Monday, February 27, 2006

Is Alford a good candidate to coach at IU (from an employment law perspective)?

This month has been a fascinating one for IU Basketball fans. We've experienced both highs and lows as our team's performance has widely varied. Furthermore, we recently learned that at the end of this season Head Coach Mike Davis will resign. There now exists a tension in the IU community. We want this year's season and team to end well. There still is a chance for a tourney bid, a greater chance after yesterday's victory over Michigan State. However, I suspect we all are naturally curious to learn who will soon take over the helm of our basketball program. Although, I would be highly surprised if any announcements will be made in regards to who the new head coach will be until after the NCAA Tournament, there already is a lot of speculation as to who it could be.

One of the prime candidates to already emerge is Steve Alford, current Head Coach of Iowa and former IU Legend. As of yet, Alford has only said:

My complete focus and efforts are to help my team [Iowa] win a Big Ten Championship. . . that's my only concern.


(For more information see the IDS story: http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?adid=search&id=34072 .)

It might be interesting to consider a potential legal ramifications of hiring Steve Alford as Head Coach.

His career in Iowa has been sparked with controversy, specifically how he handled the legal issues of former player Pierre Pierce. For information regarding this instance see the following selections from an ESPN.com story:

Former Iowa basketball star Pierre Pierce was charged with assault and burglary Wednesday, a week after he was thrown off the team.


Pierce surrendered to police and was to appear in court later in the day on charges of first-degree burglary, two counts of domestic assault, assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, false imprisonment and criminal mischief.


. . . Iowa coach Steve Alford said last week that Pierce "betrayed the trust we placed in him when he was given a second chance two years ago." Pierce was charged with third-degree sexual abuse in 2002. He later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.


(For full story, see http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncb&id=1991219 .)

We have recently been studying sexual harassment in our class. What are the potential legal ramifications for the Athletics Department and greater University community when a basketball player acts inappropriately? A basketball player is not an employee of it, yet he or she is clearly a representative and ambassador of the University. I don’t think that a case could be made that the University should be held liable for the behavior and actions of its athletes.

However, an issue of greater concern and relevance might be, what are the potential legal ramifications when a coach sticks up for an accused player, delaying the processes of justice until after a sports season has concluded? As I understand it, Alford gave Pierce a second chance two years ago. There has been some speculation that Alford helped Pierce avoid the legal consequences of his actions then. Is it right to retain a star athlete regardless of circumstance? Can the university be held liable if such second chances and interfering with the processes of justice enable such an athlete to further commit crimes? Furthermore, what values are reflected when winning and competition is held above justice? Are these the values we want young athletes or society as a whole to emulate?

For the record, I’m undecided about Alford. However, I think that it is important to engage in this sort of discussion as our University decides who will become our new coach.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Police Blotter in College Newspaper: Fair or Foul?

My favorite part of the Indiana Daily Student (IDS) is the police blotter. I have been a reader of this section of the newspaper since I was a freshman at Indiana University. I have had the rush of figuring out some of my friends got arrested the past weekend as well as reading some of the crazy things that IU students get arrested for.

This link contains an article entitled "Bringing back the Blotter" by Mallory Simon. I realize it was written last semester but I feel it relates to employment law in the fact that our college actives directly relate to our ability to find jobs in future.

What are your thoughts on:

  • The ability of college actives (arrests) following students into the "real world?"
  • The fact that charges in the blotter may be dropped, meaning that a student's name may be dragged though the mud?
  • The Indiana Daily Student's decision not to put the blotter online thus protected students who have been arrested by not allowing this information to become easily accessible to future employers?

I personally feel the blotter should continue to run in both print and online news papers. College students want to be treated as adults so they should act like adults. After everyone has left IU we will not be fortunate enough to have a paper that will not publish the names of the arrested. Why give a free pass because we're college students and irresponsible behavior is expected because we are college students?

*Note: I have not been arrested. I merely feel this is an interesting topic.



Saturday, February 25, 2006

Marijuana and Work.

The following excerpt was taken from an article published on "Labor & Employment Law Blog" on September 14th, 2005. The article can be found by clicking on the title of the article found below.

----------

Court Holds That a Company May Terminate a Medicinal Marijuana User

On September 7, 2005, a California Court of Appeal, in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., held that a company may refuse to employ an individual because he or she is using marijuana in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

In September 2001, the Defendant, Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc., hired the Plaintiff, Gary Ross, as a lead systems engineer. Ragingwire required Ross to take a drug test and Ross took the drug test several days before he began working. On September 20, 2001, Ragingwire informed Ross that he was suspended because Ross tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol, the main chemical found in marijuana.

