparities are real, are they real because of misconduct? Are they real because of actually unconstitutional activities?
Bear in mind that earlier I said that you may not condition the receipt of a state benefit on the surrender of some basic First Amendment rights. There's a case called Perry v. Sinderman that involved an at-will, untenured professor at a university who was terminated; and he, allegedly, has been terminated as a result of his free speech rights. The university said, Well, he was an at-will employee. We can terminate him for any reason or no reason at all. In response, the Supreme Court said very clearly that you cannot condition the receipt of a state benefit on the abandonment of basic free speech or free association rights.
There exists a very real and very lively question now based on multiple recent studies: Is that happening in university hiring, firing, promotion, and retention? The answer is hotly disputed and I would say not firmly established at this point. So from the standpoint of intellectual diversity, it's critical to the state's responsibility with regards to intellectual diversity is I think important to define.
One is, in this case, the State of Pennsylvania has an institutional academic freedom itself running its school system. And the State of Pennsylvania, if it believes that intellectual diversity is a good thing in the university and helps to foster the marketplace of ideas, would certainly have an interest in making sure that intellectual diversity exists and discovering the reasons why it may not. However, what the State of Pennsylvania should not and cannot do is to go to individual professors in individual departments around the state and say to – just take a name – pick a name out of the hat – Professor Jones or Professor Smith, what we want you to do is to teach your class in a different way so as to be more diverse. That violates that individual professor's academic freedom and should not be done. But what a state can do is say, in an economics department, Do we have a broad range of ideas present here? And if we do not, should we be seeking a broad range of ideas?
If we do not have a broad range of ideas present, is it because of any actual unconstitutional or illegal activity; for example, prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of sex or race or religion? State universities violate those prohibitions on occasion. Is that happening here? Or are there de facto ideological litmus tests being applied to candidates for a particular job? Are they being forced to adhere to a particular ideology?
So what I would suggest as the true constitutional obligation of a university going forward is to, No. 1 – this is very basic – protect the constitutional rights of your students. Make sure they have a right to free speech, the same right they'd have to free speech if they stepped off the university campus;
Number 2, in addressing any perceived constitutional violations against the students, do not violate the constitutional rights of professors, who do have a right to challenge students, who do have a right to even offend students on occasion;
Number 3, in the quest for intellectual diversity on campus, since I would presume that intellectual diversity, differing viewpoints on campus, is a good thing and the quest for intellectual diversity on campus, do not violate the academic freedom rights of any individual.
And look hard at the reasons for the disparity. Is self-selection at play? Are there actual unconstitutional actions being taken? Take a close look at not just what exists, but why it exists.
With that, I'll open the floor to any and all questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUCELA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to go first due to the other commitment. I sort of have two questions. One, what's the relationship to the Patriot Act in the Federal Patriot Act? Is there any relationship? Given the current climate, shall we say, in the United States vs. free speech, does the Patriot Act apply in any way to any of these things?
MR. FRENCH: It is my belief that the Patriot Act, in practice, should not have any bearing on the academic freedom dispute. Now, saying that, I will tell you that there have been circumstances where professors who have made what many would deem to be very inflammatory remarks about the war on terror, there have been individuals who have tried to creatively think of ways to apply various national security statutes to restrict that speech. But I have never seen any actual application of Patriot Act provisions or any other national security-based provision to restrict an individual person's speech that would otherwise be constitutionally protected. Because, bear in mind, the First Amendment would trump even the Patriot Act. If there was any sort of speech that was constitutionally protected but somehow prohibited by a provision in the Patriot Act or by implication from the Patriot Act, the First Amendment would be supreme.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUCELA: And, secondly – and I'm going to bring up a couple sensitive areas here and they are by no means meant to be facetious in any way, shape, or form, because they truly exist – I'm curious about that statement that says Penn State cannot, or can, prevent any organization that you listed a whole bunch of things and emphasized religious creed.
So my question is, If I belong to a religious group that believes in torturing animals, if I belonged to a religious group that believes as part of an initiation or part of my tribal, whatever, believes in smoking marijuana or the use of any illegal drugs, or if I belong to a religious group that believes in polygamy or same sex marriage, you're telling me that Penn State can't stop me from starting a group like that on their campus?
MR. FRENCH: A lot of the specific examples you mentioned such as torturing animals or polygamy or same-sex marriage are acts that are prohibited by statute and by constitutional statute. So the answer is, somebody could start a club that advocated, based on religious beliefs, the torturing of animals, but the actual torturing of animals would be prohibited by statute, and lawfully prohibited by statute. Someone could start a religious club that advocated for polygamy and stated as part of its beliefs that polygamy was acceptable, but to actually engage in polygamy is prohibited by constitutional statute.
So it's not an anything-goes scenario. The argument is that an organization that's formed around a certain belief, whether that belief is political or religious or cultural, has a right to advocate for that belief and to have members and leaders who share that belief. You know, the Democratic Party has every right to exclude individuals who advocate for every plank in their public and party platform or to exclude self-identified Republicans and vice-versa. So what this provision does is say to religious organizations, you cannot use your religious beliefs when you're determining who your members and your leaders are, even though you are a religious organization. It's nonsensical. It would be like prohibiting political ideology discrimination on the part of political parties. It strikes to the core of what they are and what they do.
Now, there's one thing I want to be very, very, very clear about. There's a difference between status and belief. For example, there's nothing about a person's status as a white person that says they couldn't agree with every single part of the NAACP's platform. But if they were a White Supremacist, then the NAACP could certainly exclude them. There's nothing about, say for example, a person's gender that says they couldn't enjoy the game of chess. But if they hated chess, the chess club could rightfully exclude them. What these provisions do is they basically say to religious organizations, on those core principals that matter the most to you, you may not utilize them in determining leadership and membership and stay on this campus.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUCELA: Could Penn State or any other state institutions prohibit the Ku Klux Klan?
MR. FRENCH: Almost certainly they could not prohibit any particular organization on the basis of its perceived ideology. They could prohibit an organization that was engaged in otherwise unlawful activity. So if the Ku Klux Klan was engaged in terrorism or violating existing state and federal laws, certainly it could exclude them; but they could not exclude the Klan on the basis that it has a point of view that is horrific.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUCELA: One last thing: this is probably not in existence, at least I hope not, but what if the religion advocated the overthrow of the government? As long as we didn't do it inside the group?
MR. FRENCH: Actually, that's pretty well-established constitutionally. It used to be, in fact, that you couldn't even get a driver's license in some states without swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States government. All these loyalty oaths have been struck down. They're gone. So you cannot say to a student organization, "You must swear off any advocacy of violent overthrow of the U.S. government as a condition for being on campus." Although, I haven't seen that situation come up. There's some case law dating from the Vietnam War relevant to that. But in recent years, I have not seen circumstances like that student chapter of the Klan or student chapter of the group that was seeking the violent overthrow of the government.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUCELA: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON STEVENSON: Thank you. Representative Herman.
REPRESENTATIVE HERMAN: Thank you very much. I have just two questions, Mr. French. If either a faculty member of a university or student felt that their constitutional rights were abridged or offended or academic freedom suppressed, what should they do?
MR. FRENCH: Unfortunately, most universities do not explain to students either what their rights are or what they can do in the event that they're violated. So a student has to come at that knowledge through outside sources. And the vast majority of students, quite frankly, you know, don't get that knowledge. So I think institutionally what a university should do is do a better job of informing students their constitutional rights and providing them for an avenue, a formal avenue of complaint in the event that they perceive that their constitutional rights are violated, short of running to a lawyer and filing a lawsuit.
With respect to the students, at the present time, FIRE has an enormous education effort. We tried to reach the students and explain to them what their rights are. But what they should do if their rights are violated, one thing is – to put in a plug for FIRE – is contact FIRE.
Another thing is, if they feel like their rights are being violated by a professor or by a member of the administration, they should closely look their school's own policies, because hidden within some of these policies will be sometimes some procedures that can give them protection. So they should take a look at their own student handbook, take a look at the catalog.
But, unfortunately right now, students are in a vast sea of ignorance regarding their rights and often have a tendency when someone tells them that they can't do something, to believe it, to believe that, if you read this policy, that prohibits acts of intolerance to think, well, I better not commit an act of intolerance because that's unlawful; instead of going back and thinking, Hum, is that unconstitutional? I don't even know what that is. So what should they do I think is contact appropriate officials as outlined in the student handbook or catalog; but, unfortunately, that's not often an avenue available to them.
REPRESENTATIVE FLEAGLE: You had mentioned that (in) Pennsylvania, the numbers were not as great as in other states for contacts for FIRE?
MR. FRENCH: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FLEAGLE: And I know you backed it up by saying that that's not really indicative of the fact that there may not be abuses of academic freedom. When they say the states are the laboratories of democracy, have you seen any state universities or public universities in a particular state who seem to have their act together? I know you probably only see the downside of the question, but surely you've seen some examples of a good policy?
MR. FRENCH: I have seen examples of good policies. As far as any individual university that stands out as better than the others or any individual university system that stands out as better than the others, none are coming to mind. You're right; we receive complaints. I do know of universities that have been very responsive once we have made the complaints known to the universities. But as far as a specific policy that stands out nationally, there is – there is not a university policy that I'm aware of that I would say is better than all the others and worth emulating.
In fact, I would say that the AAUP's 1940 statement on academic freedom, which has been around for a long time, is still one of the best, if not the best, articulations of academic freedom, particularly from the professor's level. And universities have adopted this 1940's statement as a rule; however, they also adopt speech codes often. So they contradict some of their own policies.
You mentioned the states as a laboratory of democracy. One of the things that we have found is universities are often like small European countries: They tend to be very bureaucratic. Often the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Policy documents can be extremely confusing and labyrinthine. So at Pennsylvania schools there are some very good academic freedom statements, but you go to a policy book and you'll find a speech code.
At FIRE we have – to give you an understanding of the extent of the problem – we have rated the speech policies of approximately 350 leading universities in the United States. Seventy percent have at least one policy that is constitutionally problematic. The ones that do not have constitutionally problematic policies tend to have a statement like the AAUP statement and then nothing else. They tend not to have an affirmative free speech statement, so much as they just don't have prohibitions.
REPRESENTATIVE FLEAGLE: The complaints that you get from other states vs.
Pennsylvania, do they tend to be a homogeneous type or does one state have more of a problem?
MR. FRENCH: It's the same type of complaint we get all over. When there's one case publicized in one state, what tends to happen is that there are several other complaints that will come because of the publicity and the awareness.
I would say the most common type of complaint is the misunderstanding of what discrimination and harassment is. Universities have been for a very long time telling their students that discrimination or harassment is an act that offends you or that makes you upset on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation. So many of our cases involve individuals who are upset on the basis of one of these factors and believe that, because they're upset, someone needs to be punished. And they get a lot of comfort in that from of their policies.
One of our efforts is to try to educate people as to what harassment actually is. It's not actually a state of just being upset.
In fact, in our materials that we distributed, there is federal law that says that for something to be harassment in a student-on-student circumstance, the pattern of behavior must be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to the educational opportunity or benefit. So, in other words, it has to be so bad the person can't get an education, not that it's so bad that I feel really mad about it. And, in fact, in July of 2003, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights issued a letter, a "dear colleague" letter, and said that some colleges and universities have interpreted OCR's prohibition of harassment as encompassing all offensive speech regarding sex, disability, race, or other classifications. Harassment, however, to be prohibited by the statutes within OCR's jurisdiction – these are the antidiscrimination statutes – must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols, or thoughts that some person finds offensive.
To give you two concrete examples – again, these are not Pennsylvania – but very recent examples: In a public community college in Florida, an individual was prohibited from handing out fliers protesting the treatment of animals in slaughter houses because the administrator was offended by the content of those fliers. Because the administrator was offended, it obviously violated policy banning offensive speech and, therefore, could be suppressed. Other examples would include conservative protests of Affirmative Action, usually done through something called an Affirmative Action bake sale, where they sell baked goods at different prices based on race or gender of the purchaser.
In many schools, those protests have been suppressed, prevented or punished, because they made people angry. Not because the speech wasn't protected, but because they made people angry. So if there's one category that trumps all others, it's a misunderstanding regarding what is or is not harassment and the misinterpretation of anything that offends me, that makes me upset, is harassing.
Cases: Pennsylvania House of Representatives Select Committee on Student Academic Freedom


