HSDL Critical Releases in Homeland Security [June 2011]
Every two weeks, the Homeland Security Digital Library identifies a targeted collection of recently-released documents of particular interest or potential importance. [Login to the HSDL is necessary to open some documents.*]
* Developing a Cybervetting Strategy for Law Enforcement: Special Report
International Association of Chiefs of Police
* Political Violence Against Americans: 2010
United States. Dept. of State. Bureau of Diplomatic Security
* Preparedness, Response, and Resilience Task Force: Interim Report on Resilience
Homeland Security Policy Institute (George Washington University)
* Ten Years After 9/11: Is Intelligence Reform Working? Part I, Hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, One Hundred and Twelfth Congress, First Session, May 12, 2011
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
* Ten Years After 9/11: Is Intelligence Reform Working? Part II, Hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, One Hundred and Twelfth Congress, First Session, May 19, 2011
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
The Homeland Security Digital Library (HSDL) is the nation’s premier collection of homeland security policy and strategy related documents. It supports local, state and federal analysis and decision-making needs and assists academics of all disciplines in homeland defense and security related research. The HSDL provides quick access to thousands of important U.S. policy documents, presidential directives, and national strategy documents as well as specialized resources such as theses and research reports from various universities, organizations and local and state agencies.
*If you received this message and do not have an HSDL account, you may request one. Those with access are automatically subscribed to Critical Releases in Homeland Security.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Arizona's immigration law survives US Supreme Court review
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL. v. WHITING ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 09–115. Argued December 8, 2010—Decided May 26, 2011
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it “unlawfulfor a person or other entity . . . to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee,for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is anunauthorized alien.” 8 U. S. C. §1324a(a)(1)(A). Employers that violate that prohibition may be subjected to federal civil and criminal sanctions. IRCA also restricts the ability of States to combat em-ployment of unauthorized workers; the Act expressly preempts “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or re-cruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” §1324a(h)(2). IRCA also requires employers to take steps to verify an employee’seligibility for employment. In an attempt to improve that verificationprocess in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi-bility Act (IIRIRA), Congress created E-Verify—an internet-basedsystem employers can use to check the work authorization status ofemployees.Against this statutory background, several States have recently enacted laws attempting to impose sanctions for the employment ofunauthorized aliens through, among other things, “licensing and similar laws.” Arizona is one of them. The Legal Arizona Workers Act provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly orintentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain cir-cumstances must be, suspended or revoked. That law also requires that all Arizona employers use E-Verify. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and various busi-ness and civil rights organizations (collectively Chamber) filed this
federal preenforcement suit against those charged with administer-ing the Arizona law, arguing that the state law’s license suspension and revocation provisions were both expressly and impliedly pre-empted by federal immigration law, and that the mandatory use of E-Verify was impliedly preempted. The District Court found that the plain language of IRCA’s preemption clause did not invalidate the Arizona law because the law did no more than impose licensing con-ditions on businesses operating within the State. Nor was the state law preempted with respect to E-Verify, the court concluded, because although Congress had made the program voluntary at the national level, it had expressed no intent to prevent States from mandating participation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. 558 F. 3d 856, affirmed.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 09–115. Argued December 8, 2010—Decided May 26, 2011
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it “unlawfulfor a person or other entity . . . to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee,for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is anunauthorized alien.” 8 U. S. C. §1324a(a)(1)(A). Employers that violate that prohibition may be subjected to federal civil and criminal sanctions. IRCA also restricts the ability of States to combat em-ployment of unauthorized workers; the Act expressly preempts “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or re-cruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” §1324a(h)(2). IRCA also requires employers to take steps to verify an employee’seligibility for employment. In an attempt to improve that verificationprocess in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi-bility Act (IIRIRA), Congress created E-Verify—an internet-basedsystem employers can use to check the work authorization status ofemployees.Against this statutory background, several States have recently enacted laws attempting to impose sanctions for the employment ofunauthorized aliens through, among other things, “licensing and similar laws.” Arizona is one of them. The Legal Arizona Workers Act provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly orintentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain cir-cumstances must be, suspended or revoked. That law also requires that all Arizona employers use E-Verify. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and various busi-ness and civil rights organizations (collectively Chamber) filed this
federal preenforcement suit against those charged with administer-ing the Arizona law, arguing that the state law’s license suspension and revocation provisions were both expressly and impliedly pre-empted by federal immigration law, and that the mandatory use of E-Verify was impliedly preempted. The District Court found that the plain language of IRCA’s preemption clause did not invalidate the Arizona law because the law did no more than impose licensing con-ditions on businesses operating within the State. Nor was the state law preempted with respect to E-Verify, the court concluded, because although Congress had made the program voluntary at the national level, it had expressed no intent to prevent States from mandating participation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. 558 F. 3d 856, affirmed.
