Essay about Eric Hoovers Honor for Honors Sake - 933 Words

Eric Hoovers Honor for Honors Sake The idea of being judged by your peers has long been accepted as the best way of regulating a population. Even the Constitution uses a peer based judicial system when laying down the framework for the United States government. There are, however, some limits to when and where this system can be effectively implemented. Eric Hoover challenges the use of peer review in universities by telling the testimonials of several students who have been hurt by a system that has overstepped their bounds. The majority of the arguments made by Hoover in â€Å"Honor for Honor’s Sake† are pathos based arguments but they are closely entwined with fact. It is this combination of both logos and pathos that creates a†¦show more content†¦Some of the students accused quit the university before the trial; others were prosecuted and found guilty. There were some â€Å"insanity† pleas that caused those trials to run longer, and untimely allowed the students to go without p unishment. The students that were accused were not the only people that suffered because of the charges. The honor committee that was trying the cases had to juggle both an academic schedule and run a ridiculous amount of trials at the same time. Hoover points to different mass accusation that occurred at another university with an honor code. The only difference is that at the other school there were other options than just expulsion. The ability to have a lesser charge made some of the cases easier to prosecute, however there was still trouble prosecuting the large number of cases. Hoover’s use of testimonials convinces the reader on an emotional level. When ideals that are commonly held as true are put into question, it creates an emotion that can be used as a pathos argument. Hoover uses this technique to show how the honor code at some universities goes against commonly held ideals. Hoover says, â€Å"Some students have charged that the honor system is racially biased and excessively harsh. And lawyers have argued that accused students have no guarantee of due process in the secret trials, run by students who, though they may not even be old enough to drink, have the power to

Essay on Racism in Deadly Unna by Phillip Gwynne - 1182 Words

Deadly Unna Deadly Unna is the story of Garry Blacks realization of racism and discrimination in the port where he lives. When everyone else seems do nothing to prevent the discrimination Blacky a young boy steps up to the plate and has the guts to say no against racism towards the local Aborigines. Blacky is beginning to realize that the people he looks up to as role models might not be such good examples as most of them including his father his footy coach and even the pub custodian all accept racism as a normal way of life and Blacky begins to realize this and tries to make them aware. At the beginning Blacky becomes aware of the apartheid of white and black first in the players at the local footy team, the†¦show more content†¦(whos father was coach of the team) only received the reward because he was the best white player. Blacky first realizes that racism isn?t just a local phenomenon and that it is not just the kids but the entire community who have grown accustomed to racism. at the game in Tangaratta, when Blacky gets into a fight with Mad Dog (a local kid). Dumby comes to Blackys rescue and subsequently ends up in a physical fight with mad dog. When Mad Dog gives up and puts out his hand as a piece offering he takes a cheap shot at Dumby and says ?Don?t shake hands with no Boongs? pg 121 (Boongs Australia an offensive term for an Aboriginal Encarta online). Blacky uses this as an excuse to be friends with Dumby so that the others wouldn?t think he was sympathetic to the Nungas. On grand final day Blacky goes for a smoke with Clarence (Dumbys sister) in the shed down by the jetty Clarence sat down under the words Boongs piss off. this made Blacky feel uncomfortable and guilty even though he had not written it, ?I felt guilty in some way . I hadn?t written it, but I hadn?t scratched it out either? Pg.122. Blacky felt accountable not because he was responsible for the racist graffiti but because he had no covered it up. Blacky suggests to Clarence that they go under the jetty to prevent Clarence from seeing it and they do. This is an example of Blackys personality he felt responsible for something that he did not do. Towards the end of theShow MoreRelatedAnalytical Essay: ‘Deadly Unna?’932 Words   |  4 PagesAnalytical Essay: ‘Deadly Unna?’ The compassionate novel Deadly Unna?, written by Phillip Gwynne, creates vivid characters and depicts race discourses experienced by Gary Black (also known as Blacky) in a fictitious South Australian coastal community. The novel portrays a typical coastal town of the 1970s and is set mainly in the Port: the local Pub, the Black family home and the jetty, where the local children play. The story explores the racism between the Nungas (the indigenous populationRead MoreDeadly Unna Essay904 Words   |  4 PagesPhillip Gwyne’s novel, â€Å"Deadly Unna?† explores how the main character Gary Black, a white boy from the â€Å"Port† also known as â€Å"Blacky† grows up by not agreeing to racism. Blacky experiences prejudice and friendship from both the aboriginal and white communities. Blacky begins to develop a greater tolerance for aborigines and their culture, and then he further attempts to apply this knowledge to the intolerant and prejudiced town in which he lives. The boy who helps him shift in his opinion of aborigines