text:
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Sleeping Beauty Fallacy
Baloney. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for people to get a clue. A man can battle the dragon, struggle through the thorns, kiss the unresponsive girl, and still not have her wake up to his love. What people don't understand is the brutal reality of human nature. Let me point out some things to my male readers:
1. If the woman you are attracted to is spiteful and disagreeable (to others, if not you) before she is committed to you, she will likely be so afterwards.
2. If you have to jump through endless hoops to prove yourself before she marries you, be certain you will have to jump through endless hoops after you are married.
3. If a woman has a low conception of who men are, don't think that your being attractive and appealing to her will change the fundamental problem she has with men. At first sign of hardship or your being vulnerable, don't be surprised if she turns on you. Remember, a snake charmer can only play his pungi for so long.
Like my grandfather said, "You breed hound, you get a hound." If a woman is self-centered and emotionally immature, it's not your job to fix her, nor should you be under the illusion that you can. That's her responsibility. She needs to get her life right with the Lord. And heaven forbid if her emotional problems are severe. Don't get the idea that your folk theories on how to manipulate women can do something for your sweetheart what professional psychotherapy cannot do.**
Happily Ever After?
Another aspect of the Sleeping Beauty Fallacy is the idea that obtaining a beautiful woman = happily ever after. I am concerned about people who just assume that getting in bed with the best-looking ladies is the goal of every sensible man. Oh, yes it is!! Just like it's the goal of little kids to eat ice cream all day long. Come on, folks. This is not high school. This is adulthood and there are serious life-changing ramifications to the messages we embrace about relationships.
Some must live in a parallel universe, because they apparently have never heard of the adage that beauty is only skin deep. I have something to say to those who are skeptical of my message: Um, beauty really is only skin deep. Why even the Word of God echoes this sentiment: "Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised" (Prov. 31:30, NASB). Imagine that! Given this very elementary observation, don't you think it is utterly stupid and ridiculous to approach men's problems on the basis of who and who isn't getting laid with beautiful women?
Men shouldn't be afraid of rejection from beautiful women. They should be afraid of being committed to the wrong person. Do you a think good waist-hip ratio and facial symmetry automatically translates into a woman being a good mother to your children or a good wife to you? Yes? Then take your pick of the bat-crazy, crack-smoking narcissists that fit that description. No? Then why are you wasting your time focusing on attracting these women? And why is your self-image wrapped up in such a pursuit?
The Two Fishing Ponds
Let me leave behind Sleeping Beauty for a little bit and take you on a fishing trip. There are two ponds you can fish. One is stocked entirely with prize fish you like, but the pond has unacceptable levels of mercury in it. Not all of the fish have mercury, if that makes you feel better. The other pond has edible fish, too, and there are various kinds in it. There are reputedly some you like in the second pond, but mostly it's others you like a little less and some that you can't acquire a taste for.
Now, there are men like you with their boats in the second pond and a handful are snapping up the rare kind you like the most (and the fish you like are indeed rare in the second pond). The rest of the men in the second pond are taking home other kinds of fish, but are generally content with what their going to have for dinner. What about that first pond? Yes, there are guys in it, hauling in the prize fish. But they are playing catch-and-release. So let's review your choices: you can play catch-and-release, hazard eating a prize fish full of mercury, spend all day trying to catch a prize fish in the second pond and probably not come home with anything, settle for something less than your favorite but which is still palatable just the same, or just refuse to fish in either pond.
You say, "I'll use my special lure and catch an edible prize fish in the second pond." But you're missing the point. Your fishing strategy doesn't begin with the tackle, but with the pond that you're going to put your boat in. That's my question to you. Don't tell me about your tackle gear and your custom fishing pole. Where is your boat at, dude? Because if you are focused entirely on prize fish without any concern about the safety of taking such home, then I know what pond you are in.
But if indeed you are in the second pond, then I gotta' say your special tackle gear will only take you so far. You may have a special lure to throw in the pond that attracts the prize fish like a magnet, but if there is only so many of those fish around, then you may be waiting a long time. That is especially the case if the other fisherman have lures as good as yours. And don't forget this: Some fisherman may not have a top-dollar lure, but they show up early when there are more prize fish. Since they are in the second pond, they don't play catch-and-release. Don't expect them to share their catch with you. The day is getting on and the sun is setting. What are you going to do?
Yes, Sleeping Beauty is like the prize fish. But you need to ask yourself is she worth it. Let's put things into perspective. A woman's physical attractiveness only lasts for a minor portion of her lifespan. It's maybe thirty years out of eighty plus years of living, if we are being generous. If you are going to be monogamous and honor God's law on marriage (as opposed to playing the catch-and-release game of bed-hopping), then think about what life will be like with your hypothetical beauty queen after she goes through menopause. Could you stand to be around her with her looks gone and your sex drive barely functioning? Maybe you could; maybe you couldn't. You need to be honest with yourself and look down the road, beyond the short-term perspective of our ADHD culture.
I come to the close of my discussion by revisiting my first concern: men thinking women will magically change for the better. I fear some people assume the problems men face boil down to the type of tackle and gear they have, as if the right tackle can turn a Pond 1 fish into a Pond 2 fish. Such an attitude shows no concern for the environment the fish was swimming in. It's total. Utter. Nonsense. It ties in with the Sleeping Beauty Fallacy. A leopard can't change it spots and you can't turn a slattern into a church girl by pulling a Svengali on her. Your are not Pygmalion.
We laugh at women who think they can change their men. But I guess some men are now drinking the same Kool-Aid and are thinking, "If I act a certain way, she'll respond in certain way." It ain't necessarily so, compadres. Women are not robots. They have a mind of their own and a lot depends on their personality, their life's experiences, their internalized values, their goals, what they want from you, and what they don't want from you. Men who confuse what it takes to attract women with what it takes to change a woman's fundamental character do so at their own peril. You've been warned. Don't be a dead guinea pig for a shaky theory. A lot of times, the sleeping beauties are like sleeping dogs--it's best to let them lie (and not with you).
**Note: Since the time of completing the draft of this piece, I have come across an informative website (shrink4men.wordpress.com). It's the blog of a trained psychotherapist and offers a male-friendly perspective on dealing with difficult women in relationships. A lot of the content reinforces what I am saying here. The key to change for an abusive person of either sex lies with that person, not you. There's something else to consider: the pathological views about men that are prevalent in our society. It's a pathology that feeds itself and escalates into the breakdown of relationships between men and women. I daresay it results in the proliferation of the kind of women mentioned in the following links. For my male readers, carefully consider these links:
1. Why Men Are Attracted to Crazy, Emotionally Abusive Women
2. 10 Reasons You Can't Communicate with a Narcissistic or Borderline Woman
3. Why Couples Counseling Rarely Works with Narcissistic and Borderline Women
4. Will My Emotionally Abusive Girlfriend or Wife Be Different With the New Guy?