"Gainful Employment" Rule - Department of Education Resource Page
Final regulations published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2010, require institutions to report certain information about students who enrolled in Title IV eligible educational programs that lead to gainful employment in a recognized occupation (GE programs). Those regulations also provide that institutions must disclose to prospective students certain information about the institution’s GE Programs. Finally, the new regulations require institutions to notify the Department if they wish to add an additional GE Program to its list of Title IV eligible programs. All of these requirements are effective July 1, 2011.
The Secretary plans to publish additional regulations related to the program eligibility metrics that will be calculated for gainful employment programs.
Please visit this page for information and updates as they become available.
Regulations
* 2010-10-29 (II Final) Subject: Final; Program Integrity: Gainful Employment -- New Programs
* 2010-10-29 (Final) Subject: Program Integrity Issues; Final Rule
Top
Dear Colleague Letters and Electronic Announcements
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #4- NSLDS Gainful Employment User Guide
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #3 Correction of Dear Colleague Letter GEN-11-10 regarding Teacher Certification Programs
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #2 - Live Internet Webinar – Implementation of the Reporting and Disclosure Requirements of the October 29, 2010 Final Regulations Related to Gainful Employment Programs
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #1 - Posting of Electronic Announcements Related to Gainful Employment Programs
* (ANN-11-11) Subject: Live Internet Webinar - Implementation of the Reporting and Disclosure Requirements of the October 29, 2010 Final Regulations Related to Gainful Employment Programs
* (GEN-11-10) Subject: Implementation of Regulatory Requirements Related to Gainful Employment Programs
Top
Frequently Asked Questions
These Frequently Asked Questions provide information and operational guidance on the requirements of the new gainful employment regulations. Institutions must review the final regulations as published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2010, to ensure that they are in compliance with all of the GE Program requirements.
The listing of Frequently Asked Questions will be updated periodically and include the date of the update. New and/or updated questions and answers will be asterisked and appear in red font. If you have questions that have not been addressed, please submit them to the GE Questions mailbox at GE-Questions@ed.gov.
* General
* Disclosure
* Reporting
* New Program
Top
Resources and Links
* NSLDS Gainful Employment User Guide
* Press Statements
* Meetings on Gainful Employment
* Analysis and Additional Data
Accessible at: http://ifap.ed.gov/GainfulEmploymentInfo/
The Secretary plans to publish additional regulations related to the program eligibility metrics that will be calculated for gainful employment programs.
Please visit this page for information and updates as they become available.
Regulations
* 2010-10-29 (II Final) Subject: Final; Program Integrity: Gainful Employment -- New Programs
* 2010-10-29 (Final) Subject: Program Integrity Issues; Final Rule
Top
Dear Colleague Letters and Electronic Announcements
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #4- NSLDS Gainful Employment User Guide
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #3 Correction of Dear Colleague Letter GEN-11-10 regarding Teacher Certification Programs
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #2 - Live Internet Webinar – Implementation of the Reporting and Disclosure Requirements of the October 29, 2010 Final Regulations Related to Gainful Employment Programs
* (General) Subject: Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #1 - Posting of Electronic Announcements Related to Gainful Employment Programs
* (ANN-11-11) Subject: Live Internet Webinar - Implementation of the Reporting and Disclosure Requirements of the October 29, 2010 Final Regulations Related to Gainful Employment Programs
* (GEN-11-10) Subject: Implementation of Regulatory Requirements Related to Gainful Employment Programs
Top
Frequently Asked Questions
These Frequently Asked Questions provide information and operational guidance on the requirements of the new gainful employment regulations. Institutions must review the final regulations as published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2010, to ensure that they are in compliance with all of the GE Program requirements.
