Book Summary:The integration of new technology and global collaboration has undoubtedly transformed learning in higher education from the traditional classroom setting into a domain of support services, academic programs, and educational products which are made available to learners. The Handbook of Research on Transnational Higher Education is a unique compilation of the most recent research done by higher education professionals in the areas of policy, governance, technology, marketing, and leadership development. This publication succeeds in highlighting the most important strategies and policies for professionals, policymakers, administrators, and researchers interested in higher education management.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The study examines the acceptable computer system use policies of each of the public school districts in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as the Virginia School Boards Association and the National School Boards Association policies as they relate to cyberbullying. Public middle school and public secondary school administrators across the Commonwealth were surveyed to determine to what extent cyberbullying is an issue in their schools, and to determine their views of their districts' current policies and procedures as they relate to cyberbullying. The study addresses the legal framework, based upon case law and statutory law that school districts must work within to balance students' free speech rights without abandoning the need to provide a safe and controlled learning environment. The study examines five arenas of students' First Amendment rights as they relate to cyberbullying with particular attention paid to Internet Service Provider liability, including: 1) form of the speech, political or obscene, 2) school-sponsored speech, 3) severity of the disruption caused by the incident, 4) site(s) of the incident, and 5) if the incident rises to the level of a true threat. The study evaluates existing school district policies in addition to public school administrators' perceptions relative to related statutory and case law in order to formulate a model policy that is legally defensible and would be appropriate for adoption by Virginia public school districts. / Ed. D.

In January, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear three cases involving student online speech, or cyberspeech. This indicates that the Court is content with lower courts applying First Amendment jurisprudence developed over 40 years ago to a rapidly advancing digital environment where students carry the equivalent of personal computers in their pockets, have an ever-growing telepresence, and rely on cyberspeech as their primary means of communicating with the world around them. Lower courts also are beginning to grapple with challenges to students Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as it relates to the digital environment described above. Recently, lower courts in Mississippi, Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky have applied standards set forth decades ago to decide cases involving searches of students mobile devices and Web 2.0 applications. Given the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court, this study aims to: (1) identify and analyze trends in the current application of legal standards related to student cyberspeech and search and seizure in the digital age; (2) synthesize these findings into a set of essential guidelines for school officials to use as they navigate a legal landscape that has yet to be well defined; and (3) make recommendations to further develop the body of law. Findings indicate that school officials have the legal authority to restrict off-campus student cyberspeech when certain conditions are met, and Tinker governs cases in this area. Seriously threatening, slanderous, or obscene cyberspeech is not constitutionally protected and can be restricted prior to an actual disruption. Off-campus student cyberspeech that reaches the school can legally be restricted so long as evidence shows that it caused a material and substantial disruption. In addition, students possess reasonable expectations of privacy in their personal mobile devices and password-protected private Web 2.0 communications. T.L.O governs searches of students personal mobile devices and Vernonia appears to govern cases involving searches of students Web 2.0 applications. Substantive suspicion at the outset, carefully tailored searches, and a clear governmental interest will keep school officials from violating students Fourth Amendment protections. / Ed. D.

In this study, I examine the extent to which students’ rights to free speech and expression were violated in response to the nationwide school walkouts that took place during the spring of 2018. Students hold the right to political speech and expression under the landmark Supreme Court Case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). However, the rights students maintain to participate in protest during school hours is somewhat unclear. Using a two-pronged case study analysis, I explore the question of student rights and potential violations in the face of protest through examining school disciplinary responses alongside disciplinary policy and disciplinary policy in the context of Tinker. Findings highlight a widespread gap in school and district-level policy specific to protest or other types of political expression and the need for such policy when protecting the rights students hold under Tinker.

Freedom of speech is under serious threat in the west, primarily in the US with policies and regulations infringing on this core value in democratic societies. Universities form policy in order to silence opinions they find contradictory to their values, causing students and teachers alike to risk academic punishment for statements which normally would be guarded within the First Amendment. The central argument behind these infringments are individuals subjective feelings towards, as one may put it, controversial opinions. The aim of this study is through an argument analysis, illustrate the values of freedom of speech in contrast to the demands of primarily minority groups and their advocates, using respectable philosophers and scientists such as John Stuart Mill to answer the question if infringements are applicable in democracies. The conclusions drawn in this essay based on all relevant arguments concludes the answer to be no; a democracy should not infringe on the freedom of speech to safeguard individuals from negative emotional reactions as a result of any legal speech.

ABSTRACT This study provides an empirical analysis of the effect of tobacco marketing regulation on unit sales, in order to evaluate the effectiveness these laws in the United States. The analysis did not find a significant effect of tobacco advertising expenditure on unit sales. Examination of advertising expenditure revealed that tobacco companies substituted banned forms of advertising for other marketing strategies, leading to little reduction in total advertising expenditure and a limited effect on sales. Furthermore, it found an unexpected positive relationship between the 1971 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act and tobacco consumption; the ban on advertising and promotion actually increased sales by over 88 billion units. Additional empirical evidence is provided from studies performed by Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking (FORCES) and Saffer and Chaloupka that show correspondingly inconclusive results. The paper then discusses several policy implications and subsequent recommendations that follow from these results.

Are campus movements concerning free speech—from Berkeley in the 1960s to the campaign against political correctness today—really about speech? Are movements really concerned with civil liberties on campus or are their calls for free speech excited by partisan motives? While free speech movements are never purely driven by civil libertarian concerns, they should not be considered simply partisan either. Campus speech movements have frequently united activists across the ideological spectrum, which suggests that these movements aren’t only sectarian in nature. It also confirms that these movements are in fact about speech, because those advocating for it have a wide range of motives, but free speech is the point of agreement. However, this is not to say that there aren’t ulterior partisan underpinnings in these pushes for free speech.