Search results

The tremendous relevance of societal discrimination to special education of the learning disabled cannot be gainsaid. Mistreatment of disabled children in public and private educational institutions is a bad reflection on the moral and egalitarian values of the society at large. “Many students, regardless of race, who are deemed eligible to receive special education services [mandated by federal laws] are unnecessarily isolated, stigmatized, and confronted with fear and prejudice” (Losen & Welner, 2001, p. 407). According to the U.S. Congress, “poor African-American children are 2.3 times more likely to be identified by their teacher as having mental retardation than their white counterpart” (20 U.S.C. §1400 (8)(c) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). Congress has also found that a highly disproportionate number of elementary and secondary special education students are African-Americans (IDEA §1400 (8)(D)) and their social disadvantage stems from “lack of opportunities in training and educational programs, undergirded by the practices in the private sector that impede their full participation in the mainstream society” (IDEA §1400 (10)).

Officially, of course, the world is now post-imperial. The Q’ing and Ottoman empires fell on the eve of World War I, and the last Leviathans of Europe's imperial past, the Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires, lumbered into the grave soon after. Tocsins of liberation were sounded on all sides, in the name of democracy (Wilson) and socialism (Lenin). Later attempts to remake and proclaim empires – above all, Hitler's annunciation of a “Third Reich” – now seem surreal, aberrant, and dystopian. The Soviet Union, the heir to the Tsarist empire, found it prudent to call itself a “federation of socialist republics.” Mao's China followed suit. Now, only a truly perverse, contrarian regime would fail to deploy the rhetoric of democracy.

Introduction: Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) global outbreak poses a danger to millions of people’s health and the uncertainty and financial prudence around the world. Without a doubt, the sickness will place a tremendous strain on healthcare systems, which existing or traditional-based treatments cannot adequately handle. Only intelligence derived from diverse data sources can provide the foundation for rigorous clinical and social responses that optimise the use of constrained healthcare resources, create tailored patient treatment plans, educate policy-makers, and accelerate clinical trials

Purpose: This chapter aims to incorporate innovative practices of artificial intelligence (AI) into local, national, and global healthcare systems that can save lives of people and as well helps in human capital management ways that may be deployed rapidly and effectively with minimal errors.

Methodology: AI technologies and tools play a crucial part in COVID-19 crisis response by assisting with the virus discovery, early detection, and the development of effective medications and therapies. In this chapter, significant issues related to COVID-19 and how they may be addressed by applying HRM practices with recent advances in AI. Also, through a literature review of the recent studies implemented in a similar context, an AI solution is proposed by formulating a conceptual model.

Findings: This chapter offers that the latest AI techniques can assist policy-makers in implementing modern human capital management practices to fight against COVID-19. The goal is to remotely monitor patients utilising gadgets that are embedded with state-of-the-art medical technology. To limit hospital visits, or at least cut them down to a minimum, on the one hand, the health clinic also wants to deliver reliable health information to the doctors before or during virtual consultations.

Recent scholarship in neo-evolutionary sociology has rejected stage-models in favor of multilinear theories that shift the study of sociocultural change away from teleological arguments toward those that emphasize selection pressures and macrodynamics. The paper below adopts a neo-evolutionary frame to revisit one of the most epochal moments in human sociocultural evolution, the urban revolution (about 5,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, China, Egypt, and perhaps the Indus Valley) and the rise of the first political units. Shifting the analysis from conventional perspectives, this paper asks the question why the polity was the first autonomous institution besides kinship and what consequences did this have on the trajectory of the human societies, and more generally, human sociocultural evolution. By doing so, a slightly different historiography is presented in which institutional autonomy corresponds not with stages, but rather an historical “phasing” that emphasizes the role that institutional entrepreneurs have played in driving institutional evolution via structural opportunities and historical contingencies.

The notes reproduced here were taken by Glenn Johnson in Lloyd Mints’ course on Money and Banking at the University of Chicago in the fall of 1946. Several additional sets of course notes taken by Glenn Johnson have been published in the archival volumes of Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology. These included notes from Frank Knight's course on economic theory (Volume 24C) and Albert L. Meyer's course entitled elements of modern economics (appearing in this volume). A brief biography of Glenn Johnson is provided in Volume 24C, along with notes from his course on Agricultural Economics Methodology taught at Michigan State University.

In this article Professor Perry argues that Plessy v. Ferguson and the de jure segregation it heralded has overdetermined the discourse on Jim Crow. She demonstrates through a historical analysis of activist movements, popular literature, and case law that private law, specifically property and contract, were significant aspects of Jim Crow law and culture. The failure to understand the significance of private law has limited the breadth of juridical analyses of how to respond to racial divisions and injustices. Perry therefore contends that a paradigmatic shift is necessary in scholarly analyses of the Jim Crow era, to include private law, and moreover that this shift will enrich our understandings of both historic and current inequalities.