Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The election of President George W. Bush in 2000 signaled a new partnership between religious institutions, community organizations, and the federal government regarding the delivery of social welfare programs to the public. Theoretically, we might expect that churches are equipped to implement faith-based initiative programs. Conventional wisdom suggests that the federal bureaucracy consists of a large set of complex organizations that slow the implementation of public policy. Moe attributes this problem to the idea that “American public bureaucracy is not designed to be effective” (Moe 1989, 267). However, why should scholars and public officials assume that church organizations are more effective than the federal bureaucracy in dispensing social welfare programs? Religious groups can encounter similar types of organizational problems that impact public or private organizations, such as free riding and a lack of financial and human resources, that limit their ability to manage their organization.
Organizational problems also pose serious problems for church leaders seeking to increase the level of civic engagement in their congregations. We use survey data that we collected from congregations in the Phoenix-metropolitan area to analyze whether religious organizations have the administrative capacity and resources to mobilize for political and social issues within their community. Our study addresses three questions. First, does the organizational structure of a religious institution influence the level of participation among its members in community and social causes? Second, do churches that exist within hierarchically organized denominations experience higher levels of free riding than churches within more egalitarian denominations? Finally, do congregations encounter problems of free riding that significantly hinder their ability to mobilize for political and social causes? Our purpose in exploring these questions is to move beyond current studies on religion and politics that focus on political behavior by incorporating an institutional approach to understand the political role of churches.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper challenges the chain of ?common sense? between secularism and peace. Since the international system was born at the Westphalian peace settlement in 1648, religion has been repressed more consistently than anything else within the discipline of International Relations (IR). The discipline needs to overcome this limitation within itself, because secularism is an increasingly central challenge in current politics ? both internationally and domestically. The necessity of pointing towards the very (secular) grounds of the IR discipline, lies in the actual revival of religion in international politics. This study questions whether the discipline on its current ground can be a ?neutral? and detached observer, when it comes to religion and conflict containment. The study shows that the grievances of radical Islamists against ?the West? are less directed against the West?s religion and more against its lack hereof. In other words radical Islamism does not represent a part in a ?religious war? or clash of civilizations between Muslims and Christians, but should rather be understood in the light of what Mark Juergensmeyer years ago labeled ?a new cold war between secularism and religious nationalism?. Thus understood, if secularism is the very cause to why radical Islamists take action defending faith, it seems odd to maintain that the way to counter radical Islamism is that of secularism. A truly constructive conflict management demands that the analyst takes a position that observes secularism and religious radicalism as equally constructed ? not observing one from the position of the other. This paper will bring attention to this fundamental point that relates to the demarcation of religion and politics through a comparative study of different secularisms. We will show that despite uniformly declaring their states ?secular?, this actually means something different whether we are talking about France, USA, Denmark, Turkey or Pakistan. A line is drawn between religion and politics, but it is drawn in different places and accordingc to different principles.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper is co-authored by Lorn Foster, of Pomona college.
In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Gomillion v. Lightfoot that a 27-sided electoral district drawn to restrict blacks’ opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice violated the equal protection clause. 35 years later, the Court ruled in Bush v. Vera that an oddly-shaped electoral district drawn to enhance the opportunity of minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice violated the equal protection clause. Looking at how the Court’s interpretation of the 14th amendment has changed, we ask whether it should take a racially neutral or racially affirmative position regarding the ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice? We contend that the Court’s application of the doctrines of strict scrutiny and compelling state interest has become increasingly antithetical to the political interests of minority voters. We will analyze approximately twelve pivotal voting rights cases decided between 1960 and 1994. In so doing, we will also consider how periodic strengthening of the VRA, improvements in redistricting technology, and partisan imperatives to protect incumbency have combined to facilitate the crafting of majority-minority electoral district. We will also address the underlying federalism and balance-of-power issues at play: a) how states are wedged between Congress’ intent, the Justice Department’s oversight, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of key provisions of the VRA, and b) how the VRA itself is buffeted between Congress’ and the Court’s interpretation of it. Here, we argue that minority political power faces erosion by institutional, doctrinal and constitutional battles over the VRA

Publication Type: Poster Presentation
Abstract: Streamside Systems, LLC has adapted their “Collector” technology to cattle farms that use sand for bedding. This low-maintenance, unmanned modular system is capable of removing 100 cubic yards of sand per day from 2000 gallon per minute dairy outflows. Even fine sands can be separated from 500-800 gallon per minute mixes of manure with sand. Advantages of this new technology include sustainable recycling and beneficial reuse of sands; concentration of manure streams for treatment; reduction in volume requirements for waste storage; extending lagoon lifespan; potential increase in herd size; and corresponding operating cost reduction and increased profitability.

Until now, Streamside Systems Collectors have been used for prevention and restoration of sedimentation impacts to streams by selectively capturing and removing only the harmful fine sediments as they migrate as bedload. These fine sediments are most responsible for biological and habitat impacts to surface waters, and are also the key to many sediment-associated contaminants. Independent performance testing at the Hydraulics Laboratory at Colorado State University has documented up to 99% capture efficiency by Collectors for particles > 0.25 mm. Where finer particles migrate as bedload, Collectors have been used to successfully capture and remove sediments as fine as iron floc. If necessary to achieve near-100% sand removal, multiple Collectors can be used in series to further increase sediment capture and removal efficiency.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Debates over racial profiling are not limited to the American context. Over the past ten years, the issue of racially biased police stop and search practices has also hit several Canadian communities. However, unlike the United States, Canadian jurisdictions have largely refused to collect racial profiling statistics. This paper will: 1) discuss the primary reasons why Canadian authorities have resisted data collection efforts; 2) describe the results of survey research which suggests that racial profiling may be a problem in major Canadian cities; and 3) discuss the experiences of a small town police force (Kingston, Ontario) that decided to collect official stop and search statistics – despite intense pressure from the wider criminal justice community. The paper concludes with a discussion of how Canada’s reputation as a “multi-cultural” and “racially tolerant” society is often used as an excuse for not seriously examining issues of discrimination within the criminal justice system.