The listing of Frequently Asked Questions will be updated periodically and include the date of the update. New and/or updated questions and answers will be asterisked and appear in red font. If you have questions that have not been addressed, please submit them to the GE Questions mailbox at GE-Questions@ed.gov.
* General
* Disclosure
* Reporting
* New Program
Top
Resources and Links
* NSLDS Gainful Employment User Guide
* Press Statements
* Meetings on Gainful Employment
* Analysis and Additional Data
Accessible at: http://ifap.ed.gov/GainfulEmploymentInfo/
US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights "DEar Colleague Letter and FAQ on disabilities and emerging technologies
Dear Colleague Letter
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
May 26, 2011
Dear Colleague:
I write to share with you the attached “Frequently Asked Questions About the June 29, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter” (FAQ), developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This FAQ is a follow-up to the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) that we sent to college and university presidents on June 29, 2010, regarding the use of electronic book readers and other emerging technologies in educational settings.
As you may recall, the June 2010 DCL outlines concerns of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice that arose in the context of reviewing several complaints regarding compliance with long-standing requirements of civil rights law. In those cases, postsecondary educational institutions were using electronic book readers that were inaccessible to students who are blind or have low vision. The DCL explains that under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, educational institutions cannot require the use of electronic book readers in a classroom setting if the readers are not fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind or have low vision, unless those individuals are provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the educational benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.
The June 2010 DCL generated interest from educational institutions, students, parents, advocacy organizations, and others. OCR is releasing this FAQ in order to provide more information about the obligations of schools (both elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary institutions) that provide benefits to students by means of electronic book readers or other emerging technologies. Please share this FAQ with your administrators, faculty, and staff.
For more information, the June 2010 DCL is available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html, and the FAQ is available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.html.
Sincerely,
/s/
Russlynn Ali
Assistant Secretary for Civil Right
May 26, 2011
Frequently Asked Questions About the June 29, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter1
General Issues
1. Does the June 29, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on access to electronic book readers impose new legal obligations?
A: No. The DCL discusses long-standing law. Specifically, it addresses key principles of Federal disability discrimination law: the obligation to provide an equal opportunity to individuals with disabilities to participate in, and receive the benefits of, the educational program, and the obligation to provide accommodations or modifications when necessary to ensure equal treatment. Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), these legal standards apply to entities that receive Federal financial assistance, including elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions. (In this FAQ, the term “schools” refers to all these types of institutions.) Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (Title II), these obligations apply to entities of state and local government, including public schools.2
The DCL outlines concerns on the part of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (Department), raised in the context of their resolution of several cases, regarding compliance with these long-standing requirements.
1 The Department of Education has determined that this document is a “significant guidance document” under the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/012507
_good_guidance.pdf. OCR issues this and other policy guidance to provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting their obligations and to provide members of the public with information about their rights under the civil rights laws and implementing regulations that we enforce. OCR’s legal authority is based on those laws and regulations. This document does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how OCR evaluates whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please send an e-mail with your comments to OCR@ed.gov, or write to us at the following address: Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202.
2 The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by private schools, among other entities.
Specifically, some postsecondary institutions were using electronic book readers that are inaccessible to students who are blind or have low vision. As explained by the DCL, application of our long-standing nondiscrimination requirements means that schools must provide an electronic book reader (i.e., the technology that the school uses to provide educational benefits, services, or opportunities) that is fully accessible to students who are blind or have low vision; otherwise schools must provide accommodations or modifications to ensure that the benefits of their educational program are provided to these students in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.
