No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation examines the evolution of institutions and legal rules regulating and prohibiting the slave trade into a global regime for the regulation of international labor migration between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. In the nineteenth century, the spread of anti-slavery norms increased Western demand for African and Asian contractual workers; but it also upturned labor recruitment networks in the Senegal River valley and the Pearl River delta, which relied on coercive practices that Western governments now prohibited. As a result, imperial powers, indigenous authorities, and labor-source communities competed to set and enforce new rules for the lawful recruitment of West African and Chinese laborers for Western enterprises. I argue that jurisdictional competition between these groups produced legal regimes that determined mobility and economic opportunity for Asian and African workers. As novel legal arrangements both facilitated and restrained African and Asian migration to worksites across the globe, labor-source societies in West Africa and China grew conscious of their shared existence within a Western-dominated world order and engaged in global debates over slavery, labor, and civilization. I trace the origins of these debates to two phenomena: the early modern global trade expansion and the subsequent emergence of the anti-slavery movement. These developments transformed political ideologies not only in Western imperial metropoles, but also in Sahelian West Africa and across the South China Sea. I also uncover African and Asian critiques of domination, discrimination, and inequality in international and imperial legal orders. This project thus elucidates how labor mobilization produced new identities and solidarities across Africa and Asia. It further reveals how the regulation of migration produced global disparities of wealth and sovereignty.

The purpose of this study was to examine and analyze federal and Virginia statutes along with selected state and federal court decisions which govern the legal rights and responsibilities of educators in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the areas of 1) liability; 2) terms of employment; 3) legal relationships with students; and 4) legal responsibilities to students with disabilities. The legal resources for this study were the United States Constitution; the Code of Virginia; other federal and Virginia legislation; and Virginia and federal judicial opinions. The methods of research employed in this study were the "descriptive word" or "fact word" approach and the case method. The computer-assisted legal research services, Lexis and Westlaw, were used extensively in this study. The conclusions resulting from this study are as follows: 1) The doctrine of sovereign immunity absolutely protects Virginia school boards and administrators from liability for negligence. Virginia teachers are also protected by sovereign immunity but only for acts of simple negligence. Sovereign immunity does not bar Virginia's teachers from actions involving gross negligence and does not protect school districts and school personnel for constitutional torts. 2. To obtain employment in Virginia, an educator must hold a license issued by the State Board of Education, pass a professional teachers' examination and execute a written contract with the school board. To obtain continuing contract status in Virginia, educators must serve a three-year probationary period in the same school division. Virginia educators may be dismissed, suspended or placed on probation for cause. 3. School age children are mandated to attend school in Virginia. Local school boards possess statutory authority to employ reasonable measures to maintain discipline in the schools. Virginia students may be suspended or expelled provided they receive procedural due process. Students possess constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 4. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandates that students with disabilities be provided a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The IDEA and Virginia regulations governing special education outline comprehensive and detailed procedural requirements guaranteeing the rights of parents of children with disabilities. / Ed. D.

This legal research study identified Supreme Court cases relating to search and seizure generally, and Supreme Court, federal and state court cases relating specifically to search and seizure in education. The purpose of this study was to identify those concepts, doctrines and principles of law governing searches and seizures in order to inform administrators of their legal responsibilities. Concepts, doctrines and principles of law governing searches and seizures are summarized in the following statements: (1) Students have a right to privacy, but this right must be balanced against the school's interests and the rights of others. (2) Searches must be reasonably related to a legitimate school purpose. General, exploratory, blanket and indiscriminate searches will not be sustained by courts. (3) School officials have an affirmative obligation to maintain order and discipline for the health and safety of students. (4) Searches must be based on concrete, articulable facts. Mere suspicion is not acceptable to the courts. (5) Elementary and secondary school officials, acting in loco parentis, are generally held to the lesser standard of reasonable cause to believe. However, the more intrusive the search, the higher the standard to be applied. (6) Colleges and universities cannot condition attendance upon a waiver of a student's constitutional rights. (7) Police initiated searches are subject to the higher standard of probable cause. (8) In cases where exigent circumstances existed, such as the destruction of evidence or harm to another, administrative officials have an affirmative obligation to act immediately and they are not subject to the warIant requirement (9) Contraband seen in plain view is subject to seizure without a warrant. / Ed. D.

This study has provided an up-to-date source of information for North Carolina public school teachers to help them understand the sources of school law, the legal basis for education, the system of state and federal courts, and their rights and responsibilities. Appropriate federal and state judicial decisions, federal and state constitutional law, state statutes, State Board of Education policies, and the opinions of the Attorney General have been analyzed to determine legal principles in the following areas: 1. constitutional rights of teachers as a public school employee and a private citizen which included the areas of freedom of speech and expression; academic freedom, freedom of religion; private life; personal appearance; loyalty; 2. terms and conditions of employment which included certification, tenure, teacher's duties, due process for tenured teachers, procedural rights for nontenured teachers, dismissal for cause; and the 3. teacher's liability for students. Tort liability included strict liability; the intentional torts of assault and battery, defamation, and false imprisonment; the unintentional tort of negligence and its elements and defenses; educational malpractice; governmental immunity; and students' records. Of particular concern were assault and battery and child abuse cases as related to corporal punishment, the use of qualified privilege as a defense in defamation, and the option provided by the legislature for school boards to waive governmental immunity. North Carolina courts have determined that the fundamental principle of negligence cases in North Carolina is foreseeability of harm. As a result of this study, it has been recommended that the study be updated on an ongoing basis to maintain an up-to-date source of legal information for North Carolina teachers. ln addition, a similar study has been recommended for other states. lt was further recommended that a study examine the developing case law in educational malpractice along with state legal restrictions which interfere with good educational practices. / Ed. D. / incomplete_metadata