Iowa Civil Rights Commission Communicator, Spring 2003, Vol. 21, no. 1

Newsletter produced by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

Iowa Civil Rights Commission Communicator, Spring-Summer 2001, Vol. 19, no. 1

Newsletter produced by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

Iowa Civil Rights Commission, Spanish Version, 2004

Brochure produced by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

Iowa Civil Rights Commission, 2004

Brochure produced by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

Dorothy A. Abbas and Iowa Civil Rights Commission vs. City of Hampton, 1992

Case report from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Dorothy A. Abbas and Iowa Civil Rights Commission vs. City of Hampton

Maxine Faye Boomgarden and Iowa Civil Rights Commission vs. Hardin County Veterans' Commission Board and Hardin County Board of Supervisors, 1991

Case report from the Civil Rights Commission. Maxine Faye Boomgarden and Iowa Civil Rights Commission vs. Hardin County Veterans' Commission Board and Hardin County Board of Supervisors.

A note on Luttens’ Minimal rights based solidarity

Following the approach developed by Luttens (2010), we consider a model where individuals with di fferent levels of skills exert di fferent levels of e ffor. Speci fically, we propose a redistribution mechanism based on a lower bound on what every individual deserves: the so-called minimal rights (O'Neill (1982)). Our re finement of Luttens' mechanism ensures at the same time minimal rights based solidarity, participation (non-negativity) and claims feasibility. Keywords: Redistribution mechanism, Minimal rights, Solidarity, Participation, Claims feasibility. JEL classi fication: C71, D63, D71.

Disability Rights Guide for Iowans, 2001

Guidelines for disabled rights

Iowa Civil Rights Commission Annual Report, 1974

Annual report for the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, June 30, 2004

State Audit Reports

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Department of Human Rights, June 30, 2004

State Audit Reports

Between pluralism and majoritarianism: the European Court of Human Rights on religious symbols and education

How is it possible to square the development of a consistent Europeanapproach to religious diversity with the recognition of the sometimes-conflictiveplurality of state-religion models? The Court´s support of the liberalprinciples of separation and neutrality have either been deplored by Christianconservatives as the result of European Christophobia, or celebratedby secularists as contributing to the formation of a Europe free of religion.In contrast, the present chapter argues for a differentiated approach toEuropean jurisprudence, outlining how the Court has been oscillating betweenan appealing liberal-pluralist perspective or framework, and a questionablemajoritarian one. Both perspectives are illustrated by focusing onrepresentative decisions in the area of religious education and symbols.

Department of Human Rights Division of Persons with Disabilities Annual Performance Plan Report, September 2005

This report is published in accordance with the Accountable Government Act to improve decision-making and increase accountability to stakeholders and citizens. This report contains performance information regarding our primary programs including, the Youth Leadership Forum, the College Leadership Forum, the State Access Grant and the Client Assistance Program. Major accomplishments this year include continuation of our core programs, a key role in the Iowa Great Places initiative and providing Cultural Competency training to governmental and non-governmental agencies.