Search results

I MUST THANK David Gerard for responding so warmly to my review of Mr Murison's The public library in Human world 13; and I must thank Mr Murison for responding to the double onslaught (in NLW March) so effectively. (It was not, by the way, a concerted attack, though Mr Murison might be excused for thinking so, especially in view of his other trials.) And if I gave the impression of thinking of him as rather dim and unquestioning, I must simply apologise; this was not my intention. I chose to review his book because it typifies some of our vast social problems in an exceptionally clear‐cut way; because it demonstrates, through the clarity of its presentation, both the virtues and the limitations of socialised thought. This is not, I think, an insult.

THE TIMING of the Library Association's new statement on ‘Public Lending Right’ (just before a Christmas when most of the country switched off mentally for a fortnight) was in contrast to the substance.

A PLEASING personal and professional acknowledgement is contained in the award of the OBE in the mid‐June Birthday Honours to W J (‘Jock’) Murison, Chief Librarian of the former West Riding County. We have remarked before that the profession is under‐represented in the honours lists, but here is an award which Jock will doubtless have accepted on behalf of all his former West Riding colleagues.

Presents a special issue, enlisting the help of the author’s students and colleagues, focusing on age, sex, colour and disability discrimination in America. Breaks the evidence down into manageable chunks, covering: age discrimination in the workplace; discrimination against African‐Americans; sex discrimination in the workplace; same sex sexual harassment; how to investigate and prove disability discrimination; sexual harassment in the military; when the main US job‐discrimination law applies to small companies; how to investigate and prove racial discrimination; developments concerning race discrimination in the workplace; developments concerning the Equal Pay Act; developments concerning discrimination against workers with HIV or AIDS; developments concerning discrimination based on refusal of family care leave; developments concerning discrimination against gay or lesbian employees; developments concerning discrimination based on colour; how to investigate and prove discrimination concerning based on colour; developments concerning the Equal Pay Act; using statistics in employment discrimination cases; race discrimination in the workplace; developments concerning gender discrimination in the workplace; discrimination in Japanese organizations in America; discrimination in the entertainment industry; discrimination in the utility industry; understanding and effectively managing national origin discrimination; how to investigate and prove hiring discrimination based on colour; and, finally, how to investigate sexual harassment in the workplace.

Imagine yourself trying to: — keep an eye on time — listen to a long and confusing but relevant contribution — bring somebody into the discussion whom you believe has an important point to make — stop a “side meeting” that’s just developed all at the same time, and whilst being observed by a number of your colleagues. This is what we expect of someone who is running a meeting. No wonder most people find it difficult to do and, in turn, no wonder many managers take a dim view of the effectiveness of meetings. (The ones they attend, of course, not the ones they run themselves!)

In the 1970s, the United States Congress enacted two statutes that have had dramatic and far‐reaching effects on the education of handicapped children by public schools. These two laws, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Education For All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (known as Public Law 94–142), have required local public school agencies to provide new eductional programs for thousands of handicapped children not previously served by the public schools. Counselors, principals, and teachers were quickly informed of the law's requirements and willingly began the task of main‐streaming and assimilating these children into various curricula. Their physical needs were attended to rapidly; their societal and emotional needs, unfortunately, lagged behind. Within the past seven years, there has been an increase in books, articles, and films specifically addressed to counseling the handicapped. Unlike past literature which focused only on the vocational aspect of rehabilitation counseling, current writing emphasizes personal counseling meant to assist a disabled child to participate fully in the problems and joys of daily living.

Sport match-fixing has emerged as a complex global problem. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it critically reviews how match-fixing is typified as a policy problem. Second, it advances an analysis of the legal framework and regulatory system for sports betting as a causal source for “routinized” match-fixing.

This study extracts and synthesises (cross-national) materials from policies, media releases and scholarly works on the subject of match-fixing and sports betting. The analysis is framed by the contrasts between rational choice and sociological institutionalist approaches.

Match-fixing is typically attributed to: criminal organisations and illegal sports betting; vulnerable individuals; and failure of governance on the part of sports organisations. Each cause holds assumptions of utility-maximising actors and it is argued that due consideration be given to the fundamental risks inherent in legal sports betting regimes.

Match-fixing in sport is a recurrent social problem, transcending national boundaries and involving a wide range of actors and, sporting disciplines and levels of competition. Within such an environment, it may matter little how strong the incentive structures and education programmes are, when betting on human beings is both normatively and cognitively advanced as a value and institutionally permitted as a practice.

This paper argues that legal betting regimes paradoxically contribute to routinised match-fixing because: for betting customers there is no qualitative, ethical difference between legal and illegal operators; and legalisation serves to normalise and legitimate the view of athletes as objects for betting (like cards or dice).