Electoral Systems and Ethnic Conciliation: A Structured, Focused Analysis of Vote-Pooling in Northern Ireland Elections 1998-2011

This research project examines the role of electoral system rules in affecting the extent of conciliatory behavior and cross-ethnic coalition making in Northern Ireland. It focuses on the role of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system in shaping party and voter incentives in a post-conflict divided society. The research uses a structured, focused comparison of the four electoral cycles since the Belfast Agreement of 1998. This enables a systematic examination of each electoral cycle using a common set of criteria focused on conciliation and cross-ethnic coalition making. Whilst preference voting is assumed to benefit moderate candidates, in Northern Ireland centrist and multi-ethnic parties outside of the dominant ethnic communities have received little electoral success. In Northern Ireland the primary effect of STV has not been to encourage inter-communal voting but to facilitate intra-community and intra-party moderation. STV has encouraged the moderation of the historically extreme political parties in each of the ethnic bloc. Patterns across electoral cycles suggest that party elites from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Fein have moderated their policy positions due to the electoral system rules. Therefore they have pursued lower-preference votes from within their ethnic bloc but in doing so have marginalized parties of a multi-ethnic or non-ethnic orientation.

Examining the impact of pre-k and kindergarten classroom alignment on school readiness outcomes

This study explored children’s experiences of instructional alignment from prekindergarten to kindergarten and analyzed the impact of those alignment experiences on children’s school readiness outcomes. The study answered the following overarching research question: Does the alignment of children’s learning experiences between prekindergarten and kindergarten impact school readiness outcomes? Three sub-questions drove the research design: (1) How do children’s prekindergarten and kindergarten learning experiences align; (2) To what extent does the alignment of early learning experiences predict children’s school readiness outcomes; and (3) Does the quality of prekindergarten classroom teacher interactions moderate the impact of any PK-K alignment effects? Using cluster analysis and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to analyze data from over 1,300 children in the 2009 Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), the study found that children have distinct and definable experiences of PK-K alignment. Results also indicated a disparity in children’s PK-K alignment experiences, with Hispanic/Latino children more likely to attend Head Start programs with poor systems transition practices followed by kindergartens with poor classroom structures. The study found that growth in the use of instructional activity centers from prekindergarten to kindergarten is predictive of better literacy and math outcomes. Findings further suggested that boys, minority students, and children from lower income households are predicted to score lower than girls, white classmates, and higher-income peers across school readiness measures. Findings support the need for equitable transition and alignment practices for children from all racial and ethnic groups. They also argue for an increase in child-directed activity centers in kindergarten. With one exception, the current findings did not support the hypothesis that prekindergarten teacher quality is a moderator of alignment effects on children’s school readiness outcomes. The study presents suggestions for further research.

The Jewish Law Firm: Past and Present

The rise and growth of large Jewish law firms in New York City during the second half of the twentieth century was nothing short of an astounding success story. As late as 1950, there was not a single large Jewish law firm in town. By the mid-1960s, six of the largest twenty law firms were Jewish, and by 1980, four of the largest ten prestigious law firms were Jewish firms. Moreover, the accomplishment of the Jewish firms is especially striking because, while the traditional large White Anglo-Saxon Protestant law firms grew at a fast rate during this period, the Jewish firms grew twice as fast, and they did so in spite of experiencing explicit discrimination. What happened? This book chapter is a revised, updated study of the rise and growth of large New York City Jewish law firms. It is based on the public record, with respect to both the law firms themselves and trends in the legal profession generally, and on over twenty in-depth interviews with lawyers who either founded and practiced at these successful Jewish firms, attempted and failed to establish such firms, or were in a position to join these firms but decided instead to join WASP firms. According to the informants interviewed in this chapter, while Jewish law firms benefited from general decline in anti-Semitism and increased demand for corporate legal services, a unique combination of factors explains the incredible rise of the Jewish firms. First, white-shoe ethos caused large WASP firms to stay out of undignified practice areas and effectively created pockets of Jewish practice areas, where the Jewish firms encountered little competition for their services. Second, hiring and promotion discriminatory practices by the large WASP firms helped create a large pool of talented Jewish lawyers from which the Jewish firms could easily recruit. Finally, the Jewish firms benefited from a flip side of bias phenomenon, that is, they benefited from the positive consequences of stereotyping. Paradoxically, the very success of the Jewish firms is reflected in their demise by the early twenty-first century: because systematic large law firm ethno-religious discrimination against Jewish lawyers has become a thing of the past, the very reason for the existence of Jewish law firms has been nullified. As other minority groups, however, continue to struggle for equality within the senior ranks of Big Law, can the experience of the Jewish firms serve as a “separate-but-equal” blueprint for overcoming contemporary forms of discrimination for women, racial, and other minority attorneys? Perhaps not. As this chapter establishes, the success of large Jewish law firms was the result of unique conditions and circumstances between 1945 and 1980, which are unlikely to be replicated. For example, large law firms have become hyper-competitive and are not likely to allow any newcomers the benefit of protected pockets of practice. While smaller “separate-but-equal” specialized firms, for instance, ones exclusively hiring lawyer-mothers occasionally appear, the rise of large “separate-but-equal” firms is improbable.