For the purposes of assessing whether accommodations or modifications in the context of emerging technology, and, more specifically, electronic book readers, meet the compliance requirements, the DCL provides a functional definition of accessibility for students who are blind or have low vision. Under this definition, these students must be afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students. In addition, although this might not result in identical ease of use compared to that of students without disabilities, it still must ensure equal access to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use of such technology. The DCL uses the term “substantially equivalent ease of use” to describe this concept. For more information and for examples that meet this standard, see Questions 11, 12, and 14.
2. Does the DCL apply in the context of students with other disabilities that affect the ability to use printed materials?
A: Yes. Other disabilities, such as specific learning disabilities, may make it difficult for students to get information from printed sources (often called “print disabilities”). In its provision of benefits, services, and opportunities, a school must ensure that these students are not discriminated against as a result of inaccessible technology.
Example: A student has a learning disability in reading but does not have impaired vision. The student is currently receiving audiobooks on cassette tape for her history class because she cannot readily process printed information. The school is replacing the history textbooks with electronic book readers as the principal means of conveying curriculum content, including all homework assignments. In this example, the electronic book readers provide greater functionality than audiobooks provide, with the result that an audiobook would not afford the benefits of the educational program in an equally effective and equally integrated manner. For this reason the school may not continue to rely on audiobooks to provide equal access to the curriculum....
3. Does the DCL mean that schools cannot use emerging technology?
A: No. On the contrary, the Department encourages schools to employ innovative learning tools. Because technology is evolving, it has the capability to enhance the academic experience for everyone, especially students with disabilities. Innovation and equal access can go hand in hand. The purpose of the DCL is to remind everyone that equal access for students with disabilities is the law and must be considered as new technology is integrated into the educational environment.
4. Does the DCL apply to elementary and secondary schools?
A: Yes. The DCL grew out of complaints filed with the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and DOJ that concerned postsecondary education. However, the principles underlying the DCL — equal opportunity, equal treatment, and the obligation to make accommodations or modifications to avoid disability-based discrimination — also apply to elementary and secondary schools under the general nondiscrimination provisions in Section 504 and the ADA. The application of these principles to elementary and secondary schools is also supported by the requirement to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities. For more information, see Question 13.
5. Does the DCL apply to all school operations and all faculty and staff?
A: Yes. All school operations are subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 and the ADA. Thus, all faculty and staff must comply with these requirements.
Section 504 and the ADA require that covered entities designate at least one person to coordinate their compliance efforts, and that they adopt and publish grievance procedures to resolve complaints of noncompliance. In addition, postsecondary schools often designate certain staff or offices (sometimes referred to as disability student-services offices) to assist students with disabilities.
The law applies to all faculty and staff, not just a Section 504 or ADA coordinator or staff members designated to assist students with disabilities. All faculty and staff must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 and the ADA in their professional interactions with students, because these interactions are part of the operations of the school. So, for example, if an adjunct faculty member denies a student who is blind an equal opportunity to participate in a course by assigning inaccessible course content, the school can be held legally responsible for the faculty member’s actions. Therefore, schools should provide, and faculty and staff should participate in, professional development about accessibility and emerging technology, and about the role of faculty and staff in helping the school to comply with disability discrimination laws.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
May 26, 2011
Dear Colleague:
I write to share with you the attached “Frequently Asked Questions About the June 29, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter” (FAQ), developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This FAQ is a follow-up to the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) that we sent to college and university presidents on June 29, 2010, regarding the use of electronic book readers and other emerging technologies in educational settings.
As you may recall, the June 2010 DCL outlines concerns of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice that arose in the context of reviewing several complaints regarding compliance with long-standing requirements of civil rights law. In those cases, postsecondary educational institutions were using electronic book readers that were inaccessible to students who are blind or have low vision. The DCL explains that under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, educational institutions cannot require the use of electronic book readers in a classroom setting if the readers are not fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind or have low vision, unless those individuals are provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the educational benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.
The June 2010 DCL generated interest from educational institutions, students, parents, advocacy organizations, and others. OCR is releasing this FAQ in order to provide more information about the obligations of schools (both elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary institutions) that provide benefits to students by means of electronic book readers or other emerging technologies. Please share this FAQ with your administrators, faculty, and staff.