13 comments:
- Ken said...
Very well said.
I'm glad you pointed out that women do this, too.
Men have been told to do this somewhat by well-meaning folks who erroneously state, or communicate in a way where it is all too easy for the audience to erroneously infer, that every problem is really the man's fault, as he is the head of the household.
For sure, if someone has chosen their spouse wisely and has fallen into a pattern of not treating their spouse well, the spouse may react by becoming the "sleeping beauty" who needs a special kiss to wake up. However, that it a far different situation than finding a rotting corpse and thinking that if you just kiss it long enough, it will spring to life. People who are looking for spouses should look for someone right for them who is READY NOW to be a good spouse - not someone who "could be" after they work through a lot of stuff.
Also, as you point out, the guys who care mostly about "perfect" physical beauty are not following Biblical principles in mate selection. Some of those guys freely admit this - they just want sex, not a spouse, and they don't consider the Bible relevant to their lives. While I will not defend that behavior, the larger problem is when Christian men adopt this priority of focusing on physical beauty too much. YES, in general, men are visual creatures and we literally can't function sexually without being turned on (women can use an artificial lubricant if need be), but all the physical beauty in the world isn't going to keep the marriage together if she is spiritual and emotional poison.
- December 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM
- Thursday said...
Excellent post.
As for your pond metaphor, it works if you are comparing say a nightclub, where there is a high concentration of hotties, to a church, which has a high (or at least higher) concentration of marriage material. It doesn't work if you are comparing very attractive women in general to less attractive women in general. How good looking a woman is won't really tell you anything about her character.
- December 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM
- Talleyrand said...
I am content with eating ice cream occassionally.
- December 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM
This is your best post, ever. Good on ya.
- December 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM
- Eumaios said...
"If the woman you are attracted to is spiteful and disagreeable (to others, if not you) before she is committed to you, she will likely be so afterwards."
True, but low-hanging fruit. It is also crucial that you pay attention to her mother's characteristics. If the girl isn't obviously replicating or reacting against them now, she will be, and soon.
- December 10, 2009 at 8:31 PM
- LadyElaine said...
I would also wonder that if the man or woman keeps encountering the same type of person in their dating relationship, I would also wonder if his basis of attraction and preferences(outside of already mentioned ideas about relationships and the opposite sex) aren't something that warrants further scrutiny alone.
- December 11, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Thanks Anakin. This was a very helpful post.
"That's her responsibility. She needs to get her life right with the Lord."
I agree with that statement. I also think sisters need to hold other sisters accountable for their behavior as well. (same applies to brothers)
You can't really love your friends if you don't call them out on sin and wrong behavior.
Often a rebuke from a close friend provides the impetus for change. I bet most "sleeping beauties" never receive a godly rebuke (from a friend).
What do you think?
- December 12, 2009 at 10:05 AM
- Amir Larijani said...
A lot of Christians--men and women alike--tend to forget the "beauty is fleeting" warning in Proverbs 31.
I've also noticed--no offense intended at the smoking hotties--that the "beautiful" women often are short on character, and many of them disguise their shortcomings by being "sweet" and "nice".
In fact, I learned to treat the "sweet" and "nice" dispositions as red flags, as those are often covers for larger character faults that lurk beneath the surface.
My wife is rather blunt, and falls outside the conventional attractiveness range (although she obviously falls well within mine). She is not someone I would have picked 10 or 15 years ago.
What sold me on her? That's simple: I looked at the company she kept. The people who have been a large part of her life for the last 10 years. The families whose children she tended to during that time. The friends from college. The church leaders who spoke for her. The observable trend of growth in her life. The theological underpinnings that drive her and have driven her.
She's a firm believer in Ephesians 5--as are most of the women in her home church--and we're not talking egalitarian either. She wanted a man with some proverbial balls to lead. Her church folks had me under the microscope from day one, and I had no problem with that. (She also got to meet some of my friends, and they vetted her somewhat on my behalf.)
While there are no guarantees in life, I'd like to think we made about as good a decision as could be made in the online/distance relationship context.
But to make a long story short, neither one of us were under any "sleeping beauty" illusions, and sought--every step of the way--to ensure that we were being realistic about one another.
- December 12, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I observe that physical beauty does not correlate one way or the other with a personality inclined towards sexual generosity in marriage. It ain't so.
On the "sleeping beauty" meme we must take care not to read into the metaphor things that are not there.
Like Ken, I believe the post is well put. This is a separate thing than the meme played out in the "sleeping beauty" story that makes it a powerful narrative; which I think is the idea that a man can offer things to a woman which help her become fulfilled in ways that could not find expression in her otherwise. Parts of her are 'awakened". Likewise the same for men: A relationship in marriage can help him express aspects of his masculinity that cannot be expressed otherwise. Parts of him are "awakened." All of this is separate from the idea that he is incomplete or unacceptable to God or the fellowship if he is not in a marital state; an idea which I reject.
- December 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Great post.
"Sweet and nice", reminds me of an Eddie Murphy skit.
- December 13, 2009 at 3:54 AM
- Amir Larijani said...
Anonymous said: ""Sweet and nice", reminds me of an Eddie Murphy skit.".
LOL! I don't recall that one, but I can envision Eddie Murphy doing something along those lines!
- December 13, 2009 at 11:39 AM
- Amir Larijani said...
SXM says: "
Like Ken, I believe the post is well put. This is a separate thing than the meme played out in the "sleeping beauty" story that makes it a powerful narrative; which I think is the idea that a man can offer things to a woman which help her become fulfilled in ways that could not find expression in her otherwise. Parts of her are 'awakened". Likewise the same for men: A relationship in marriage can help him express aspects of his masculinity that cannot be expressed otherwise. Parts of him are "awakened." All of this is separate from the idea that he is incomplete or unacceptable to God or the fellowship if he is not in a marital state; an idea which I reject."
I would agree there, while including the caveat that there is a fine line between a "sleeping beauty" paradigm and the reasonable expectation of the fruits of sanctification.
The latter is something that can be difficult to discern, as that can be disguised as a person simply "turning over a new leaf" in order to impress a potential mate.
This is where the harder evidence is long-term change comes into play. And this is applicable to both sexes.
- December 13, 2009 at 12:08 PM
- Ken said...
J wrote...
"You can't really love your friends if you don't call them out on sin and wrong behavior.
Often a rebuke from a close friend provides the impetus for change."
For sure. The first reaction to being called on something is denial/defense. If you call someone out, be prepared for them to be angry for a while. But if they are really seeking what's right, they will eventually come back to you and, whether they express it or not, they'll know you are a true friend, and you were right even though they didn't want to admit it.
We also need to keep this in mind when WE are the ones called out!
- December 14, 2009 at 7:11 PM

