Criticizing the image of the student as consumer: examining legal trends and administrative responses in the US and UK1

There is widespread concern that higher education is being compromised by being turned into a ‘commodity’ to be ‘consumed’. This article represents an initial attempt to explore the trends in both the UK and US, and considers how the law has responded to them. It argues, however, that there is an important distinction to be drawn between ‘commodification’ and ‘consumerism’. Education has always been a commodity to be bought and sold; the true danger lies in the move to a ‘rights-based’ culture where students (and politicians) see education merely as something to be ‘consumed’ rather than as an activity in which to participate. Whilst the law seems thus far to have been something of a bulwark against this movement, it remains an open question as to whether this will continue to be the case if HEIs do not themselves act more proactively in challenging this damaging view of higher education.     

RICO: The genesis of an idea

In 1970, the Congress enacted the Organized Crime Control Act. Title IX of the 1970 Act is the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act or RICO. This Act had its origins in legislation going back as far as 1934, but coming forward to 1961. The 1970 Act borrowed ideas from this earlier legislation, principally “enterprise,” but also the use predicate statutes to define “racketeering activity.” The ideas are not new, but their combination affects how prosecutors and law enforcement agents investigate, try, and sanction violations of the Act. RICO’s drafting also reflects organizational theory and economic analysis. The investigation and prosecution of a single crime committed by an individual on a single day and in a single place maybe done using one set of procedural and evidentiary rules. Nevertheless, the investigation and prosecution of patterns of diverse offenses committed by, through, and against licit and illicit enterprises require sophisticated procedures, evidentiary rules, and criminal sanctions. In addition, antisocial conduct is more than a challenge to the administration of criminal justice; it also requires the full panoply of civil sanctions, including public injunctions as well private enforcement of injunctive relief and treble damages. RICO has had a profound effect on the prosecution of organized crime, white-collar crime, and other forms of similar criminal behavior. William J. & Dorothy K. O’Neill Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School; A.B. 1957, University of Notre Dame; J.D. 1960, Notre Dame Law School. Professor Blakey was the Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1969-70 when the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-542, 84 Stat. 922 (1970) was processed, Title IX of which is the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act or RICO. For a general treatment of the statute from a variety of perceptive, see the collection of law review literature in G. Robert Blakey & Kevin Roddy, “Reflections on Reves v. Ernst & Young: Its Meaning an Impact on Substantive, Accessory, Aiding, Abetting and Conspiracy Liability under RICO,” 33 Amer. Crim. L. Rev. 1345, 1348 n. 3(1996).     

'Tangential Relation' criterion clears way for infringement of amended patent claim under doctrine of equivalents

Prosecution history estoppel generally bars patent infringementunder the doctrine of equivalents when a claim is narrowed byamendment during examination, but the ‘tangential relation’criterion preserves that doctrine when the claim is narrowedin a manner unrelated to the particular equivalent which, itis alleged, infringes the patent.     

演进中的亚洲地区体系

东亚合作更多地表现为一种地区多边合作的过程。作为东亚的一个成员,和平发展的中国无疑是东亚区域合作最重要的动力源之一。从地缘上看,美国不属于东亚范畴。但基于历史原因和美国独特的地位,东亚合作进程又不可能排除美国的影响,甚至需要美国建设性的参与。因此,东亚合作一方面是一个内部一体化的过程,另一方面也涉及到一个对外部开放的问题。如何评估东亚合作进程中的中国的作用、美国对东亚合作进程的影响以及东亚合作背景下中美关系的前景等已经成为学界研究的一个热点。为此,中国国际关系学会、外交学院、美国乔治.华盛顿大学联合举办了“东亚地区合作与中美关系”国际研讨会(2005年11月),中美双方学者就此展开坦诚的对话交流。在会议讨论的基础上,我刊以笔谈形式整理刊发部分学者的观点,以飨读者。     

Data Protection: An Opening Door?

Swedish public law has incorporated a general rule of public access to documents, and to information in the wider sense, since the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766. On the Community level, the relationship between Regulation (EC) 45/2001 on data protection and Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 on public access to documents exemplifies the tension between the public's interest in scrutinising the administration carried on in its name, and the integrity of the individual. However, a similar tension exists between Sweden's Personal Data Act of 1998, implementing Directive 95/46, and the Freedom of the Press Act. A misuse model of data protection law, by seeking to concentrate on serious rather than technical infringements of privacy, might serve to ease the tension. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not attributable to any Community institution. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.