Ross gave Ragingwire a copy of a note from his physician recommending that he use marijuana to help alleviate chronic back pain. On September 25, 2001, Ragingwire terminated Ross because of his marijuana use.

Ross filed a lawsuit claiming that the termination violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). More specifically, Ross alleged that Ragingwire discriminated against him based upon his disability because it failed to provide him with the reasonable accommodation of permitting him to use marijuana in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act. Ross also claimed that his termination was in violation of a public policy created by the passage of the Compassionate Use Act and that Ragingwire also breached an implied contract that it would only terminate Ross for good cause.

----------

What's your opinion on all of this? Is Ragingwire Telecomm. discriminating against Ross and his medical condition or are they right in suspending him from work for having marijuana in his system, regardless of the fact that it was for medical purposes?

Friday, February 24, 2006

A Fundie in Florida (where else?) is whining that his employer wrongly fired him for harassing his co-workers with religion.

The following excerpt was taken from an article published on http://worklifelaw.blogspot.com/2006/02/people-who-comment-on-this-blog-post.htm.
The article was posted by Disgusted Gregster. To access the post click on the link above.

Kenneth Weiss was fired from his job because he berated his co-workers with Christian fundamentalism. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his sad story.
Under the guise of "practicing his religion," Weiss handed out Bibles to co-workers (including a Muslim co-worker) and told a lesbian that the Bible says homosexuality is "vile" and "unseemly." Weiss also laid his hands on ill co-workers and prayed over a malfunctioning machine (presumably to exercise the demons within the sinful machine).
Not to be a strict constructionist or anything, but I cannot find anything in Title VII that gives Mr. Weiss the right to evangelize his religion.
If I were to say that to "practice my religion" I had to rape all the women in the office, I would be rejected in a nanosecond. Some people have to understand that there are limits under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Two questions which routinely come up in courts are, "When can government forbid something required by religion?" and "When can government require something forbidden by religion?"
Unfortunately for Mr. Weiss, causing a scene while attempting to pray for a copy machine (and thus leading to a loss of productivity in co-workers) is not a right of his under Title VII.

What is your opinion on this post?

Thursday, February 23, 2006

People who comment on this blog-post are REALLY cool! (Privacy Rights of Minors)

The following excerpt was taken from an article published on http://news.FindLaw.com on February 8th, 2006. The article was written by Sherry F. Colb and can be found by clicking on the title of the article found below.

----------

Should Sexually Active Minors Have A Right To Privacy? A Kansas Case Reveals The Dark Side Of Mandatory Reporting.

(Excerpt From Article's Conclusion)

Just to step into that mindset for a moment, imagine that what we are talking about is a pediatrician discovering that a teenager has been raped by a parent. The teenager begs the pediatrician not to reveal the information to anyone, but the pediatrician worries that the abuse will continue unless she steps in. The teenager's privacy interests point in one direction, while his interest in safety and the termination of the abuse points in another. Add to these interests the fact that other teenagers who learn that their doctors, too, will report a rape to the authorities may choose to keep their victimization to themselves.

Looking at the dilemma in this way demonstrates that mandatory reporting statutes -- even when they are applied to seriously abusive circumstances -- can potentially do more harm than good. This reality should play a role in the decision whether to embrace mandatory reporting statutes -- however broad or narrow -- as a way to deal with abuse. In the individual case, it might seem outrageously irresponsible to keep secret an ongoing molestation, but the law must consider its own impact on the run of cases and any chilling effect that mandatory disclosure might have on the very population it is meant to protect.

Mandatory Reporting Statutes, even at their best, thus pit the particular against the general: do we forcibly rescue one person from harm, at the risk of frightening away fifty others from even broaching the subject with a professional?

The question, moreover, is difficult, no matter how significant the alleged abuse. But when, as in the case of teen sex, there is considerable controversy about whether the conduct is even abusive, it seems highly irresponsible to pursue the zero-tolerance approach that the Kansas Attorney General has adopted.

The privacy rights of teenagers and the hope that fewer of them will have sex prematurely both counsel a far more nuanced approach.