subset: commoncrawl


text:
News and Events: Press releases
UNICEF condemns attacks on schools in Pakistan
UNICEF condemns these attacks which rob children of their basic right to education and have a devastating impact on their lives, said Daniel Toole, UNICEFs Regional Director for South Asia.
In a recent assault, five schools were blown up in Pakistans Swat district and similar attacks continue to be reported.
Since 2007, more than 170 government and private schools, particularly girls schools, have been blown up or burned down in the Federally Administered Tribal Area and the North West Frontier Province, reportedly by illegal armed groups. More schools have also closed due to occupation by illegal armed groups or security forces, or due to their female teachers being threatened.
Schools must be able to fully function to ensure the education of tens of thousands of students in the area. The government, development agencies, communities and parents in Pakistan have been working hard to overcome obstacles that can deter children, especially girls, from attending school. They understand that education is a fundamental human right and that it supports and fosters other rights like health, nutrition and protection. Education is also essential to restoring normalcy, especially in conflict situations.
In times of peace and in conflicts or emergencies, schools must be safe spaces for children. UNICEF calls on all groups, and particularly the government of Pakistan, to intensify efforts to protect schools, students and teachers in the areas of military operations.
Attacks that target schools, educational institutions, children and teachers are unacceptable and must cease immediately, Toole said.
All children, including girls, must have unimpeded access to education. Girls who receive quality education are more empowered and better prepared to protect themselves against violence, abuse and exploitation.


