The And Civilized Dichotomy Between Indigenous Peoples And...

Indigenous peoples of Canada and across the world have once enjoyed peace in their respective lands. They enjoyed very simple lives for the sake of one’s family and their own lively hood. However, over time, European political processes such as Colonialism emerged for social, political and economic purposes to explore and to find new ways to make money, or to find land. During the 1600s, British settlers found their way to a large piece of land up North in the Western hemisphere, called Kanata. Colonialism is a process that imposes one group’s cultural, religious, political and social practices unto another ethnic group while simultaneously settling and using the land for profit. One can say colonialism has been used to turn the wild, carefree Indian savage into a productive, Christian Canadian, who is civilized and is accepted by society’s standards. The savagery and civilized dichotomy that exists between Indigenous peoples and other Canadians is problematic a nd ironic, this can be see through Canadian Law statutes, court cases, the education system and even the United Church. Using the Indian Act of 1876, the court case Blackwater v. Plint, and students’ testimonies from residential schools. The following paper will be an analysis and critique of residential schools and their contribution to colonialism and assimilation and why it’s ironic for them to discuss the savagery and civilized dichotomy in residential schools when the Canadian government and the United ChurchShow MoreRelatedWhy is it Difficult to Define an Aboriginal Person?1336 Words   |  5 PagesAboriginal peoples occupied Canadian lands long before the country was established and yet their position within Canadian hierarchy is often questioned. Colonialism imposed Euro-Canadian standards on First Nations peoples, challenging socio-cultural traditions and norms in the process. The implications of this decision propagate a longstanding marginalization of Abori ginal people, which is still experienced today (Frideres and Gasacz 1). Historical circumstances have created an unbalanced dichotomy of AboriginalRead More A Theological Perspective of the Clash of Civilizations Essay7154 Words   |  29 Pagesbattle, there has been no doubt in his mind (or in ours) regarding who is on the side of good and who is on the side of evil. Though some have winced at the President’s use of such absolute moral terms to portray the tragic events of that fateful day, others have applauded his courageous use of such unfashionable discourse as entirely appropriate, even suggesting that it implies the demise of the cultural scourge of postmodern moral relativism. Another important way, not entirely unrelated, of interpretingRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pagesof the New York City Landscape Gerda Lerner, Fireweed: A Political Autobiography Allida M. Black, ed., Modern American Queer History Eric Sandweiss, St. Louis: The Evolution of an American Urban Landscape Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past Sharon Hartman Strom, Political Woman: Florence Luscomb and the Legacy of Radical Reform Michael Adas, ed., Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History Jack MetzgarRead MoreRastafarian79520 Words   |  319 PagesChennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Sà £o Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Copyright  © 2003 by Ennis Barrington Edmonds The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

Market Structure Of The Uk Supermarket Sector - 1600 Words

1.0 INTRODUCTION: Second part of this report will evaluate arguments and present conclusions about the UK supermarket sector being described as oligopolistic and how oligopolistic markets often suffer from collusion. This report will present findings if UK supermarket sector is oligopolistic or otherwise. 2.0 FINDINGS: 3.0 Market structures: Market structures are classified with regards to the competition – either their presence or absence. There are different types of market structures: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly and monopoly. The characteristics of the product or service and the number of suppliers determine the market structure. This report will mainly focus on oligopoly market structure. 3.1 What is perfect competition? In perfect competition market structure there are no barriers to entry into or exit out of the industry and companies produce identical units of output that are not branded. By looking at these two key features, it can be determined that UK supermarkets are not operating in that market structure. 3.2 What is monopolistic competition? Many small companies operate in monopolistic competition market structure, including independently owned and operated high-street stores and restaurants. In the case of These are the firms that differentiate their product or services, making them unique but in the end are all competing for the same customers, for example hairdressers or restaurants. 3.3 What is monopoly? A monopoly is aShow MoreRelatedMarket Structure Of The Uk Supermarket Sector1527 Words   |  7 Pageswill evaluate arguments and present conclusions about the UK supermarket sector being described as oligopolistic and how oligopolistic markets often suffer from collusion. This report will present findings if UK supermarket sector is oligopolistic or otherwise. 