----------

We all place a high value and priority upon our privacy. In a situation such as rape, as mentioned above, how should the law determine which is of greater value: protecting the victim from further victimization via mandatory reporting (and thereby hindering the likelihood that others will be willing to see their doctors/health-professionals in fear of having their abuse publicized) or protecting the privacy rights of others (which could ultimatelyl lead to victims being more open/free about seeing their doctors and consulting health professionals since the fear of having their situation publicized is less)?

Even in situations where a minor is sexually active and rape is not a factor, is the law responsible for requiring such relationships to be publicly identified by those health care providers and educators who are aware of it? Isn't this a violation of the privacy rights of minors? Or do the privacy rights of minors take a back-seat to society's general belief that minors are not mature enough to be sexually active? Some might even say that the law is out of line for determining who is sexually active and who is not.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?!

Monday, February 20, 2006

Employers hit smokers in the wallet

This article was taken from CNN.com. The URL for this article is www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/16/smokers.insurance.ap/index.html?sec

A growing number of private and public employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.
Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines are among the companies already charging or planning to charge smokers higher premiums. The amounts range from about $20 to $50 a month.
"With health care costs increasing by double digits in the last few years, employers are desperate to rein in costs to themselves and their employees," said Linda Cushman, senior health care strategist with Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting and services firm.
She said the practice of smoker surcharges is becoming such a significant trend that this year, it will be part of Hewitt's annual survey of companies' current and future health care plans.
Cushman said a general benefits survey of 950 U.S.-based employers last year showed that at least 41 percent used some form of financial incentives or penalties in their health care plans.
She estimates that at least 8 percent to 10 percent of the businesses probably aimed some of the incentives or penalties at smokers and says that percentage is growing.
"With smokers costing companies about 25 percent more than nonsmokers in the area of health care, it just makes good business sense," she said.
The companies imposing the surcharges are mostly self-insured, with employers and employees sharing the insurance premium costs.
Other companies or insurance plans have offered workers financial rewards for exercising, dieting or other healthy behaviors. Some have started onsite fitness programs and are paying for gym memberships.
Jim Wendling, a 45-year-old employee for Cincinnati-based Kroger Co., recently acknowledged on Kroger's health survey that he is a smoker. Even though Kroger doesn't charge smokers more for insurance, he fears the survey may be the first step in that direction.
"I personally don't think a company should tell employees what to do when they are not at work," Wendling said.
Do you agree with Wendling?

INDIRECT Sexual Harassment?!

The following excerpt was taken from an article published in The New York Times on July 24, 2005. The article was written by Mireya Navarro and can be found by clicking on the title of the article found below.

---------------------

Love the Job? What About Your Boss?

The pretty financial analyst just out of business school seems to catch the boss's eye. She is spending a lot of time in his office. Soon the speculation begins: Were they eating dinner together? Did he have his hand on her elbow? And suddenly the analyst is getting prize assignments and eventually a promotion.

Around them everyone else just watches and whispers. What else is there to do? Isn't that just how the world works?

Well, not in California, at least since last Monday.

In a ruling that significantly expands the law on sexual harassment in the workplace, California's Supreme Court ruled that workers can sue when a colleague who is sleeping with the boss is shown repeated preferential treatment.

----------------------

Does anyone have any opinions or thoughts on this ruling? It's one thing to claim sexual harassment when you are the one being harassed sexually, but is it fair to claim sexual harassment because a co-worker is receiving preferential treatment? Legally speaking, can one be indirectly sexually harassed?

Does such a mandate place too much responsibility upon the employer? If this catches on in all other states, employers will be forced to manage the company as well as monitor the relationships between co-workers, supervisors and their subordinates, etc. so as to avoid any legal troubles. They will also have to keep tabs upon existing relationships as well as make note of who might feel wronged by the outcomes of certain relationship. Isn't this asking too much of an employer (especially since it is estimated some 58% of people have dated a co-worker)?! How involved is an employer supposed to be in the lives of his/her employees?!

Or is the California ruling a step in the right direction? Does such a ruling truly help level the playing field in the workplace or is it just an outlet by which people can manipulate the law to air their workplace grievances and win some money?

-Anch

Saturday, February 18, 2006

"A Parrot, a Racist and a Slap-Happy Nurse Teach Harassment Lesson"

I ran across this article tonight and, although I have to admit it was the unusual title that first pulled me in, the content of the article was relevant in regards to our class. The article mentions three different cases in which the employer was expected to protect the employee from harassment, even when the employee was being harassed or discriminated against by someone who was not technically another employee.