text:
Facebook Timeline Cover Design KitThis design kit is loaded with great stuff to help you make your own creative timeline. Numerous backgrounds, photo frames, post-it nets, notepads, tacks and push pins allow you unlimited design options. All elements come in the 850×315 Facebook timeline base file, as well as their own separate PSD file for ease of use. Well organized layer sets makes it easy to edit. Fully customizable and very easy to update. All fonts used are available for download, nice and easy!
Features- Fully Layered Adobe Photoshop .PSD files
- 850px x 315px
- Multiple design elements provide you with unlimited design options
- All elements are inside the base file & include in a separate PSD file
- Smart Objects used for photos
- Includes new profile picture size and location (see link below)
- Free Fonts used, download links are in the "read me" file.
- Photos in the preview image are used for display purposes and are not included.
About The AuthorHi there, my name is Luke and I am very passionate about design. I take pride in my work and the support I provide to my customers. Any item you buy comes with free support, simply send me an email with the details and I will get back to you quickly. I strive to make all my items user-friendly, and I will put in the extra time needed to assist you with any questions or issues that may arise.
Below you will find all of my items organized into collections. Click on an image to view the entire set. You can also see all of my items in my portfolio. I hope you enjoy my work, feel free to get in touch if you need support, have questions or need a custom quote.


text:
Threads 0 to 0 of 0
Forum: Poseidon
Founded in Sweden in 1958, Poseidon has been a leader in innovation, quality and safety in the diving industry for over 50 years. Poseidons revolutionary recreational rebreather, the Discovery MKVI followed by the SE7EN, allows recreational divers to enjoy the many great benefits of rebreathers. Benefits include tripling average dive time, warm breathing gas and silent, bubble-free operation that allows divers to become part of the underwater environment and not just visitors.
Quick Navigation Poseidon Top
Users Browsing this Forum
There are currently 1 users browsing this forum. (0 members & 1 guests)


text:
Sector Fleet details the role and organization of an interstellar navy as well as the specifics of shipboard protocol such as command devolution, legal and illegal orders, and how much latitude a starship captain has once underway. Sector Fleet also presents details of the exact composition of an Imperial Sector and Subsector fleet; ship strengths and types, and the vital role played by reserve and Colonial forces in backing up the main strength of the Sector Fleet. The fleets of the entire Spinward Marches are described in this book.
Sector Fleet contains answers to some of the Big Questions concerning the Imperial Navy:
* What missions does the Navy actually carry out?
* Can a Sector Duke legally give orders to a naval Admiral?
* How does the Navy recruit and train its personnel?
* How many patrol ships are available in a typical subsector?
* When the Bridge is shot away, who takes command?
* What is the composition of a Sector Fleet?
* When is an order illegal? Should it be obeyed anyway?
* What jurisdiction does a corporate Route Protector have?
* How much does an Able Spacehand get paid?
* When a Commodore commands a single-ship force, is the Captain still in command?
Additional Information


text:
Chris St-Cyr Skater Profile
Sponsors: Deathwish, Supra, Krew, Palm Isle
Hometown: East Montreal Canada, Stance: Goofy, Age: 29, Status: Am
Last Update: Saturday, August 27, 2011 Submit an Update
No coverage found for Chris St-Cyr.
Chris St-Cyr Comments
Other Skater Links
- Full Skater Database - 6000+ skater profiles.
- Skateboarders on Instagram - browse your favorite pros and ams on Instagram.
- Skate News and Videos - daily skate news and videos from around the web.
- Media Coverage - we log all major magazine coverage by skater and photographer.
- Skate Photographers - we log all major magazine coverage by skater and photographer.
- Contest Results - over a decade's worth of contest history.


text:
You are hereHome ›
Narrow Search
Now showing results 1-7 of 7
This is the third module in the Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO) Project Suite curriculum. Each activity is self-directed by students or student teams and utilizes online videos, data from the SDO satellite and hands-on activities to explore,... (View More) research and build knowledge about how the Sun's varying activity impacts Earth and space weather. Each activity provides opportunities to build knowledge and vocabulary, apply or demonstrate learning through real world connections and create resources to use in investigations. Both a teacher and student guide are included with sequential instructions and embedded links to the needed videos, tutorials and internet resources. In Activity 3A: Sun-Earth Interactions, students gather information from online videos and create a 3D model to demonstrate the relationship to Earth's place in space and the affect of Earth's axial tilt on our seasons, then film a short video explaining the reasons for the seasons. Activity 3B: Space Weather, students use online videos to gather information on what space weather is, and its causes and effects, to create a concept map. They then use real-time SDO data to forecast space weather. Activity 3C: Solar Research in Action! Make a Magnetometer has students view information in online videos about to Earth's magnetosphere and the impacts of space weather, then create a magnetometer to detect and visualize changes in the Earth's magnetic fields to monitor solar storm impacts. A computer for student-teams and access to the internet are needed for this module. See related and supplementary resources for link to full curriculum. The appendix includes an alignment to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (View Less)
Materials Cost: $5 - $10 per group of students
In this activity, children use common craft materials and ultraviolet (UV)-sensitive beads to construct a person (or dog or imaginary creature). They use sunscreen, foil, paper, and more to test materials that might protect UV Kid from being exposed... (View More) to too much UV radiation. Includes background for facilitators. This activity is part of the "Explore!" series of activities designed to engage children in space and planetary science in libraries and informal learning environments. (View Less)
Materials Cost: $5 - $10 per group of students
Students use a calorimeter made of common materials to demonstrate that energy can be measured and converted from one form to another. Hydrocarbons, such as paraffin, contain stored chemical energy; food contains stored chemical energy. The activity... (View More) uses a raw potato, a nut, a candle, an aluminum drink can, a thermometer, and a balance scale. A data sheet is included in the resource. The investigation supports material presented in chapter 1, "What is Energy?" in the textbook, Energy Flow, part of Global System Science (GSS), an interdisciplinary course for high school students that emphasizes how scientists from a wide variety of fields work together to understand significant problems of global impact. (View Less)
Materials Cost: $5 - $10 per group of students
This is an activity about ultraviolet light. Learners will make ultraviolet light detector bracelets and use them to experiment with artificial light and sunlight. Then, they experiment with various sun-blocking materials to see how such materials... (View More) impact the beads' absorption of ultraviolet light. Special UV detecting beads are required for this activity. This is Activity 3 of the Sun As a Star afterschool curriculum. (View Less)
This is an activity about how light travels. Learners will perform two experiments. The first explores blocking light to create shadows. The second asks learners to use mirrors to figure out that light travels in a straight line. This is Activity 4... (View More) of the Sun As a Star afterschool curriculum. This activity requires use of a room that can be darkened. (View Less)
This is a lesson about infrared radiation. Learners will investigate invisible forms of light as they conduct William Herschel's experiment and subsequent discovery of infrared radiation. They will construct a device to measure the presence of... (View More) infrared radiation in sunlight, explain that visible light is only part of the electromagnetic spectrum of radiation emitted by the Sun, follow the path taken by Herschel through scientific discovery, explain why we would want to use infrared radiation to study Mercury and other planets, and explain how excess infrared radiation is a concern for the MESSENGER mission. This is activity 1 of 4 at the Grade 5-8 band of "Staying Cool." (View Less)
Materials Cost: $5 - $10 per group of students
In this activity, students perform a version of the experiment of 1801, in which ultraviolet light was first discovered by Johann Wilhelm Ritter. This experiment should be conducted outdoors on a sunny day - variable cloud conditions, such as patchy... (View More) cumulus clouds or heavy haze will diminish your results. This activity requires advance preparation and special materials (e.g., glass prism, blueprint paper, household ammonia). (View Less)
Materials Cost: $5 - $10 per group of students


