Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: First Amendment
- Creators: Fradella, Hank
- Creators: Berry, Megan Cheyenne
Description
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is an organization dedicated to defending student and faculty freedom of speech rights on college campuses in the United States. Their work has brought national attention and debate around how unbiased the foundation truly is. This thesis discusses the relevant cases around the freedom of speech such as United States v. O'Brien and Matal v. Tam in order to develop an understanding of general free speech protection. Free speech cases specifically regarding school campuses were analyzed such as Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel v. Fraser, and Rosenberger v. University of Virginia to show the limitations of what FIRE can fight on campuses. FIRE's case selection methods were analyzed, and a bias toward conservative cases was found. This bias is disputed by FIRE supporters as natural given the liberal nature of higher education, but data surrounding professors, disinvitation attempts, and student opinions invalidate these claims. Three FIRE cases (Roberts v. Haragan, Smith v. Tarrant County College District, and the Dixie State Incident) were analyzed to show the progression and style of the foundation through the years and how they developed their aggressive and bully reputation. Finally, current large incidents of free speech oppression were analyzed to understand how they skew and affect public perception of the overall struggle for freedom of speech on college campuses. This thesis found that FIRE is in fact biased and that their efforts to make positive change are undermined by this. Keywords: FIRE, free speech, First Amendment
ContributorsRamos-Mata, Joseph Wilfrido (Author) / von Delden, Jayn (Thesis director) / Fradella, Hank (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-12
Description
By providing vignettes with manipulated scientific evidence, this research examined if including more or less scientific detail affected decision-making in regards to the death penalty. Participants were randomly assigned one of the two manipulations (less science and more science) after reading a short scenario introducing the mock capital trial and their role as jury members. Survey respondents were told that a jury had previously found the defendant guilty and they would now deliberate the appropriate punishment. Before being exposed to the manipulation, respondents answered questions pertaining to their prior belief in the death penalty, as well as their level of support of procedural justice and science. These questions provided a baseline to compare to their sentencing decision. Participants were then asked what sentence they would impose \u2014 life in prison or death \u2014 and how the fMRI evidence presented by an expert witness for the defense affected their decision. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to identify how the level of scientific detail affected their decision. Our intended predictor variable (level of scientific detail) did not affect juror decision-making. In fact, the qualitative results revealed a variety of interpretations of the scientific evidence used both in favor of death and in favor of life. When looking at what did predict juror decision-making, gender, prior belief in the death penalty, and political ideology all were significant predictors. As in previous literature, the fMRI evidence in our study had mixed results with regards to implementation of the death penalty. This held true in both of our manipulations, showing that despite the level of detail in evidence intended for mitigation, jurors with preconceived notions may still disregard the evidence, and some jurors may even view it is aggravating and thus increase the likelihood of a death sentence for a defendant with such brain abnormalities.
ContributorsBerry, Megan Cheyenne (Author) / Fradella, Hank (Thesis director) / Pardini, Dustin (Committee member) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12