"A Parrot, a Racist and a Slap-Happy Nurse Teach Harassment Lesson"
http://www.law.com/jsp/newswire_article.jsp?id=1136887511096
Paul D. Snitzer
The Legal Intelligencer
1/11/2006

The justification given on why the employer needed to protect the employee in these specific cases were:
1. The offender was harassing on the employer's premises
2. The offender was under the employer's control (though not specifically an employee)
3. The employer was aware of the offense

I am interested in getting everyone's opinions on these cases and if you think the employers should be held liable for each of the cases? Also, do you think the justifications listed above that were given in the article are reasonable?

(*I know we don't have the full details of each case from this particular article, but I am just curious as to general thoughts and opinions based on what we do know from it. Thanks!* )

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Proof that some employers do look at Facebook!

This story was in the IDS on February 15th:

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?adid=search&id=34001

Thought this was really interesting because it was such a hot topic in class a few weeks ago. I personally don’t think it is right for employers to use this because a lot of what is on Facebook is just a joke. People could really make some bad misperceptions about people if they use Facebook as a screening technique if they do not understand what the site culture is all about. Anyway, I guess you just have to watch your back. Kind of creepy stuff.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Wal-Mart gets caught - over and over again - in one of their illegal profitability secrets

This short article highlights the off-the-clock working scandals that Wal-Mart has involved itself in over multiple years.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/13604796.htm

Wal-Mart is currently paying out the nose in both Colorado and California for forcing workers to work unpaid overtime, work during their unpaid lunch breaks, etc., and they may have to do the same in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was just given permission to file a class-action law suit against Wal-Mart for the same reasons the Colorado and California did. As Dolores Hummel says in the article, "one of Wal-Mart's undisclosed secrets for its profitability is its creation and implementation of a system that encourages off-the-clock work for its hourly employees," which makes me wonder, if Wal-Mart has been caught forcing employees to work off the clock in three states, how many more will come forth with similar law-suits? Also, if Wal-Mart considers it the mark of a good employee to work off-the-clock, how does the company determine who is most beneficial for raises and promotions? Are people who don't work the expected unpaid hours seen as candidates for the next round of lay-offs? And if this has been going on since - at the latest - 1992, why has it taken about thirteen years for anyone to file a lawsuit about it?

The Future Present of Workplace Monitoring

The students will remember last week in class when I gave them a "pop" quiz (more in the spirit of drawing interest by providing some trivia and shock value than a quiz of their knowledge) on workplace surveillance and monitoring that I included the following question:

Which of the uses of GPS monitoring is most common currently?
a) Tracking employees’ cell phone
b) Tracking company vehicles
c) Tracking employees’ IDs/Smartcards
d) Tracking chips implanted under the skin of employees

At the time, I intended option "d" to be a bit of a joke.

Well, leave it to the Internet age to make my futuristic joke a thing of present reality. This morning I read the following at Security Focus:

Two employees have been injected with RFID chips this week as part of a new requirement to access their company's datacenter.

Cincinnati based surveillance company CityWatcher.com created the policy with the hopes of increasing security in the datacenter where video surveillance tapes are stored. In the past, employees accessed the room with an RFID tag which hung from their keychains, however under the new regulations an implantable, glass encapsulated RFID tag from VeriChip must be injected into the bicep to gain access, a release from spychips.com said on Thursday.

Although the company does not require the microchips be implanted to maintain employment, anyone without one will not be able to access the datacenter, according to a Register article.


Hat tip to the excellent Workplace Prof Blog.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Revisiting Grutter v. Bollinger (Affirmative Action in Law School)

In light of my current application process to law school and our recent posts on race-relation/ diversity, I felt the following case was worthy of taking a closer look at. This case is about a white applicant that applied to the University of Michigan School of Law, and was denied.

She filed suit claiming that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, and that the Law school's admissions criteria that factored race was in violation of the fourteenth amendment in the United States Constitution.

Grutter v .Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306

The court, in a 5 - 4 decision held in facor of the University of Michigan, stating:

"Narrowly-tailored use, by public law school, of race in admissions decisions, to further compelling interest in educational benefits of diverse student body held not to violate (1) Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, or (2) 42 USCS §§ 1981 and 2000d."

As any court decision can always be analyzed after the fact, subject to criticisms from scholars and critics, I am more interested what you're opinion of this judgement is.

First, do you agree with the court that using race as a factor is legal and justified?

Second, do you feel that affirmative action serves this "compelling interest" in public unversities?