2.0 FINDINGS: Market structures: Market structures are classified with regards to the competition – either their presence or absence. There are different types of market structures: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopolyRead MoreEssay about Food Industry Swot Analysis1297 Words   |  6 Pagesluxury  foods. †¢ The UK has a well-established supply structure, in terms of both its production base — for meat, dairy products, fresh and processed vegetables, bakery products and fish, in particular — and its network of  retail  outlets — mainly in the form of major multiples. †¢ Following a period of extensive rationalisation and restructuring, the UK  food  industry can now benefit from more focused businesses and generally more efficient supply chains. †¢ The  food-processing sector has also benefitedRead MoreCorporate Social Responsability for Supermarkets1522 Words   |  7 PagesCorporate Social Responsibility This essay will introduce analysis of the UK supermarket sector and its impacts on a wide range of stakeholders .The responsibility for buying and selling is rapidly shifting. In today’s rising global community, supermarkets have embraced corporate social responsibility as an important element of their original role in contributing to shared goals, however in addition it enhances their capacity to the base line. In addition, trade seeks to establish their own valuesRead MoreThe Economic Theory Of Monopoly And Monopoly1097 Words   |  5 Pagesdefined a dominant market position as: ‘...a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to [†¦] behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers’ Does this definition make economic sense? How should it be interpreted in the light of the economic theory of monopoly and oligopoly? Market Dominance†¦.(Intro) Monopoly and Oligopoly are market structures in economics which are deemed to exercise market power within theirRead MoreDiscuss how retail companies have adapted their business strategy to address the needs of specific global markets1264 Words   |  6 PagesRetail is the sale of goods and services from individuals or business to the end-user(Harper 2008). Getting the right goods to the right markets in response to or anticipation of consumer demand is the key function of marketing. Unlike selling which is primarily concerned with the needs of the seller, marketing is primarily concerned with the needs of the buyer. In the last thirty years British retailing has undergone major changes in both its commercial and economic organisation and in its geographicalRead MoreFinancial Analysis and Market Updates Essay1492 Words   |  6 PagesFinancial analysis and market updates: Bull points †¢ The company has a high PE ratio , which is the highest in the sector , net income and total revenue gradually increased during last 4 years , though there was the financial crises Bear points †¢ Low estimated earning per share and low return on investment as well . Fist week updates performance Dates 2010 Open close high low monitor 1st Week 13-17/02 13.25 13.9 14 13.2 4.91% News: Second week updates performance Dates 2010 OpenRead MorePESTLE Analysis on Tesco1112 Words   |  4 Pagesstrongly believe that the ‘Political’, the ‘Economic’ and the ‘Legal’ environments have the most impact on Tesco as it operates internationally, in the United Kingdom and within 12 markets across Asia and Europe. For this very reason it very important to consider all possible, political, economic and legal structures, impacts and outcomes which might affect the overall success of the company as they play a major role in relation to one another. When looking at the political factors for Tesco, andRead MoreMarket Structure Of An Oligopolistic Industry2134 Words   |  9 PagesIntroduction The purpose of this essay is to discuss the market structure of an oligopolistic industry and it will include the main bases of product differentiation and entry barriers. This research relies on the market concentration proportion, Supermarket industry in the United Kingdom. Confirmation demonstrates high focus degree in this industry1 and shows oligopolistic nature of the fundamental business sector structure2. Such market is worked by a little number of benefit expanding organizationsRead MoreAccounting And Finance For Decision Makers1063 Words   |  5 Pagesstatement which represents a clear record or data dealing with the financial activities of Sainsbury. These reports quantify the monetary supremacy, efficiency and liquidity assets of a business. This report incorporates the working capital, capital structure and account. A monetary articulation are extra explanations that help clarify particular things in the announcements and in addition give a more complete evaluation of Sainsbury s money related condition. This report serves to study who do SainsburyRead MoreP1 Business and the Enviroment636 Words   |  3 PagesIceland LTD Introduction- Iceland is a well-established frozen food retailer which is secondary and tertiary. Iceland is a national company which has many stores in the UK (over 800). Iceland has a 1.8% share of the UK food market. The company was founded in 1970. Purpose- Iceland is a fast growing food retailer that offers fridge and freezer food at relatively cheap prices. Their purpose is to offer these products to customers who come in and they offer these fridge and freezer products as

Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses Free Essays

string(61) " false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation\." Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. We will write a custom essay sample on Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses or any similar topic only for you Order Now Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes. I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â€Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606). One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want. Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request. The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen. I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408). What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak. Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful. Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28). Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment. It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation. You read "Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses" in category "Essay examples" This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law. He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory’s, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university. I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along. According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day. Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them. Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain. Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be inv olved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech. They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore. Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems. So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. How to cite Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses, Essays Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses Free Essays string(61) " false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation\." Student Prof. English 1020 Should Colleges Be Limited to Speech? In â€Å"The Freedom to Offend,† Ian Buruma explains how we have the right to speak freely and how we can have the freedom to offend our own being. America is the land of the free and we can say what we want because of the First Amendment. We will write a custom essay sample on Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses or any similar topic only for you Order Now Limiting speech could become an issue on college campuses because some students inevitably choose to follow the hate speech codes and some would choose to disobey the hate speech codes. I am focusing on how campuses are allowing policies to be put into place that limits students on what they can say as well as how hate speech affects students. Limiting speech and hate speech on campuses goes against the First Amendment, it goes against student rights, the use of censorship violates the First Amendment, and limiting speech affects our diverse college campuses more frequently. The First Amendment provides guidelines on how America should work. The First Amendment states that, â€Å"Congress shall make no law†¦abridging the freedom of speech†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Greenup 606). One of the main reasons that the United States of America was founded was for the right to speak freely. America is unique because of this freedom. It seems that this is no longer the case because the courts have been forced to create a tightrope on how people express themselves through freedom of speech. Greenup states that on college campuses we get the image of â€Å"a place where ideas and theories are analyzed, debated and honored—and where no opinion is shunned† (Greenup 608). Universities should not create any type of policy that renders us from speaking what we want. Universities have begun to limit what students can say and who can give a speech at the university. Universities bring in outside speakers to speak to the student body; however, in some cases speakers can create controversy. For example, Lisa Williamson came to speak at a university located in the Midwest about issues related to diversity. After Ms. Williamson spoke an organization known as the â€Å"Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan† came into the universities offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and asked to speak, but the university denied their request. The university believed that the Ku Klux Klan preached â€Å"faulty information† but still the Ku Klux Klan demanded that they be â€Å"afforded the same opportunity to address the university community as was provided for Ms. Williamson† (Greenup 606). The university still would not give them the right to speak because it did not reflect the tone of Ms. Williamson’s presentations (Greenup 605-606). Now even though most people do not agree with the ways of the Ku Klux Klan I honestly think they have the right to speak to their followers and anyone who wants to listen. I do not agree with their ways, but this is America and many people do not understand the concept that we all have the right to speak freely. If someone says that we cannot speak then that is going against the first amendment. Bradley W. Wendel of the Harvard Journal of Legislation says, â€Å"To put the point bluntly, colleges and universities are in the business of controlling the speech of members of their communities, and trying to affect the beliefs of students† (Wendel 408). What Wendel is stating here is that colleges nowadays are controlling what anyone can say and what we believe. The Ku Klux Klan has the right to speak what they believe and colleges should not tell them that they cannot speak. Colleges cannot control what we say, it is just wrong. To not let anyone speak because of his or her beliefs is just completely wrong. The Ku Klux Klan has a right to speak freely. The university has put in hate a speech code that entitles only a few certain people to be able to speak. Ku Klux Klan goes with these hate speech codes that make them unable to express their opinion. Hate speech codes become useless because laws that have already been placed instead of relying on freedom limiting hate speech codes can solve problems. Hate speech codes go against our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States of America because of our freedom of speech. A second reason why universities should not limit people’s freedom of speech would be because of censorship. Censorship is speech that has been censored because it has been deemed inappropriate or harmful. Also when the government uses censorship it is unconstitutional. An example of censorship would be that according to Sara Hebel of the Chronicle of Higher Education, public-college officials in California would be strictly limited in their ability to censor the content of student-run newspapers under proposed legislation that passed the