Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
148
result(s) for
"Heins, Marjorie"
Sort by:
Not in Front of the Children
From Huckleberry Finn to Harry Potter, from Internet filters to the v-chip, censorship exercised on behalf of children and adolescents is often based on the assumption that they must be protected from indecent information that might harm their developmentwhether in art, in literature, or on a Web site. But where does this assumption come from, and is it true? In Not in Front of the Children, Marjorie Heins explores the fascinating history of indecency laws and other restrictions aimed at protecting youth. From Plato's argument for rigid censorship, through Victorian laws aimed at repressing libidinous thoughts, to contemporary battles over sex education in public schools and violence in the media, Heins guides us through what became, and remains, an ideological minefield. With fascinating examples drawn from around the globe, she suggests that the harm to minors argument rests on shaky foundations. There is an urgent need for informed, dispassionate debate about the perceived conflict between the free-expression rights of young people and the widespread urge to shield them from expression that is considered harmful. Not in Front of the Children spurs this long-needed conversation.
eBook
Priests of Our Democracy
In the early 1950s, New York City's teachers and professors became the targets of massive investigations into their political beliefs and associations. Those who refused to cooperate in the questioning were fired. Some had undoubtedly been communists, and the Communist Party-USA certainly made its share of mistakes, but there was never evidence that the accused teachers had abused their trust. Some were among the most brilliant, popular, and dedicated educators in the city. Priests of Our Democracy tells of the teachers and professors who resisted the witch hunt, those who collaborated, and those whose battles led to landmark Supreme Court decisions. It traces the political fortunes of academic freedom beginning in the late 19th century, both on campus and in the courts. Combining political and legal history with wrenching personal stories, the book details how the anti-communist excesses of the 1950s inspired the Supreme Court to recognize the vital role of teachers and professors in American democracy. The crushing of dissent in the 1950s impoverished political discourse in ways that are still being felt, and First Amendment academic freedom, a product of that period, is in peril today. In compelling terms, this book shows why the issue should matter to every American.
eBook
Not in Front of the Children
FromHuckleberry FinntoHarry Potter, from Internet filters to the v-chip, censorship exercised on behalf of children and adolescents is often based on the assumption that they must be protected from \"indecent\" information that might harm their development-whether in art, in literature, or on a Web site. But where does this assumption come from, and is it true?InNot in Front of the Children, Marjorie Heins explores the fascinating history of \"indecency\" laws and other restrictions aimed at protecting youth. From Plato's argument for rigid censorship, through Victorian laws aimed at repressing libidinous thoughts, to contemporary battles over sex education in public schools and violence in the media, Heins guides us through what became, and remains, an ideological minefield. With fascinating examples drawn from around the globe, she suggests that the \"harm to minors\" argument rests on shaky foundations.
eBook
“A Pall of Orthodoxy over the Classroom”: Lessons from the Great Keyishian Case
[...]four: the fifth, poet George Starbuck, was a library employee with a part-time appointment in the English Department, who refused to sign a similar statement on a civil service form.) Two of the plaintiffs, English professors Harry Keyishian and George Hochfield, firmly believed that if, instead of only five resisters, hundreds of faculty had had stood their ground and refused to sign, the trustees would have had to back down. [...]the California loyalty oath battle came relatively early in the Cold War Red Scare. [...]this is probably why Keyishian and Hochfield so firmly believed that widespread resistance on the part of the Buffalo faculty would have made a difference. A striking example is the spread of global campuses, such as New York University's branches in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai or Yale-National University of Singapore, whose programs were envisioned, planned, and created by administrators with essentially no faculty involvement, and despite serious concerns about locating supposedly liberal educational institutions in authoritarian states.10 Beyond this overwhelming structural challenge, other pressing academic freedom issues today include speech codes that, in broad and vague terms, restrict what teachers and students can say in the classroom or elsewhere on campus; questions about where to draw the line between sexual or racial harassment and robust, protected free speech; and speaking invitations to those with far-right and racist views.
Journal Article
“The Right to Be Let Alone”: Privacy and Anonymity at the U.S. Supreme Court
Since the late 1950s, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right to privacy for personal communication. From membership lists of civil rights organizations at a time of racist violence in the American South to cable TV-viewing choices of ordinary Americans, the Court has defended privacy in both the transmission and receipt of information. With the advent of Internet and the “surveillance society,” however, the Supreme Court’s commitment to this principle may be wavering. Ultimately, political leverage will be needed to rein in invasions of privacy that are now proliferating in the name of national security.
Journal Article
Red Monday and Beyond
The Supreme Court took cautious steps in the mid-1950s toward dismantling loyalty programs. In 1955, it overturned the federal Loyalty Review Board’s blacklisting of a Yale professor of medicine who had been a consultant to the Public Health Service, but it ruled on technical grounds and avoided the constitutional question of whether loyalty boards could use evidence from secret informants, evidence that the employee could not see and therefore try to discredit or rebut. The justices had left that question hanging since their deadlock over Dorothy Bailey’s firing from her federal job four years before.¹ Justice William O. Douglas wanted
Book Chapter