IU To Build Diversity Center

In light of some of the recent discussions regarding diversity, I found this article from today's IDS to be both relevant and interesting. There were competing views in some of the previous posts about the relative benefits of University-sponsored diversity programs. How do you feel about the University presumably committing hundreds of thousands of dollars to such a building? Will the existence of a building actually attract a more "diverse" student body to the University? How will the proposed functions impact the University's "diversity?" Just something to think about.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Major League Baseball Hiring Procedures

Regardless of your level of interest in professional sports, this topic is particularly relevant to the scope of this course. Historically, Caucasians have been the dominant demographic in Major League Baseball executives, fans and players. Within the past several years, efforts have been made to better diversify MLB via community outreach programs targeted at African Americans and Hispanics, enhanced globalization of the sport through MLB International and in league hiring policies which stipulate that at least one minority candidate must be interviewed for managerial and executive openings. The article below, taken from the Kansas City Star, provides a more magnified glimpse into these dynamics from the Latin American perspective.


While reading the article, ask yourself whether such policies should exist. What are the potential costs and benefits of enforcing these types of policies? Are they effective? If not, how can they be?

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Op-Ed on Sexual Harassment in IDS

In today's IDS there was an opinion article (page 7 of the main section) concerning sexual harassment:

Iowa study should open IU's eyes
WE SAY: Students need to be more educated about sexual harassment

IDS Editorial Board
Published Thursday, February 2, 2006

A study released by the University of Iowa reported that on its campus, two-thirds of its respondents had been victims of sexual harassment-like behavior in the past 10 years. The kicker? Only about 6 percent reported it.

Those surveyed were asked about eight types of behavior which might constitute sexual harassment. Fifty-two percent reported that they had experienced one or more of the eight categories, but when asked explicitly if they had been sexually harassed in the last 10 years at the University of Iowa, 62 percent said no. Of those who had been harassed, more than half said they were unaware of the current procedure for registering a complaint.

The study focuses on the University of Iowa only, but the implications on a larger scale are easy to see. Sexual harassment is, and will likely continue to be, a problem nationwide. The point here, though, is that while this type of behavior is common, it goes largely unreported. Reporting it carries a stigma, and people are often reluctant to label unwelcome behavior as sexual harassment. The Iowa study highlights this and creates important possibilities for campuses across the country.

If more people are aware that sexual harassment is this common, more will be likely to report it, or more importantly, to become aware of their own behavior. It's a double-edged sword, though -- if more people report sexual harassment, the statistics will appear to report an increase. But this is the point where we all remember that the purpose of sexual harassment policies aren't created to feed the statistics machine, but rather to improve a given community.

For the record, IU's sexual harassment policy is easy to find: www.indiana.edu/~affirm/pdf/sexualha.pdf. It's only two pages long, is pretty user-friendly and includes lucid, usable definitions of sexual harassment. For that, we say, go Hoosiers!

But we also hope the Iowa study makes an impact here in Bloomington. Transparency is always a goal, and increased knowledge about what constitutes sexual harassment, increased awareness of University policy and general conscientiousness about appropriateness will only work toward making IU a better community.

The first, and most hard-hitting recommendation in the Iowa study, read, "It is critical that the University of Iowa dedicate energy and resources toward ensuring that its community knows about, understands, and feels free to use its sexual harassment policy and procedures."

We believe that IU is a great community, but any steps that can be taken to make it inclusive and caring should be taken. Let's take home the lessons of the Iowa study and work together toward making IU the best it can be.


I went searching around, and the complete study can be found at http://www.uiowa.edu/president/task-forces/sexual_harass_survey/Sexual%20Harassment%20Survey%20Final%20Report%20012306.pdf.

It's really long, about 180 pages, but I did quickly skim through it. In addition to this article, I have been reading for my book report a memoir about same-sex harassment. In my book (Stopping the Train, in case anybody cared to know), the victim's perpetrators amounted their assaults to "kidding around". And a lot of the survey deals with things that may not originally be harassing in nature, but if repeated could create a hostile environment (i.e. comments about clothing, jokes that are sexually explicit, spam advertising sexual performance-enhancing drugs, etc.).

This got me thinking...Does IU (or any college at that) unintentionally create an atmosphere that lends itself easily to situations that can be constituted as sexual harassment? Has our definition and standards of what is sexual harassment changed or declined? And does our school do much to address this important issue?