State Assembly this month (Hebel A28). Hebel explains that college students are worried that the bill will provide campus administrators to infringe new limits on what students say (Hebel A28). Hebel accurately reflects on the issue at hand and I agree with her position because students should not have to limit what they can or cannot say in a newspaper. Citizens need to know the truth and the truth would not be fully explained and contrasted without something like hate speech. The bill states: The bill would write into state law broad protections for the written speech of college journalists, a move that would complement and enhance the free-speech rights to which students are already entitled under the First Amendment. It would also prescribe how campus administrators might oversee student publications that colleges help finance and operate. Under the measure, which now goes to the State Senate, college administrators would retain the ability to discipline students for publishing hate speech. And students would still be required to observe libel and slander laws (Hebel A28). Freedom of speech should not be limited except when freedom of speech is put into harmful situations. Slander is when someone makes a false spoken statement that damages someone’s reputation. You read "Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses" in category "Free Research Paper Samples" This is an example of when freedom of speech should be limited. It is wrong for someone to initially defame someone. Another example of when speech should be limited is libel. Libel is when someone damages someone else’s reputation expressed through writing. Hate speech can come in many forms and limiting speech would be wrong unless it was put into a harmful situation. Another example of how hate speech codes are affecting students would be at Emory University. Gerald Uelmen is a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Professor Uelmen is renowned for his extensive experience in criminal law. He is most well-known for serving on the defense team for the trial of People v. O. J. Simpson in 1994-1995. Well according to Uelmen hate speech codes follow several formats. Some codes, including Emory’s, prohibit speech or conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. Court rulings have prohibited public (state-run) colleges and universities from enacting codes that restrict the constitutional right to free speech based on content (Uelmen). I like the fact that hate speech codes make sure that students are safe within the university. I also like that universities are not suppose to put in codes that will go against the First Amendment. I also think that universities probably do not follow these laws all the time especially earlier when I mentioned the new newspaper bill. It is not right for students to have to know these policies for hate speech codes; it just is not fair towards the students. In society these days people should not have to worry about other people talking about them behind their back. Everyone works together in this world and I do not understand why we cannot just get along. According to Jeremy Waldron, a professor that taught law and philosophy at New York University Law School, was a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and was an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand, believes that â€Å"we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences† (Waldron) just like colleges. He believes that everyone should not live in fear and just to live life day by day. Hate speech on college campuses are more diverse and the experiences of hate speech occurring is more likely to happen. I believe that no one should have to live in fear on college campuses because of hate speech. White people are not superior, I mean look at President Barrack Obama, he is black and the leader of our country, and so he must be doing something right. But since people have to live in fear, according to Waldron the older generations of the black and Muslim families have to explain to their children why slanderous, libelous, and hateful statements are made towards them. Waldron says, â€Å"Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials† (Waldron). This quote explains what people of different minorities have to endure for their children. Can their children be brought up different than they were? Hate speech is an awful thing to succumb to and people of different diversities especially on college campuses should not have to go through that pain. Waldron also says, â€Å"Diversity† and â€Å"inclusiveness† are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the â€Å"dignity† of â€Å"vulnerable minorities† (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but also for individuals. The law should therefore require us to â€Å"refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people† (Waldron). This quote by Professor Waldron tells us that diversity is a good thing, but it is also a fragile thing. Waldron says that the law should require us to refrain from undermining the dignity of the â€Å"vulnerable minorities. As citizens of the United States of America we need to quit hating people and let them have a say in how they feel. America is suppose to be the melting pot of the world and the land of the free and no body needs to be limited to it. In conclusion, limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech codes to be inv olved in our college campuses is unconstitutional. Limiting freedom of speech and allowing hate speech into our college campuses is wrong. University students are one of the main focus points in our society that are affected by limiting speech. They do not have the right to speak what they want because of hate speech codes and because university officials have a policy on what they can say or do. I honestly think there is something we can do about this, but everyone would have to work together. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening any time soon. Sooner or later this is how America is going to become. If we do not act soon we will no longer have the right to say what we want and the First Amendment will slowly disappear. We will not have the right to what we want to say anymore. Being able to say what we want in this country is a privilege. Most people in other countries do not get to say what they want because their country will not allow them to do so. No one should be able to take our right away from us because it ay hurt people. This is America, many important officials wrote the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787 for a purpose. They wanted us to have freedom and the right to do many things people could not do. The Constitution has been in place and used since 1789. This piece must be important if we are still using it today in our government systems. So in conclusion, college students should not be limited to speech and hate speech codes should not come into effect within Americas college systems. Works Cited Buruma, Ian, â€Å"The Freedom to Offend. † The Best American Essays 2007. Ed. David Foster Wallace and? Robert Atwan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 22-27. Print Greenup, John S. â€Å"The First Amendment And The Right To Hate. † Journal Of Law ; Education 34. 4 (2005): 605-613. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Hebel, Sara. â€Å"California Bill Would Curb Official Censorship Of Student Newspapers. Chronicle Of Higher Education (2006): A28. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 11 Nov. 2012. Uelmen, Gerald. â€Å"The Price of Free Speech: Campus Hate Speech Codes. † Santa Clara University, 1990. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp. , 26. 95. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. Wendel, W. Bradley. â€Å"A Moderate Defense Of Hate Speech Regulations On University Campuses. † Harvard Journal On Legislation 41. 2 (2004): 407-420. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H. W. Wilson). Web. 13 Nov. 2012. How to cite Research Paper on Limited Speech on College Campuses, Essays

Intervention of Non-Communicable Disease-Free-Samples for Students

Questions: 1.Provide the reference of the article and describe the following: The intervention being employed, and how the intervention relates to the hypothesised aetiological mechanism by which the exposure is associated with the outcome The findings of the example article you selected 2.Summarise the evidence-base that supports (or does not support) the intervention in the article you selected Consider the following elements for this question: How many studies of the association? What type of intervention studies? Based on what samples, or population-bases? Are findings across these studies consistent and coherent, particularly from studies of similar or more powerful study designs? Are the results plausible in terms of a biological mechanism? Answers: 1.The article by Meeker et al. (2016) reviews the use of a behavioral intervention to prevent acute respiratory tract infection which is a non-communicable infection, to reducing antibiotic use that causes serious effects. The behavioral interventions can be implemented together or in isolation. They include suggested alternatives, accountable justification, and peer comparisons. Suggested options present electronic order sets that suggested nonantibiotic treatment. Responsible justifications involved clinicians in using patients file to prescribe antibiotics into the health records of the patient without seeing the patient. Peer comparison involved comparing the performance of top performance with their lower prescribed antibiotics rate. The behavioral intervention was going to be measured by the standards at which patient pick antibiotic drugs from the clinic. It was realized that during the baseline period when the intervention had not been done the rates were recorded very high at 24%. The rates after the three intervention had dropped to 11%. The use of the three interventions had led to the drop of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections. 2.Despite free publications of how overuse of antibiotics exposes patients to the unnecessary risk of prevalence of bacteria. Most clinicians persist in giving out this drugs for the respiratory tract infection as is in the clinical guidelines. This leads to the rise of the need to find a behavioral solution. Researchers are also exploiting psychological issues as a way of remedying the stalemate. They focus on cognitive and psychological measures, like the ones used in this case. The research used being cognitive modeled adheres to the psychological demands. Several studies have shown that antibiotics are wrongly prescribed to patients instead of using alternatives method such as the ones used above. The intervention effect that was observed represent deductions inappropriate prescribing of drugs. The Hawthorne effect was the one applied to the control condition, this involved. The alteration of individual behavior for the impact and fear of being observed. As the patients were sure they were being seen as the disease, they changed their behavior to ones that suit them. The change of conduct led to low antibiotic rate, therefore, proving the intervention worked. Hawthorne theory was therefore relevant to the intervention. Previous studies on antibiotic justification notes have shown that when this method is used without public accountability to the patient, a negative result will be realized. With the target being peers intervention method prove the best in comparison with adult feedback. The findings across the two studies are consistent and consistent. Comparing to the model of Gerber et al. where the model trajectories are used (Meeker et al., 2016). The control taken early is inconsistent with the 24% recorded by the same that uses the same time of intervention, 18 