text:
Reduce African-American Infant Mortality (SIDS)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01361880
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : May 27, 2011
Last Update Posted : July 5, 2017
- Study Details
- Tabular View
- No Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
|Condition or disease
|Health Behavior
|Behavioral: Reduce Infant Mortality
|Not Applicable
A persistent, significant racial disparity exists in infant mortality rates attributable to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and other types of sleep-related sudden unexpected infant death (SUID), such as suffocation and undetermined causes of death. SIDS and other sleep-related deaths account for ~4600 U.S. deaths annually.4 While the incidence of SIDS has declined, infant deaths from accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed have quadrupled.5 Additionally, racial disparities in SIDS and other sleep-related deaths have increased over the past decade, with African-American infants twice as likely to die as other infants.6, 7 Certain infant sleeping practices, such as prone (stomach) sleeping, use of soft bedding and soft sleep surfaces, and bedsharing, likely play a significant role, both in SIDS and SUID, and in the disparities seen therein. Elimination of health barriers and racial/ethnic disparities, and promoting healthy development, have been highlighted as MCHB research priorities; this application is directly responsive to both of these priorities.
In the current system, health care providers and public health messages, using the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations,8 stress the use of supine (back) positioning, avoidance of soft bedding, and room sharing without bedsharing as recommendations to reduce the risk of SIDS. However, our research suggests that African-Americans have problems with this message, as they have a low degree of self-efficacy with regards to SIDS risk reduction (i.e., they do not believe that their actions can make a difference in whether SIDS occurs) and are suspicious of the concept of "risk reduction."2 However, African-American parents have a high degree of self-efficacy with regards to preventing infant suffocation. Given the increasing number of suffocation and other preventable sleep-related deaths and the fact that many of the behavioral risk factors for both SIDS and preventable sleep-related deaths are the same, providing parents with an additional safe sleep message that emphasizes prevention of suffocation may be more effective in changing parent behavior. Such a message would be carefully crafted based on our current community-based research1-3 to address emerging risks of greatest concern and potential self-efficacy. A simple, easily reproducible change in the system of newborn care could thus address a critical barrier to further progress in reducing infant mortality rates, particularly among African American families. The best systems of care to reduce disparities must use the best available and culturally competent messaging based on strong empirical evidence and require rigorous evaluation.
|Study Type :
|Interventional (Clinical Trial)
|Actual Enrollment :
|1200 participants
|Intervention Model:
|Single Group Assignment
|None (Open Label)
|Primary Purpose:
|Health Services Research
|Official Title:
|Randomized Messaging Trial to Reduce African-American Infant Mortality
|Study Start Date :
|June 2011
|Actual Primary Completion Date :
|December 2015
|Actual Study Completion Date :
|December 2015
Reduce infant mortality
The overall purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate a systematic approach to improve African-American parental behaviors specifically with regards to the infant sleep environment
Behavioral: Reduce Infant Mortality
The study's long term goal is to disseminate a new easily implemented and reproducible intervention that based on our previous research is culturally competent and provides a rationale for changing infant sleep position and sleep environment. This intervention if successful will quickly be disseminated and will be an important change to the system of newborn care; the resultant change in parental behavior would ultimately result in a reduction in sleep-related infant mortality rates thereby promoting healthy development.After written consent has been obtained, a brief survey about knowledge of and attitudes toward safe sleep position recommendations, current intent with regards to safe sleep recommendations, and demographics will be completed. Contact information will be obtained from participants to facilitate study follow-up at two weeks of infants birth 2-3 months and 5-6 months.
Other Names:
- Suffocation, Strangulation and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome [ Time Frame: Three years ]Sleep Position (Supine vs. Nonsupine) Bedsharing (Yes vs. No) Use of Softbedding (Yes vs. No)
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
|Ages Eligible for Study:
|18 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
|Sexes Eligible for Study:
|Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
Inclusion Criteria:
- The purpose of the study is to determine the impact of a new educational strategy on African American parents, all participants will be self identified as African American. Although male parents will be allowed to participate in the followup surveys, female parents will be the primary focus of this study.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Mothers under the age of 18 years will not be included in the study. Infants born with congenital anomalies that would prevent them from sleeping in the supine position or if the infant is born at less than 36 weeks gestation, requires hospitalization for more than 1 week, or has ongoing medical problems.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01361880
|United States, District of Columbia
|Washington Hospital Center
|Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, United States, 20010
|Principal Investigator:
|Rachel Y Moon, MD
|University of Virginia
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
|Responsible Party:
|Rachel Moon, MD, Principal Investigator, University of Virginia
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
|NCT01361880 History of Changes
|Other Study ID Numbers:
|First Posted:
|May 27, 2011 Key Record Dates
|Last Update Posted:
|July 5, 2017
|Last Verified:
|June 2017
Keywords provided by Rachel Moon, MD, University of Virginia:
African American
Anticipatory Guidance
Health Promotion
Infant Mortality
Injury Prevention
Parent Education
sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Infant Death
Pathologic Processes


text:
Reviewed by Robby G. (age 7)
I liked how Snail always has fun on adventures. I liked how the teacher always says, "Oh, never mind Snail." This book reminds me of another book that I like called "Fox at School" by James Marshall. Both of the books are about animals that have interesting adventures at school.
I recommend this book to kids that like to read chapter books about animals.