Personally, I think that the college culture is really a world of gray where sexual harassment is concerned. In general, our generation is more crass and more tolerant of language, clothing, jokes, gestures, etc. that are more sexual in nature (i.e. how women can be called "whores" or even how we dance) . I can see how easy it would be for someone to genuinely think that some act that could be considered sexual harassment was just "kidding around" or just a normal result of getting drunk. As far as IU is concerned, I had not even read the sexual harassment policy until today. I assume it's someone lost in the student guideline handbook, where it's easily overlooked, and never mentioned. I think colleges need to make an extra effort to inform its students of sexual harassment policies and reporting procedures because I feel the college environment is very susceptible to such incidents.

Anyhow, just wondered if anybody else had an opinion.
I saw this article in the IDS yesterday and found it interesting. It is about diversity on campus, not exactly in the workplace... But I would imagine that the same issue is prevelant in the office, in classrooms, everywhere.

Granted I am male and white - not exactly the stereotyped person to be discriminated against...

Asian? American? Indian?
By Nina Mehta | Indiana Daily Student | Wednesday, February 01, 2006 Ask Morgan Freeman: How are we going to get rid of Racism?

I anticipated his reply during a "60 Minutes" interview I watched over break. I watched our Japanese TV, on a Danish couch, in an American suburb, with my Indian parents, empowered by his reply.

"Stop talking about it," he said.

In many ways, it really is that simple. I paused our TiVo that was made in Mexico, and elaborated on this philosophy with my parents. I told them I deal with this very often at IU.

I've never felt bothered that I am a minority, nor have I been subjected to racism (that I know of). I don't even mind that masala (Indian spice) is a major food group at home. But I am up in arms about some of the ways our University address the issue of "racial and ethnic representation."

Most of my friends at IU are Caucasian, or white, or American, or whatever is the latest definition. This is not because I don't prefer Indian company, or that I feel a little awkward with the Indian Student Association, or because the closest thing to me majoring in a science is politics. It's because I try to simply get along with people that I meet.

Eighty-five percent of the

student body is "Caucasian" and 3 percent is Asian according to www.PrincetonReview.com. Given the odds, I'm more likely to meet, and therefore become friends with, "Caucasians." Then if you break down the Asians on campus, there is a smaller fraction to analyze. People with my similar background are going by the phrase "South Asians."

I am not conflicted with IU because there is no strong affirmative action program, or that I don't find more brown skinned people. Among teachers and students, I feel socially, academically, politically, ethnically and racially comfortable.

It is the banners on campus urging the student body to accept one anothers' differences that twists the knot in my stomach. When I wait for the elevator, I read posters and signs that remind me that I am not the same as 97 percent of the campus.

I understand the University feels students need a reminder to accept "all kinds" of people. My sliver of idealism would like to believe this is not something people need a reminder for. During resident assistant training, they practice going to environments where they are a minority; say, a Christian at Hillel.

This is not a bad practice, I believe in open-mindedness and educated judgment, but I believe these acceptance campaigns perpetuate the problem. The exact problems they are trying to relieve are being accentuated. These are the reasons America is not a melting pot and more like a salad bowl.

Because most of my family was born and raised in India, I believe I am Indian. I wonder if I'm still South Asian though all my roots are from North India. Because I have an American passport, I'd like to believe I'm American. I was born in the United States, and my good friend Merriam Webster would agree that I am indeed also native ("belonging to a particular place by birth"). I marked "Asian" on all my college applications. Every time, I hesitate at the choice American Indian instead.

Whistleblowing Case and Bill

Paul Revere Freedom to Warn Act: http://www.theorator.com/bills107/hr3806.html.
"To protect those who defend the United States by exercising their duty as patriots to warn against the existence of threats to weaknesses created by institutional failures that should be identified and corrected in a timely manner, and for other purposes." -excerpt from bill.

After reading this bill, do you think that it is a reasonable connection (not just any connection but specifically a reasonable one) to connect whistleblowing to protection from terrorist attacks? In this article Radack describes the events that took place during her whistleblowing experience: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050613_radack.html. Do you think her actions would be protected under the bill (Paul Revere) she wants passed? If so, how does her whistleblowing protect national security and not just Lindh? There is also one thing I did not quite understand, she said she resigned because some important emails went 'missing,' but then in the next sentence she says how she managed to uncover these emails and provide them to her boss. I was just confused as to what was going on here. Any ideas, answers, or thoughts on the issue?