months. This model measures the effect of each intervention on all the practices that did not receive the intervention (Kotwani, Joshi, Jhamb Holloway, 2017). The design also is in line with the approach of the primary model used when testing the diagnosis shift. The potential antibiotic, appropriate for infection diagnosed increased with the increase of the respiratory tract infection. Elements of analytic approach were also in line with the one used. Hierarchical modeling that involves performing the interaction based analysis. The original investigation used during the feedback produced the same result (Dekker et al., 2018). The result is plausible based on the following reasons; There isnt any potential harm .the three intervention as recorded within the 18 months of intervention did not cause any documented injuries to anyone. The damage that was feared for the group that was using all the three methods could deteriorate fast did not happen (Harris, Hicks Qaseem, 2016). This, therefore, proves that the technique was clinical and can be implemented without harm. None of the intervention required severe changes to the environment. The peer comparison was expected to change the primary care practices of some patients, but it did not. It turned to be most pragmatic and the simplest to perform. The intervention, therefore, is plausible as minimal changes are done to the environment (Hovi, Ollgren Savolainen-Kopra, 2017). There is a temporal relationship between the three interventions to the outcome; It is very likely that after the intervention. The rates might go up again especially for the group that used peer comparison as a way of intervention; this is because it did not involve a lot of changes, making it easier to slide back to the use of antibiotics. The healthy relationship between the methods and the outcome is present. The intervention methods accountable justification as the behavioral intervention cause a significant change in the environmental health of the individual. Therefore it is behavioral that the individual will adapt leading to a somewhat permanent outcome. The somewhat stable outcome shows, there is a healthy relationship between the result and the intervention. There was no restriction of a group that influenced the outcome, except the clinicians working on so many patients. Therefore fatigue might have affected the outcome. The rest of the result remained the same, including pay, choice of treatment and mode of treatment. There could be measurement bias on the part of the intervention group as each group was comfortable until intervention group that applied both the two intervention. They came back for frequent diagnoses (Little et al., 2015). This, therefore, recommends that for future use potential and further research should be done. The result was affected by particular limitation but of negligible units. The number of clinicians available was very few to prescribe and take a keen prescription for the individual. This limits generalizability and accuracy. The result that was dependent on variable factors could be difficult to compare. This factors that range from the environment, billing data and EHR, which might at some point affected the general measurement. The safety analyses were only based on the people who came back to the clinical organization. There could be people who went into other clinics or stayed at home but got harms (Cabral, Lucas, Ingram, Hay Horwood, 2015). In conclusion, the method used for intervention can be used to control inappropriate antibiotic for respiratory tract infection based on behavioral interventions. References Cabral, C., Lucas, P. J., Ingram, J., Hay, A. D., Horwood, J. (2015). It's safer to parent consulting and clinician antibiotic prescribing decisions for children with respiratory tract infections: an analysis across four qualitative studies.Social science medicine,136, 156-164. Dekker, A. R., Verheij, T. J., Broekhuizen, B. D., Butler, C. C., Cals, J. W., Francis, N. A., ... van der Velden, A. W. (2018). Effectiveness of general practitioner online training and an information booklet for parents on antibiotic prescribing for children with respiratory tract infection in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial.Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Harris, A. M., Hicks, L. A., Qaseem, A. (2016). Appropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infection in adults: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Annals of internal medicine,164(6), 425-434. Hovi, T., Ollgren, J., Savolainen-Kopra, C. (2017). Intensified hand-hygiene campaign including soap-and-water wash may prevent acute infections in office workers, as shown by a recognized-exposure-adjusted analysis of a randomized trial.BMC infectious diseases,17(1), 47. Kotwani, A., Joshi, P. C., Jhamb, U., Holloway, K. (2017). Prescriber and dispenser perceptions about antibiotic use in acute uncomplicated childhood diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection in New Delhi: Qualitative study.Indian Journal of Pharmacology,49(6), 419. Lee, M. H. M., Pan, D. S. T., Huang, J. H., Mark, I., Chen, C., Chong, J. W. C., ... Wong, C. S. (2017). Results from a patient-based health education intervention in reducing antibiotic use for acute upper respiratory tract infections in the private sector primary care setting in Singapore.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy,61(5), e02257-16. Little, P., Stuart, B., Hobbs, F. D. R., Moore, M., Barnett, J., Popoola, D., ... Yao, G. (2015). An internet-delivered handwashing intervention to modify influenza-like illness and respiratory infection transmission (PRIMIT): a primary care randomised trial.The Lancet,386(10004), 1631-1639. Meeker, D., Linder, J. A., Fox, C. R., Friedberg, M. W., Persell, S. D., Goldstein, N. J., ... Doctor, J. N. (2016). Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial.Jama,315(6), 562-570.