For more information, the June 2010 DCL is available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html, and the FAQ is available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.html.
Sincerely,
/s/
Russlynn Ali
Assistant Secretary for Civil Right
May 26, 2011
Frequently Asked Questions About the June 29, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter1
General Issues
1. Does the June 29, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on access to electronic book readers impose new legal obligations?
A: No. The DCL discusses long-standing law. Specifically, it addresses key principles of Federal disability discrimination law: the obligation to provide an equal opportunity to individuals with disabilities to participate in, and receive the benefits of, the educational program, and the obligation to provide accommodations or modifications when necessary to ensure equal treatment. Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), these legal standards apply to entities that receive Federal financial assistance, including elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions. (In this FAQ, the term “schools” refers to all these types of institutions.) Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (Title II), these obligations apply to entities of state and local government, including public schools.2
The DCL outlines concerns on the part of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (Department), raised in the context of their resolution of several cases, regarding compliance with these long-standing requirements.
1 The Department of Education has determined that this document is a “significant guidance document” under the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/012507
_good_guidance.pdf. OCR issues this and other policy guidance to provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting their obligations and to provide members of the public with information about their rights under the civil rights laws and implementing regulations that we enforce. OCR’s legal authority is based on those laws and regulations. This document does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how OCR evaluates whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please send an e-mail with your comments to OCR@ed.gov, or write to us at the following address: Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202.
2 The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by private schools, among other entities.
Specifically, some postsecondary institutions were using electronic book readers that are inaccessible to students who are blind or have low vision. As explained by the DCL, application of our long-standing nondiscrimination requirements means that schools must provide an electronic book reader (i.e., the technology that the school uses to provide educational benefits, services, or opportunities) that is fully accessible to students who are blind or have low vision; otherwise schools must provide accommodations or modifications to ensure that the benefits of their educational program are provided to these students in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.
For the purposes of assessing whether accommodations or modifications in the context of emerging technology, and, more specifically, electronic book readers, meet the compliance requirements, the DCL provides a functional definition of accessibility for students who are blind or have low vision. Under this definition, these students must be afforded the opportunity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students. In addition, although this might not result in identical ease of use compared to that of students without disabilities, it still must ensure equal access to the educational benefits and opportunities afforded by the technology and equal treatment in the use of such technology. The DCL uses the term “substantially equivalent ease of use” to describe this concept. For more information and for examples that meet this standard, see Questions 11, 12, and 14.
2. Does the DCL apply in the context of students with other disabilities that affect the ability to use printed materials?
A: Yes. Other disabilities, such as specific learning disabilities, may make it difficult for students to get information from printed sources (often called “print disabilities”). In its provision of benefits, services, and opportunities, a school must ensure that these students are not discriminated against as a result of inaccessible technology.
Example: A student has a learning disability in reading but does not have impaired vision. The student is currently receiving audiobooks on cassette tape for her history class because she cannot readily process printed information. The school is replacing the history textbooks with electronic book readers as the principal means of conveying curriculum content, including all homework assignments. In this example, the electronic book readers provide greater functionality than audiobooks provide, with the result that an audiobook would not afford the benefits of the educational program in an equally effective and equally integrated manner. For this reason the school may not continue to rely on audiobooks to provide equal access to the curriculum....
3. Does the DCL mean that schools cannot use emerging technology?
A: No. On the contrary, the Department encourages schools to employ innovative learning tools. Because technology is evolving, it has the capability to enhance the academic experience for everyone, especially students with disabilities. Innovation and equal access can go hand in hand. The purpose of the DCL is to remind everyone that equal access for students with disabilities is the law and must be considered as new technology is integrated into the educational environment.
4. Does the DCL apply to elementary and secondary schools?
A: Yes. The DCL grew out of complaints filed with the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and DOJ that concerned postsecondary education. However, the principles underlying the DCL — equal opportunity, equal treatment, and the obligation to make accommodations or modifications to avoid disability-based discrimination — also apply to elementary and secondary schools under the general nondiscrimination provisions in Section 504 and the ADA. The application of these principles to elementary and secondary schools is also supported by the requirement to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities. For more information, see Question 13.
