Pornography Essays - Anti-pornography Feminism, Pornography Law

Pornography Essays - Anti-pornography Feminism, Pornography Law Pornography Suppose one accepts MacKinnon and Dworkin's suggested statutory definition of pornography. How does one who generally accepts MacKinnon and Dworkin's views on the pervasively harmful effect of pornography, and who accepts a need for legal redress of the harms perpetrated by pornography, deal with pornographic material? The ordinance proposed by MacKinnon and Dworkin would deal with such material by enacting legislation which gives people adversely affected by the works, which clearly fit their definition of pornography, a cause of action against the producers, vendors, exhibitors or distributors for "trafficking", or for an assault "directly caused by the specific work. I do not think liberals, or others for that matter, should have much problem with the clause dealing with assault, since a causal connection to specific works is demanded by it. However, s. 3.2(iii) which deals with trafficking would be very problematic for liberals and legal conservatives because it creates a cause of action for a person contrary to the traditional conception of a rights holder's cause of action. This subsection reads: Any woman has a claim hereunder as a woman acting against the subordination of women. Any man, child or transsexual who alleges injury by pornography in the way women are injured by it also has a claim. [emphasis added] My goal in this paper is to suggest that a slight modification to this subsection of the ordinance would make it very difficult for liberals and legal conservatives to object to it. This modification would restrict the cause of action to the same persons as the other sections of the ordinance, namely, the particular victim of the specified injury. I shall argue that such a modification would largely cohere with the conception of harm already at work in Ontario law, would afford only a minor reduction in the potential efficacy of such legislation in curbing the harm of pornography, and would offer to empower the feminist camp which is behind such an ordinance with a mechanism for social and political change if a sufficiently organized feminist "vanguard" took hold of the opportunity to empower women. Adrian Howe argues that the concept of social injury which may be suggested by the ordinance recognizes the differential harm felt by women from pornography. Howe suggests this social notion of harm may be a necessary feature of any successful law reform which is to address the huge social problem of male domination and female oppression. The liberal notion of an individuated human right fails to capture, for MacKinnon and Howe, "the specificity of the harm to women." Thus, an ordinance which did not create a cause of action "for women as women" would fail to address the root of the social problem of which pornography is a manifestation. This conception of social harm, and thus subsection 3.2(iii), may offend liberals or legal conservatives in two ways. First, the notion of non-individuated harm is antithetical to the liberal conception of a rights holder claiming a cause of action. Fundamental to a liberal conception of harm is the notion of the individual who is autonomous, separate and fundamentally worthy of respect. Rawls and Kant exemplify this view in their analyses when they posit the undifferentiated self, free of any particular qualities save that of being an agent worthy of a fundamental, inviolable respect. This notion of the individual worthy of equal concern and respect in the eyes of the state permeates liberal conceptions of rights. It is also a fundamental, if not exclusive, tenet of the common law of torts: In tort litigation, the courts must decide whether to shift the loss suffered by one person, the plaintiff, to the shoulders of another person [emphasis added]. Clearly, on its face this conception of harm precludes the notion of a harm suffered collectively which cannot be delineated individually. While class actions are possible, and claims may be made on behalf of groups such as company shareholders, this is only by virtue of the fact that a legally recognized individual has suffered an identifiable particular harm. Thus, the conventional liberal notion of harm is radically distinct from that outlined by Howe and MacKinnon. Since on the liberal conception rights holders are autonomous, individual selves who are essentially distinct, harm to one is distinct from harm to another. It may be that a liberal conception of a rights holder simply renders the concept of a social harm, and thus a cause of action "for women as women" incoherent. I do not wish to discuss whether it is possible to develop a complete liberal notion of social harm. It is sufficient to note

Single-Choice and Restrictive Early Action Programs

Single-Choice and Restrictive Early Action Programs Students who plan to apply through an early admission program will find that the options include more than early action (EA) and early  decision (ED). A few select institutions such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford offer single-choice early action or restrictive  early action. These admission programs incorporate some features of both EA and ED. The result is a policy that is less restrictive than early decision, but more restrictive than early action. Defining Features of Single-Choice Early Action Applicants must have their applications completed early, usually by November 1st.Applicants will receive an admissions decision early, usually in mid-December. The decision date is before application deadlines for regular admission to the great majority of colleges and universities.As with early  decision, applicants can apply to just one school through an early admission program.Applicants can apply to other colleges through their non-binding regular admission programs or rolling admission programs. Also, applicants are typically allowed to apply to any public universities and non-U.S. institutions as long as admission decisions are non-binding.Like early action, single-choice early action applicants have until May 1st to make a decision. This allows applicants to compare offers of admission and financial aid packages from other colleges.Like early action, single-choice early  action admission decisions are non-binding. You do not need to attend the school if admitted. Benefits of Applying Single-Choice Early Action You can be done with your college search by mid-December. This can alleviate months of stress and uncertainty from your senior year.Admit rates are higher (sometimes over twice as high) for the early applicant pool. Keep in mind that colleges will always say that the admission standards are the same for early and regular applicants, and the higher admit rates come about because the early applicant pool tends to include the strongest applicants. Still, the common wisdom is that if you are a competitive applicant, your chances are better in the early applicant pool.You arent required to attend the college youve applied to early. This is a significant advantage over early decision, and it allows you to do overnight visits in the winter or spring before making a final college decision. Drawbacks of Applying Single-Choice Early Action You need to have a polished application ready to go by November 1st. Some applicants rush to meet the early deadline, and as a result put forth an application that doesnt represent their best work.You cant apply to other colleges through an early admission program. With regular early action, you can apply to multiple schools early.You might receive a rejection letter in December, and this can be demoralizing as you continue to work on other college applications and wait for regular admission decisions. As you think about whether or not to apply to a college through single-choice early action, keep in mind why the school is providing this option. When a college gives an offer of admission, it wants the student to accept that offer. An applicant who applies single-choice early action is sending a clear message that the college in question is his or her first-choice school. There is really no clearer way to demonstrate interest than applying early, and colleges can improve their yield significantly if they admit students with clearly demonstrated interest. Even though you are not bound to attend the college, you have sent a strong message that you are highly likely to attend. From the perspective of the admissions office, a high yield is extremely valuable- the college gets the students it wants, the college can better predict the size of the incoming class, and the college can rely less on waitlists. Many of the countrys very top colleges (included most with single-choice early action programs) state that they do not consider demonstrated interest when making admissions decisions. This may be true when it comes to factors such as campus visits and optional interviews. However, such schools are being insincere when the early applicant pool is accepted at a much higher rate than the regular applicant pool. The interest in the school that you demonstrate by applying early does matter. A Final Word About Single-Choice Early Action If you have your heart set on attending Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Boston College, Princeton or some other college with a single-choice or restrictive early action program, applying early is most likely a good choice. Make sure, however, that you have a strong application ready to go by November 1st, and make sure there are no other colleges offering early action or early decision that you would rather attend.