Global Citizenship and the University: Advancing Social Life and Relations by Robert A. Rhoads and Katalin Szelényi (review)
Global Citizenship and the University: Advancing Social Life and Relations by Robert A. Rhoads and Katalin Szelényi (review)
复制标题
全球公民与大学：促进社会生活和关系作者：Robert A. Rhoads 和 Katalin Szelényi（评论）
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Cantwell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Cantwell
奥利瓦斯进一步指出，几乎所有与学生组织有关的案件都是由基督徒提起的，如果摩门教徒想加入基督教团体，或者穆斯林团体希望获得与校园基督教团体一样多的资金，这些团体很可能不会使用同样的理由：“尽管反对者和限制者的议程不是为了进步行动或公平，而是主要为了维护[W]Hite特权，但我认为这个国家的人口结构是如此。。。而不是对他们有利。“当硝烟散去，成年人接管时，我们不仅会忍耐，而且会胜利”(第147页)。这本书为读者阐释了在美国最高法院提起诉讼的几乎不可逾越的任务和不太可能的可能性，这是一项值得称赞的工作。奥利瓦斯解释了繁琐的程序，并指出，在每年近8,000项移送审查请求中，最高法院每年选择的案件不到100起。奥利瓦斯详细介绍了他使用的详尽方法，以确定过去50年来最高法院与高等教育有关的120起案件。他还对这120起案件提供了令人难以置信的功利性描述性摘要，指出了原告的特征(即有多少案件是由学生、教师、机构或外部利益集团提起的)，并确定了最常受到挑战的领域：言论自由、平等保护和就业歧视。我拿了文本中的一个问题--尽管是一个小问题。作为一名读者，我感到困惑，特别是在阅读了概述这一方法的章节后，我想知道为什么在奥利瓦斯深入审查的七起案件中，只有两起来自最高法院。他确实解释说，一些“没有被选中参加最高法院的婚礼盛宴”(第38页)对他具有特别的教学和政策兴趣。虽然有些案件有有趣的事实模式，如果没有其他原因，这是一种有趣的阅读，但我想知道，其他类似类型的案件是否会更有启发性。例如，一个案例研究围绕着艾布拉姆斯诉贝勒医学院一案，一名医学院教职员工因为他是犹太人而拒绝参加沙特阿拉伯的奖学金，这一裁决与偏见有关。我可以理解这起案件与前面提到的克拉克案或艾克森-弗林诉约翰逊案(奥利瓦斯在书中审查的巡回级别的案件)之间的联系；但在大学歧视案件的范围内，我并没有确切地看到为什么艾布拉姆斯被选中，除了它可能符合书中与德克萨斯州案件相关的新兴主题。阿克森-弗林案中，一名摩门教学生被迫在戏剧课上背诵对话，违反了她的宗教信仰，但这并没有改变法院的观点，即教育工作者和机构应该控制课程。根据奥利瓦斯的说法，“它的巨大潜在影响是极其有限的”(第106页)。另一种批评是，案文或尾注中没有解释一些较小、不太容易辨认的案件，非法律受众如果不进行一些尽职调查，就不会理解案件的事实或其影响。在一些章节中(例如，与Fordice案件有关的章节)，Olivas介绍了一些法律问题(即，当谈到有目的的联想时，演讲)，这可能会再次使外行听众感到困惑。一些放在章节前面的论点似乎埋葬或取代了他论点的核心问题，这让我在阅读之前不确定收录它的目的是什么。高等教育中的法律问题在文献中常常被当前实践背后的政策、社会学和经济学研究所掩盖。奥利瓦斯有力地证明了为什么更多的学者应该认识到影响当今法院的政治和社会学因素，反之亦然。这本书成功地记录了过去半个世纪高等教育中的一些宪法标志，并证明了法律学者对未来进行更广泛的审查是合理的，因为与知识产权、体育商业化等相关的问题将不出所料地提交到美国最高法院。
Olivas further noted that nearly all student organization-related cases have been brought by Christians and that these groups most likely would not employ the same arguments should Mormons want to join Christian groups or should Muslim groups wish to receive as much funding as campus Christian groups: “Notwithstanding the naysayers and the restrictionists, whose agendas are aimed not at progressive action or equity but largely at preserving [W]hite privilege, I think that the country’s demography is . . . not in their favor,” concludes Olivas. “When the smoke clears and the adults take over, we will not merely endure but prevail” (p. 147). This book does a commendable job of illustrating for the reader the nearly insurmountable task and unlikely odds of litigating a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Olivas explained the onerous process and noted that, of the nearly 8,000 requests annually for certiorari review, the highest court selects fewer than 100 cases per year. Olivas detailed the exhaustive methodology he employed to identify the 120 Supreme Court cases from the past 50 years that have related to higher education. He also provided an incredibly utilitarian descriptive summary of these 120 cases, noting plaintiff characteristics (i.e., how many cases were brought by students, faculty, the institution, or an outside interest group) and identifying the most frequently challenged areas: free speech, equal protection, and employment discrimination. I took one issue with the text—albeit a small one. As a reader I was left puzzled, particularly after reading the chapter outlining this methodology, about why, of the seven cases Olivas examined in-depth, only two from were from the highest court. He does explain that some “not chosen to the Supreme Court wedding feast” (p. 38) were of particular pedagogical and policy interest to him. Though some cases had interesting fact patterns that, if for nothing else, made for an entertaining read, I wonder if others of a similar ilk would not have been more instructive. For example, one case study revolved around Abrams v. Baylor College of Medicine, a decision pertaining to a bias claim brought by a medical school faculty member denied the opportunity to participate in a fellowship in Saudi Arabia because he was Jewish. I can understand the connection that this case would have to the previously mentioned Clark case or to Axson-Flynn v. Johnson (a circuitlevel case that Olivas examined in the book); but within the purview of university-situated discrimination cases, but I did not see precisely why Abrams was selected, except that, perhaps, it fit with the book’s emerging theme related to Texas-based cases. Axson-Flynn, in which a Mormon student was forced to recite dialogue in a theater class contrary to her religious beliefs, did not alter the court’s view that educators and institutions ought to control the curriculum. According to Olivas, “Its great potential effect has been exceedingly modest” (p. 106). Another critique is that some smaller, less recognizable cases are not explained in the text or endnotes, and a non-legal audience would not understand the facts of the case or its implications without some due diligence on their part. In some chapters (e.g., the one pertaining to the Fordice case), Olivas introduces some legal issues (i.e., speech, when speaking of purposive associations) that, again, may confuse a lay audience. Some arguments placed toward the front of the chapter seemed to bury or displace the issues at the crux of his argument and made me unsure, until reading on, the purpose of its inclusion. Legal issues in higher education often get overshadowed in the literature by studies addressing the policy, sociology, and economics behind current practice. Olivas resoundingly justifies why more scholars should recognize the political and sociological factors influencing courts today and vice versa. This book successfully chronicles some of the constitutional hallmarks within higher education during the past half century and justifies a broader examination among legal scholars for the future, as issues related to intellectual property, commercialization in athletics, and others predictably will reach this nation’s highest court.