text:
|2012-10-14, 14:27
|Link #101
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Wasn't planning on watching this, but did so anyways because of the positive comments and I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised. I'm really liking the main character Mei. She kind of reminds me of Shizuku in the aspect of being somewhat anti-social and I'm looking forward to her opening up over the course of the show. Yamato on the other hand is decent. I was never really fond of the popular, super handsome guy is love interest for the female protagonist, and for some reason his hair really bugs me. It's like he has a bad hair day every day..
|2012-10-14, 19:57
|Link #102
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Oy vey, I don't think a second episode has turned me off so utterly before. Mei has more negative traits (pushover/blubbering-blushing mess/stalker/jealous/too "feminine" in a stereotypically conservative way) than positive ones (has a steady source of strength/can read people well enough if she chooses to). At this point, Yamato isn't much more than a vanilla nice guy who needs some lessons on the perceived weight of courting rituals.
And yes, we know that everyone has problems, including popular guys and big-breasted girls. But in terms of demonstrating this point, Prince and the Pauper this is not.
A straight romantic (melo)drama shouldn't be straightjacketed into such levels of charmlessness. Methinks this franchise is too earnest for its own good.
I'll give it a few more episodes to see if it improves, but signs are not encouraging.
Last edited by mitsuganae; 2012-10-14 at 20:22.
|2012-10-15, 01:27
|Link #103
Cah Gunungkidul
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Jogja
Age: 30
|2012-10-15, 13:36
|Link #104
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hungary
well, I just caught up and my feelings for this are pretty ambivalent:
On one hand I like Nakanishi. He's the likeable dumbass, and up till now he fulfilled both parts of his role. Also Asamicchi is a good character, I sense more drama from the oppai front their relationship has got some potential so if possible please give 'em a proper development. Also, I jumped up in joy when I saw that mail
Mei is absolutely neutral for me...For now...I know that she's got her problems, and she is the main heroine, but... I just don't feel excited when she does her things... Maybe in the future, when she's opened up I might take a liking to her, but definitely not now...
aaand on the other hand I hate Yamato. I just can't stand him and his attitude. I just get the feel that he just goes for the "hardest he can get" trophy, because Mei is of that type. I was at the edge of punching through my screen at that "serious kiss" scene... JUST WTF IS THAT!?!?!?!?! He is just messing around now, probably when he'll get serious and starts to think about stuff he will get better, but until then...
P.S.: I have to mention the seiyuus. this is some quality work we've got here
|2012-10-15, 16:04
|Link #105
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Fell in love with the opening. The song is so great.
A bit weird how they mixed chapters 2 and 3, the last scene was the end of chapter 2 and the whole Nakanishi-Asami was chapter 3 though they left out many things.
By the way, wasn't Yamato's hair supposed to be blonde during the flashback? Or at least some sort of light color.
|2012-10-15, 21:17
|Link #106
Blooming on the mountain
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Deep in their roots, all flowers keep the light....
Yes indeedy - I agree with the other posters who enjoyed the OP. To be honest it is the first OP of the season I have really liked.
That being said, I must admit that thus far Sukitte is still better for me than Tonari Kaibutsu, but maybe that's no surprise as I also like the manga of Sukitte more than Tonari Kaibutsu as well. Don't get me wrong - Tonari Kaibutsu's manga and anime are both very good ... just prefer the Sukitte.
|2012-10-15, 23:40
|Link #107
Yuuki Aoi
Join Date: Jul 2004
I've made a characters/seiyuus page for this show, with pics of the characters and their seiyuus, and a bit of info about each. Only the five main characters.
Kayanon and Sakurai are clearly the stars (and boy do they shine brightly), but the others are getting the job done, too.
I understand why someone might dislike Yamato. But I'm just seeing him through the bewitched eyes of Mei right now, enjoying his presence and hoping he will come through as having good reasons for some of the ways he acts.
|2012-10-16, 01:39
|Link #108
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Age: 25
The shoujo vibes are setting in very heavily now, and that means i have to watch with a sense of dread hanging over me every second.
I really disliked Mei's massive change of character from the first episode, she's just like any other typical girl character ready to be taken advantage of now.
|2012-10-16, 11:34
|Link #109
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
I chopped off part of my post from somewhere else, but I feel I need to post it here because I feel that the portrayal of Mei's character is a natural progression.
After part of the conversation between Asami and Kenji went by, the show flashed back to Mei, saying something along the lines of Who am I to be saying such a thing? and I interpreted that as her believing that it was out of place for her to tell Kenji to express his true feelings for Asami when she is afraid to express her feelings towards Yamato herself. With Yamato being the first person that she made a meaningful interaction with in years and with him being the first significant male in her life since her father passed away, I think she wants to have a meaningful relationship with him. As the episode progressed, Mei found out that Asami had also kissed Yamato, and was told by Asami that Yamato has missed most of the cute girls in the school and that although she liked him, he probably doesnt feel the same way since he gives kisses away too easily to girls that he doesnt have feelings for. Mei became increasingly frustrated, and thought that perhaps she was just an outlet for Yamato to express his desires for Arai, and her trust issues began showing, with her glancing at Arai as well as staring at the corner of a hallway when the two of them were conversing. I believe that Mei wants to feel that what they had was special, but she was becoming increasingly doubtful of this.
She went so far as to stalk Yamato and was relieved to see that he wasnt leaving the building with Arai. She may have heard that he kisses a lot of girls, but she has not seen this yet, and looked like she was out to see if Yamato would betray her (at least in my opinion). Even after seeing that he didnt come out with Arai, Meis body language was not very positive and she was even attempting to leave as the thought that kisses dont have high value to him probably lingered in her mind. As she stated earlier in the episode, Mei didnt understand Yamato, but wanted to try and trust him. But, she clearly still has trust issues that were ignited after hearing more about Yamato from Asami. She is sexually attracted to him, which I believe was the point of the scenes emphasizing his lips earlier in the episode, but feared putting herself in harms way, which is why she still wished to avoid Yamato after checking up on him. In my opinion, she wants his affections but fears rejection/being just another girl to him. I am not going to defend Yamato for his actions, as they appeared very manipulating and there have probably been others girls who have had qualms about his ability to throw out kisses like that, but I do believe that Mei absolutely wanted to be swept away by him. He seemed so satisfied that Mei told him about how she felt, and I think that was what he intended to happen. At least Yamato had the decency to not kiss Arai, which at least shows that he doesnt just kiss any girl that he considers attractive.
I am making no comment about whether Yamato is the right person to nurture Mei's well-being, but Yamato is the one that drew her out of isolation, and that is part of the reason for why she desires his affection.
|2012-10-16, 16:04
|Link #110
The Voice of Reason
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 42
To me, Yamato's moral compass seems a bit broken. He just does whatever he feels like, and doesn't really seem to take the girls' feelings into consideration when he kisses them. I get the impression that it's all part of the game for him, and that he's merely interested in Mei because she is different than all the other girls. And Mei seems to be falling for him, even though his whole "serious kiss" thing could all be part of the act. He's a smooth talker, but I keep getting the feeling there's more to him than meets the eye.
|2012-10-16, 16:51
|Link #112
Yuuki Aoi
Join Date: Jul 2004
|2012-10-17, 10:42
|Link #114
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
|2012-10-17, 12:35
|Link #115
likes cute things
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Searching for more imoutos
Age: 38
I'm more interested in the other two characters, Kenji and Asami, they feel more believable to me instead of the two main leads.
|2012-10-17, 13:15
|Link #116
Yuuki Aoi
Join Date: Jul 2004
For me, "typical shoujo" = "wonderful." In shounen, you always have the young guy who turns out to have amazing powers. In shoujo, you have the mousy girl who somehow attracts the top guy. In both cases, it's wish fulfillment. And that's what popular entertainment does. No shame in that. But in shoujo, the psychological subtleties and emotional depth are pretty well always an order of magnitude better. At least that's how I perceive it.
|2012-10-17, 13:36
|Link #117
likes cute things
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Searching for more imoutos
Age: 38
I did not mean to imply that all shoujo is the same, I suppose using the word "typical" was a poor choice of a word to use. I was mainly thinking in the direction of what EssTEss said: "The shoujo vibes are setting in very heavily now." Every shoujo show has varying levels of shoujo content. In this particular show, there is a very heavy presence of it, which was what I was trying to express on how I see it in my previous post.
|2012-10-17, 13:52
|Link #118
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Yes, there is a lot of shoujo tropes present in this show. I don't mind though, as I am satisfied with the execution of this show so far.
Is Yamato being inconsistent? No. He was already showing that he is the alpha-male type with his method of intimidating the stalker in episode 1, and some of this continued in episode 2. I don't find Mei's characterization in episode 2 questionable, and even expected her to behave in such a way after the encounter with Asami in the washroom. I can readily believe that Asami and Kenji could hook up that quickly. Since they have both known Yamato during their middle school days, Asami probably has some idea about what sort of character that Kenji is. I really enjoy the seiyuu work as well. The animation quality is a notable flaw though. Shoujo anime tend to have low budgets, and this series is no exception.
|2012-10-21, 01:12
|Link #120
Yuuki Aoi
Join Date: Jul 2004
This show is becoming something special. In ep3, Mei just gets more real and raw. And Yamato does, too, despite Sakurai's perfect voice. And even Aiko.
Mei's mother is played by Kobayashi Yuu.
And isn't it great to have Suneohair back doing an anime theme?
|drama, friendship, romantic comedy, shoujo
|Thread Tools