Sienkiewicz V Greif free essay sample

From 1966 until 1984 she was an office worker at the defendants factory premises. The defendant manufactured steel drums and during the course of this process, asbestos dust was released into the factory atmosphere. Although Mrs Costello did not work on the factory floor, her duties took her all over the premises. In common with other inhabitants of the local area, however, she would also have been exposed to a low level of asbestos in the general atmosphere. Causation The general rule at common law is that a person suffering injury must show on the balance of probabilities that the defendants tort (most commonly negligence) caused the injury or condition. But for the defendants wrongdoing, the claimant would not have suffered the damage (this is sometimes called the but for test). There is an important exception to this rule. In the case of a divisible disease such as pneumoconiosis, the amount of dust  inhaled operates cumulatively to cause the disease and determine its severity. If exposure to the dust is partly due to the defendants negligence and partly not, the defendant will be liable to the extent that his breach of duty has materially contributed to the disease. If there is more than one defendant, liability can be apportioned. This approach, however, causes difficulties in mesothelioma claims because, unlike pneumoconiosis or asbestosis, mesothelioma is an indivisible disease. It is still uncertain whether its contraction or its severity can be  related to the amount of asbestos fibres ingested, or even which fibres triggered the disease. In Fairchild v Glenhaven [2003], the House of Lords (as it then was) recognised that, in a mesothelioma case where the claimant had been exposed to asbestos at different times while working for different employers, it would be impossible to satisfy the conventional but for test and prove which exposure was the cause of the disease. Consequently, the Law Lords created another exception to the normal causation rule. In mesothelioma cases, it would be enough for the claimant to show that a negligent exposure ad materially increased the risk of his developing the disease. In Barker v Corus [2006], the House of Lords went on to decide that, in cases where there had been successive negligent exposures, liability should be apportioned between defendants. Each employer would be liable for that proportion of the damage which represented his contribution to the risk that the employee would contract mesothelioma. Parliament, however, swiftly intervened to pass section 3 of the Compensation Act, which allows the claimant to obtain full compensation from any one of them. The section applies where (1) a person has negligently or in breach of statutory duty exposed the victim to asbestos and (2) the victim has contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos, but (3) it is not possible to determine with certainty whether it was this or another exposure which caused the disease and (4) the person in question is liable in tort whether by reason of having materially increased a risk or for any other reason.    The defendant in this case said that any negligent exposure to asbestos fibres while Mrs Costello was at work would have been minimal and far less than the environmental exposure, which was not negligent. It argued that the Fairchild exception did not apply because this was a single exposure– in other words, the defendant was the sole known source of occupational exposure to asbestos dust. In any event, the exposure was not material. According to the defendant, the appropriate causation test to apply was a doubles the risk test. Only if the occupational exposure could be shown to have at least doubled the risk of Mrs Costello contracting mesothelioma could the defendant be held liable. The judge at first instance agreed and concluded that Mrs Costellos exposure to asbestos at work increased the risk by only 18%. The claimant appealed, arguing that the judge had failed to apply the law correctly. The Court of Appeal judgment The Court of Appeal found that the proper test was whether the occupational exposure had materially increased the risk of contacting the disease. In its view, Fairchild effectively created a new tort limited to cases of mesothelioma the tort of negligently materially increasing the risk of injury. Section 3 of the Compensation Act made it law that, provided all four conditions were satisfied, causation could be proved by demonstrating that the defendant wrongfully materially increased the risk of the victim contracting mesothelioma. It did not matter whether the other exposure was negligent or non-negligent. The claimant could prove causation by any available method, including showing a material (i. e. ore than minimal) increase in risk. The defendant appealed. The Supreme Court judgment The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Fairchild exception was developed for mesothelioma cases because of ignorance about the biological cause of the disease. Under it, a defendant is liable if it materially increases the risk of the claimant contracting mesothelioma. The same principle applies whether it is a case of single exposure or multiple exposure. The Court of Appeal, however, had misread the Compensation Act as