Civil Rights Roundup: 08/29/08
Aug 29th, 2008 | 4 responses
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The backers of the Arizona initiative seeking to ban affirmative action got a reprieve today, as a judge is willing to give them more time to prove they received the requisite number of valid signatures to get on the ballot.
A suit against American contractor KBR alleges that 12 Nepalese workers were held in slavery in Iraq. They were later kidnapped by insurgents, and all but one was executed.
The Mexican Supreme Court has upheld Mexico City’s relatively liberal abortion laws, making it a rare pro-choice foothold in largely anti-abortion Latin America.
Gainesville, Florida voters will have a chance to decide whether to keep civil rights protections for GLBT residents.
California is now adopting guidelines for what to do if gay prisoners want to marry.
To acquire Plan B, you might need a plan b, c, and d.
A UCLA professor on that university’s admissions committee is resigning in protest. Professor Tim Groseclose wanted to find out if the school was admitting minority students with lower qualifications, presumably in violation of California’s Proposition 209. But UCLA refused to release the data Groseclose said he needed. The professor actually claims to support affirmative action, but is angered by the lack of transparency.
The Black elite is taking special pride in Obama’s rise, seeing it as reflective of their own hard work and experience.
It seems like the news is focusing on other issues today….
opinions powered by SendLove.to
4 Responses to “Civil Rights Roundup: 08/29/08”
Re: the UCLA professor. I do research on people to understand learning patterns, trends, etc., and use a bit of statistics to understand most of it. I would be a bit upset, too, if I couldn't have access to these data. He would have to seek IRB approval and explicitly state how he would keep the data confidential. I'm not sure if this approval was granted, but if it was, I think the university should let him do his study.
Hey David! It's tough to comment in here because of the multiple stories, but I just wanted to offer a sincere 'thank you' for pulling this together. I'm not certain there's anywhere else that gives this type of a summary. Thanks!
Jchem,
If a scientific review committee approved the research from a scientific point of view, any data review should be approved by an IRB on expedited review. There is chance of harm to the subjects and informed consent would not have to be obtained.
Good point SD,
it makes you wonder then why the university wouldn't let the study move forward if a review wasn't required, no? Like I said in my previous post, if the outline was acceptable to an IRB (and God knows how much paperwork goes into that) then it should be acceptable to the University. I'm not in a position to resign from my position, but I would certainly be upset that I wouldn't have access to data that the IRB deems not harmful.