text:
Follow RFF News on your cell phone. Text follow rff to 40404 you will receive txt messages with RFF News
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I knew the answer to the Louisiana question...FML
Quote from: Dån (cdfe88) on November 15, 2009, 07:05:05 PMI knew the answer to the Louisiana question...FMLDan! We're delayed for some reason. Hold off!
How is the stream for everyone. It seems especially chopping today, or is that because I am downloading to much porn?
Page created in 0.083 seconds with 32 queries.


text:
Oprah Winfrey finally responded to Terrence Howard's recent remarks about her "tig ol' bitties." Actually, she responded to other peoples' reactions to his comment about their love scene in the upcoming film "The Butler."
"Some people called me saying they were all offended, but I go, &'Will I do have big breasteses,'" the Queen of Media told talk show host Steve Harvey.
Winfrey returned to Chicago on Tuesday to tape an episode of "Steve Harvey" that will air April 26.
In director Lee Daniel's "The Butler," Howard and Winfrey's characters share a love scene, which Winfrey said Tuesday was supposed to be a little scene before Howard "misbehaved." Winfrey said Howard is "a misbehaving kind of boy."
In a recent interview with Movie Fanatic, Howard also said Winfrey is a "lovely, voluptuous woman." Watch Howard's comments below.
"This feels like the ultimate role reversal," Winfrey told Harvey during the Tuesday taping in which she sat with Harvey "for a frank and funny conversation about what they both love about Chicago, what she misses most about hosting her own talk show in the Windy City, the secret tips she's shared with Steve, what she has planned for OWN," according to a press release.
"Oprah introduced me to a whole new audience when she had me on her talk show years ago," Harvey said. "So to now have her as a guest on my own show, in my first season, is a dream come true."
NBC affiliate WMAQ-Ch. 5 broadcasts the show at 2 p.m. daily in Chicago; you can visit steveharveytv.com to check your local airtime.
Want more? Discuss this article and others on Show Patrol's Facebook page.


text:
4 guests
1 bedroom
2 beds
1 bath
4 guests
1 bedroom
2 beds
1 bath
Apartment IHANA in Puerto del Carmen for 4 persons with shared pool, terrace, garden, WIFI on the go and less than 1000m to the sea.
Unavailable: Smoke detector
Unavailable: Carbon monoxide detector
The host hasn't reported smoke or carbon monoxide detectors on the property.
Sleeping arrangements
Bedroom 1
2 single beds
Common spaces
1 sofa bed
I first came to Lanzarote for the surf and I come back as often as I can for its raw and intense beauty. You will be amazed by the energy of the island. I manage a few properties on the island, most of them belong to fishermans (next to the sea) or locals for live abroad. What t…
Languages: Deutsch, English, Español, Français, Italiano, Nederlands, Português
Response rate: 94%
Response time: within an hour
Always communicate through AirbnbTo protect your payment, never transfer money or communicate outside of the Airbnb website or app.
The neighbourhood
Things to do near this home
Explore other options in and around Tías
More places to stay in Tías:


text:
Federal Finance Minister Penny Wong says the government has proven its fiscal discipline and is on track to deliver a budget surplus in 2012/13.
Falling commodity prices and economic contraction in Asia have prompted doubts that Labor can keep its promise to deliver a surplus next year.
Senator Wong said the government responded to the revenue downgrades by finding $16 billion of savings in its budget update released last month.
"I think that shows our discipline, our fiscal discipline, and it shows the approach we take," she told ABC television on Sunday.
The government's mid-year economic and fiscal outlook also showed it was "on-track" to return to surplus, she said.
"Over the forward estimates those surpluses continue to grow," Senator Wong said.
Treasurer Wayne Swan conceded that "frail global conditions" were weighing on Australia's economy.
"This was clear with the almost $22 billion write-down in government revenues made between the budget and last month's mid-year review," Mr Swan said in his weekly economic note on Sunday.
Mr Swan, who will meet his US counterpart, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, this week in Washington, warned that international economic events could quickly spill across borders.
"Flows of capital can surge or dry up almost overnight," Mr Swan said.
"Business and consumer confidence in one place can sway sentiment in another."
Despite some encouraging data in recent weeks, economic recovery in the US was still shaky, he said.
But Australia faced these global challenges from a position of strength, with the long-term prospects for the region remaining bright, Mr Swan added.
"We have an enviable combination of solid growth, low unemployment, contained inflation and low debt, with the budget returning to surplus ahead of every major advanced economy," Mr Swan said.
But opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said it was embarrassing to hear Senator Wong speaking of the government's "supposed fiscal discipline".
"If Labor was serious about offsetting spending why has its spending outstripped revenue by $173 billion since coming to office?" he said in a statement.
"Why did it deliver a $43 billion deficit in 2011/12 off the back of a mining boom and the strongest terms of trade in 150 years?"
Meanwhile, former prime minister Kevin Rudd has said he supports the government's "stated position on the desirability of the return to surplus".
Australia faced "very challenging fiscal challenges", with revenue not growing as much as the government would have liked, Mr Rudd told Sky News on Sunday.
"Discipline on our fundamental national accounts is important, otherwise we will be seen to be not as rigorous in the international community."