5. Does the DCL apply to all school operations and all faculty and staff?
A: Yes. All school operations are subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 and the ADA. Thus, all faculty and staff must comply with these requirements.
Section 504 and the ADA require that covered entities designate at least one person to coordinate their compliance efforts, and that they adopt and publish grievance procedures to resolve complaints of noncompliance. In addition, postsecondary schools often designate certain staff or offices (sometimes referred to as disability student-services offices) to assist students with disabilities.
The law applies to all faculty and staff, not just a Section 504 or ADA coordinator or staff members designated to assist students with disabilities. All faculty and staff must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504 and the ADA in their professional interactions with students, because these interactions are part of the operations of the school. So, for example, if an adjunct faculty member denies a student who is blind an equal opportunity to participate in a course by assigning inaccessible course content, the school can be held legally responsible for the faculty member’s actions. Therefore, schools should provide, and faculty and staff should participate in, professional development about accessibility and emerging technology, and about the role of faculty and staff in helping the school to comply with disability discrimination laws.
Ward Churchill's never-ending saga moves to Colorado high court
When will this chicken ever finally come home to roost?
May 31, 2011
Colorado Supreme Court Takes Up Ward Churchill's Case
By Peter Schmidt
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to take up the long-running legal battle between Ward Churchill and the University of Colorado, which fired him as an ethnic-studies professor at its Boulder campus after he became the focus of outrage for a provocative essay he wrote about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
More: http://chronicle.com/article/Colorado-Supreme-Court-Takes/127728/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
May 31, 2011
Colorado Supreme Court Takes Up Ward Churchill's Case
By Peter Schmidt
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to take up the long-running legal battle between Ward Churchill and the University of Colorado, which fired him as an ethnic-studies professor at its Boulder campus after he became the focus of outrage for a provocative essay he wrote about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
More: http://chronicle.com/article/Colorado-Supreme-Court-Takes/127728/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
SHRM's Garden State Council seeks proposals for fall conference
Dear Jim,
IMPORTANT NOTE - The Garden State Council Conference Speaker Proposal Deadline has been extended to June 7th. If you are thinking of submitting a proposal, please do so ASAP!!
Our theme for the 2011 Conference is: “HR 20/20: Evolve, Educate, Execute”, which is described below.
As it has evolved, the Human Resources field has broadened to encompass the entire employee life-cycle, from initial entry into the workplace through separation or retirement. We are no longer viewed as members of the “Personnel Department,” but rather as proactive leaders and critical strategic partners in many organizations. To keep pace with the growth and broad responsibility of our profession, it is imperative for HR practitioners to be lifelong learners, taking advantage of targeted educational opportunities and experiences to optimize our professional value and ensure we continue to fulfill our bold vision. Only through continuous learning can we add value as HR professionals and help to keep our companies competitive through plan execution.
At last year’s conference, we learned new tools and techniques to enable us to competently design our profession’s future. We now invite you to continue this journey by joining us in our new venue in Atlantic City, NJ for the 20th Annual GSC-SHRM State Conference and Expo from October 23rd through October 25th. We offer 40+ knowledge sessions over three days, and exposure to 70+ of New Jersey’s top Human Resources service providers. We promise to immerse you in the elements of our theme, “HR 20/20: Evolve, Educate, Execute.”
This is your opportunity to contribute to the knowledge, experience and connections needed to meet our changing realities. You have the opportunity to be one of over 40 on-point sessions, presented by industry leaders, recognized practitioners and subject matter experts.
What strategies can you share to help us Evolve, Educate, Execute? If you would like to present your ideas this October 24th and 25th, we would love to hear them! Please submit your proposal via the following link: click here
Below are the Tracks for the conference sessions. These describe the different subject tracks you can submit your proposal under. The deadline for submitting a proposal is Tuesday, June 7, 2011.
