Cambridge Flyer Pdf
Xiaoqi Hauge
In October 2014, flyers appeared in mailboxes of Montana voters that positioned nominees for the state Supreme Court according to an ideological scale. The study, authored by researchers from Stanford and Dartmouth, was met with public outrage. The Commissioner of Political Practices in Montana asked me to vet the ethics of the study. The investigation led me to conclude that current Institutional Review Board (IRB) practices are inadequate for evaluating research involving field experiments in political science because there is no explicit attention in the process to protect a community. I believe the IRB should mandate that researchers explicitly address implications about how their research could affect the communities they study.
To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account.Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account.Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
Do you have any conflicting interests? *Conflicting interests helpClose Conflicting interests help Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.
Advertised prices and products on this site may only be available at www.wellwise.ca. Prices, quantities and/or product selection may vary between stores and on-line. Online items marked as Online Exclusive are promotional prices only available through www.wellwise.ca.
We reserve the right to limit or cancel quantities per person, per household or per Order. We are not obligated to sell items based on photographical or typographical errors, inaccuracies, omissions or misprints, including those that may relate to product descriptions, pricing, promotions, offers and/or availability. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions and to change or update information or modify or cancel Orders if any information on the in-stores Wellwise by ShoppersTM flyer(s) and or on wellwise.ca is inaccurate at any time without prior notice (including after you have submitted your Order).
The information presented on this website is designed for educational purposes only. You should not rely on any information on this site as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or as a substitute for, professional counseling care. If you have any concerns or questions about your health, you should always consult with a physician or other healthcare professionals.
*Available online at wellwise.ca only. Complete an order on wellwise.ca valued at the specified amount or more before applicable taxes and after all other coupons and discounts are deducted and receive free shipping anywhere Canada Post offers its Baseline Expedited Service (the "Offer"). Lowering your order value, changing your delivery address and/or selecting a delivery service level other than Canada Post's Baseline Expedited Service may impact your eligibility to receive this Offer. Learn more about Canada Post's Expedited Service at Offer subject to change without notice.
The controversy over these appointments has become the hottest issue in Cambridge politics in many years, since opposition to them was formed by Judson T. Shaplin '42, associate dean of the School of Education, in conjunction with the Cambridge Civic Association.
"There is a strong ground swell for Referendum One; I think it will carry seven or eight to one," Dean Shaplin declared last night. "The Referendum on proportional representation will be very close, but I think we will win because of the heavy feelings on the first one." The CCA has fought for retention of PR.
Shaplin also predicted that the vote would be heavy. As evidence of the interest in the election he cited yesterday afternoon's Mother's March in which 40,000 flyers were distributed asking for a negative vote on Referendum One. "I think that the CCA will win four of the six seats on the School Committee and that Mrs. Catherine Ogden and I will be re-elected," he said.
Eight of the nine Councilmen are running for re-election, the exception being Hyman Pill, who is retiring. Councilor Charles Watson predicted that all eight would be re-elected and that Mrs. Cornelia B. Wheeler would be elected to fill Pill's seat. Alfred Vellucci said flatly, "I will be re-elected in a landslide."
Eric Hansen, Executive Secretary of the CCA, declared that the CCA would win a majority in both the School Committee and the Council, and thereby be able to elect a mayor. He commented "Two years ago 35 votes would have elected us another Council member. We'll get more than that this time. We'll also win both Referenda, but we'll have a close fight." In recent elections, however, the CCA has not attained a majority in either body.
Hansen based some of his confidence on the surprise release of a flyer yesterday afternoon by Anthony Flynn and his Committee for the Preservation of Democracy. "This smear on the CCA shows how desperate Mayor Sullivan is," he said. The flyer claims that "The CCA is trying to destroy one of America's finest school systems."
Alan Steinert, campaign manager for the CCA, called the flyer "A routine illegality of the sort one would expect from the opposition. A last minute desperate try, ridiculous on its face and not worth a reply."
Dean Shaplin said that he heartily agreed with Steinert and that "This kind of scurrilous attack is useless. Cambridge voters are smarter than that. The men publishing the flyer are working in a dark room; they seem ashamed to let the public know what they are doing."
c80f0f1006