creating a statutory rule of causation. Section 3 merely provides that, if a defendant negligently exposed the claimant to asbestos and the claimant contracts mesothelioma, the defendant would be liable in tort whether by reason of having materially increased a risk or for any other reason. Whether and in what circumstances liability attached to the defendant was still a matter for the common law. The Supreme Court, however, considered that the doubles the risk test put forward by the defendant was unsuitable as a test for causation in mesothelioma cases. The idea is borrowed from epidemiology, which is the study of the occurrence and distribution of events such as disease over human populations. If statistical evidence indicates that the wrongdoers act has more than doubled the risk that the victim would suffer the injury, the argument goes that it is more likely than not that the wrongdoer caused the injury. The Supreme Court concluded that, as long as medical science is unable to demonstrate the exact origin of mesothelioma, data relating incidence to exposure was not a satisfactory basis for making findings of liability. What constitutes a material increase in risk? Something more than minimal. But Lord Phillips said: I doubt whether it is ever possible to define in quantitative terms what for the purposes of the application of any principle of law is de minimis. This must be a question for the judge on the facts of the particular case.    He continued: In the case of mesothelioma, a stage must be reached at which, even allowing for the possibility that exposure to asbestos can have a cumulative effect, a particular exposure is too insignificant to be taken into account, having regard to the overall exposure that has taken place. This case involved low levels of exposure. But currently there is no known lower threshold of exposure that determines whether or not a person contracts the disease. In any event, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the exposure in this case materially increased Mrs Costellos risk of developing mesothelioma. Commentary The decision could  pave the way for claims by mesothelioma victims who have been exposed to levels of asbestos that, until now, might  have been considered too low to be actionable. The Supreme Court judges resisted any attempt to limit the applicability of the Fairchild exception or the Compensation Act to multiple exposure mesothelioma cases. As Lord Phillips commented: The 2006 Act, coupled with Fairchild, has draconian consequences for an employer who has been responsible for only a small proportion of the overall exposure of a claimant to asbestos dust, or his insurers, but it would be wrong to have regard to that fact when considering the issues raised by these appeals. Parliament has willed it so. Comments made by some members of the Supreme Court, however, questioned the wisdom of creating special causation rules, even for such a disease as mesothelioma. Lord Brown doubted whether special treatment could be justified. Although [†¦] mesothelioma claims must now be considered from the defendants standpoint a lost cause, there is in my mind a lesson to be learned from losing it: the law tempers with but for test of causation at its peril. Lord Rodger looked forward to a day when medical science can identify which fibre or fibres caused the disease, at which point the problem that gave rise to the Fairchild exception will have ceased to exist.

Sybil reaction free essay sample

My reaction to the movie was that I was quite shocked actually how different DID is in the movie than what I originally expected the disorder to look like. I never knew that the transitions into each different personality was so quick and sudden, and I was always under the impression that individuals with DID could remember what happened while they are another personality. When I watched the movie, I tried to picture Sybil as a loved one, tried to imagine what it would be like if a family member or my girlfriend had this disorder in order for me to understand better how hard it would be. I learned a couple more things as well. I learned that there is no limit to how many personalities an individual can have with DID, and I also learned that certain personalities reside from childhood and earlier life experiences. I’ve seen movies or TV shows before that dealt with a person having DID before, but I was always under the impression that it was only one other personality that controlled you. We will write a custom essay sample on Sybil reaction or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page As I was watching Sybil, and I saw that she was being controlled by multiple personalities it really opened my eyes and I realized that this disorder is more complex and more messed up than I had thought it was. I had also never realized that these personalities came from life experiences. Previously I had thought that DID was genetic, and that people with DID were doomed from the start but that is not at all the case, and I now know that DID is preventable, but also impossible to detect before it happens. My mind was completely blown by this video and my perspective on this disorder is completely different. I definitely feel that I have learned a lot from this movie, and I know now that