HR and the Law:
This track is for sessions which highlight the legal implications of workplace policies and practices, and focus on critical legal issues that affect the way an HR professional conducts day-to-day business.
HR Skill Development:
This track is for sessions which are designed to help the HR professional enhance and expand personal and professional skills that are applicable across the different areas of HR responsibility.
Global HR:
This track is for sessions which focus on international human resources and range from highlighting best practices to learning about HR outside of the United States.
Talent Management:
This track is for sessions which address the challenging issues related to hiring and retaining the best workforce possible, including recruitment, retention, training and performance management to name a few.
Total Rewards:
This track is for sessions which focus on the broad span of topics ranging from the basics to leading edge topics in compensation, benefits, wellness programs and total rewards.
The conference website is being finalized and will be a useful resource where you will find further information about this year's conference theme as well as keynote speakers and more. Please check the website often for updates.
If, after following the link, you have any questions, please contact the Programs committee via this email address - programs@gscshrm.org.
Conference Details
When
Sunday, October 23, 2011 8:00 AM -
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:00 PM
Eastern Time
Where
Atlantic City Convention Center
One Convention Blvd., Atlantic City, NJ 08401
USA
Submission Deadline
June 7, 2011
Sincerely,
Nichole M. Brownlee, SPHR
2011 GSC-SHRM Conference Chair
Stewart Feller
2011 GSC-SHRM Conference Co-Chair
IMPORTANT NOTE - The Garden State Council Conference Speaker Proposal Deadline has been extended to June 7th. If you are thinking of submitting a proposal, please do so ASAP!!
Our theme for the 2011 Conference is: “HR 20/20: Evolve, Educate, Execute”, which is described below.
As it has evolved, the Human Resources field has broadened to encompass the entire employee life-cycle, from initial entry into the workplace through separation or retirement. We are no longer viewed as members of the “Personnel Department,” but rather as proactive leaders and critical strategic partners in many organizations. To keep pace with the growth and broad responsibility of our profession, it is imperative for HR practitioners to be lifelong learners, taking advantage of targeted educational opportunities and experiences to optimize our professional value and ensure we continue to fulfill our bold vision. Only through continuous learning can we add value as HR professionals and help to keep our companies competitive through plan execution.
At last year’s conference, we learned new tools and techniques to enable us to competently design our profession’s future. We now invite you to continue this journey by joining us in our new venue in Atlantic City, NJ for the 20th Annual GSC-SHRM State Conference and Expo from October 23rd through October 25th. We offer 40+ knowledge sessions over three days, and exposure to 70+ of New Jersey’s top Human Resources service providers. We promise to immerse you in the elements of our theme, “HR 20/20: Evolve, Educate, Execute.”
This is your opportunity to contribute to the knowledge, experience and connections needed to meet our changing realities. You have the opportunity to be one of over 40 on-point sessions, presented by industry leaders, recognized practitioners and subject matter experts.
What strategies can you share to help us Evolve, Educate, Execute? If you would like to present your ideas this October 24th and 25th, we would love to hear them! Please submit your proposal via the following link: click here
Below are the Tracks for the conference sessions. These describe the different subject tracks you can submit your proposal under. The deadline for submitting a proposal is Tuesday, June 7, 2011.
HR and the Law:
This track is for sessions which highlight the legal implications of workplace policies and practices, and focus on critical legal issues that affect the way an HR professional conducts day-to-day business.
HR Skill Development:
This track is for sessions which are designed to help the HR professional enhance and expand personal and professional skills that are applicable across the different areas of HR responsibility.
Global HR:
This track is for sessions which focus on international human resources and range from highlighting best practices to learning about HR outside of the United States.
Talent Management:
This track is for sessions which address the challenging issues related to hiring and retaining the best workforce possible, including recruitment, retention, training and performance management to name a few.
Total Rewards:
This track is for sessions which focus on the broad span of topics ranging from the basics to leading edge topics in compensation, benefits, wellness programs and total rewards.
The conference website is being finalized and will be a useful resource where you will find further information about this year's conference theme as well as keynote speakers and more. Please check the website often for updates.
If, after following the link, you have any questions, please contact the Programs committee via this email address - programs@gscshrm.org.
Conference Details
When
Sunday, October 23, 2011 8:00 AM -
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:00 PM
Eastern Time
Where
Atlantic City Convention Center
One Convention Blvd., Atlantic City, NJ 08401
USA
Submission Deadline
June 7, 2011
Sincerely,
Nichole M. Brownlee, SPHR
2011 GSC-SHRM Conference Chair
Stewart Feller
2011 GSC-SHRM Conference Co-Chair
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Best practices re copyrighted material and fair use per music scholarship
Dear Colleagues:
For some time now I have been trying to find something like a statement of "Best Practices in the Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials in Music Scholarship," and I have finally, quite accidentally, stumbled upon it, thanks to a comment on an article in today's Chronicle of Higher Education.
The document comes form the American Musicological Society and so, like other documents similarly designed to serve specific academic use communities, it comes with a fairly decent pedigree. That said, you know that there will still be publishers who will try to use scare tactics to prevent music scholars from exercising their fair use rights. However, this document may represent the beginning of winning for musicologists the kind of rights recently secured by documentary film makers and media literacy educators, thanks largely to the scholars mentioned in the Chronicle article.
Below is a link to the "Best Practices" document:
http://www.ams-net.org/AMS_Fair_Use_Statement.pdf
And below here is a link to the Chronicle article where I found the comment that included this link as well as a link to a journal article on popular music that includes quotations.
http://chronicle.com/article/Pushing-Back-Against-Legal/127690/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
I once discussed this matter with Peter Jaszi who opined that the situation regarding the fair use of copyrighted music is no different from any other copyrighted material except that the publishers are more aggressive about trying to extract money for any and every use of a copyrighted item, regardless of whether its unlicensed use might be perfectly fair.
Tim McGee
p.s. The AMS Statement of Best Practices ends with a warning about additional prohibitions under DMCA and asserts that "this question has not been addressed by the courts to date." I think that assertion is inaccurate. I believe the courts (or maybe it was the Library of Congress) have since ruled in our favor, i.e., we educators who need to circumvent copy protection technologies for educational purposes are free to do so.
--
Timothy C. McGee, Ph.D.
Associate Director for Faculty Development
Rider University
2083 Lawrenceville Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-3099
T 609.896.7015
F 609.896.5334
For some time now I have been trying to find something like a statement of "Best Practices in the Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials in Music Scholarship," and I have finally, quite accidentally, stumbled upon it, thanks to a comment on an article in today's Chronicle of Higher Education.
The document comes form the American Musicological Society and so, like other documents similarly designed to serve specific academic use communities, it comes with a fairly decent pedigree. That said, you know that there will still be publishers who will try to use scare tactics to prevent music scholars from exercising their fair use rights. However, this document may represent the beginning of winning for musicologists the kind of rights recently secured by documentary film makers and media literacy educators, thanks largely to the scholars mentioned in the Chronicle article.
Below is a link to the "Best Practices" document:
http://www.ams-net.org/AMS_Fair_Use_Statement.pdf
And below here is a link to the Chronicle article where I found the comment that included this link as well as a link to a journal article on popular music that includes quotations.
http://chronicle.com/article/Pushing-Back-Against-Legal/127690/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
I once discussed this matter with Peter Jaszi who opined that the situation regarding the fair use of copyrighted music is no different from any other copyrighted material except that the publishers are more aggressive about trying to extract money for any and every use of a copyrighted item, regardless of whether its unlicensed use might be perfectly fair.
Tim McGee
p.s. The AMS Statement of Best Practices ends with a warning about additional prohibitions under DMCA and asserts that "this question has not been addressed by the courts to date." I think that assertion is inaccurate. I believe the courts (or maybe it was the Library of Congress) have since ruled in our favor, i.e., we educators who need to circumvent copy protection technologies for educational purposes are free to do so.
--
Timothy C. McGee, Ph.D.
Associate Director for Faculty Development
Rider University
2083 Lawrenceville Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-3099
T 609.896.7015
F 609.896.5334
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)