Advanced search
Publication Cover
Education and the Law Volume 20, 2008 - Issue 4
Journal homepage
59
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

The changing landscape of higher education: an analysis of how national change might be brought about in American higher education compared with the Bologna signatory states

Tim Birtwistle Law & Policy of Higher Education, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK; Higher Education ConsultantCorrespondence[email protected]
&
Holiday Hart McKiernan Lumina Foundation for Education, Indianapolis, IN, USA
Pages 317-336 | Published online: 25 Aug 2010
 
Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days

Abstract

Throughout much of the world higher education has been subject to scrutiny, including for example cost, outcomes, stakeholder value, and change. The intensity of the scrutiny and the possible consequences in terms of change have accelerated as a result of 2009 being the year of financial turbulence and scarce resources being used to prop up failing industries such as the automobile industry, compounded by measures such as quantitative easing and huge amounts being made available to the banking sector. This article looks at the different contexts and legal frameworks regarding change being required as a result of legislation rather than happening through some organic way. The article does not focus on the merits of possible change but on how change may be brought about. The European context is that of the Bologna Process (with a brief reminder of the European Union's competency in this area), the US context is that of change at national, regional or state level but with the primary focus being national level change.

Notes

1. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and in no way represent either Lumina Foundation for Education or Leeds Metropolitan University.

3. See Adelman, C. 2008. The Bologna Club. http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/TheBolognaClub.pdf

14. See supra note 2, official Bologna website.

15. See European Higher Education in a Global Setting Working Group. 2009. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in a global context: Report on overall development at the European, national and institutional levels (January 2). http://www.europeunit.ac.uk/bologna_process/index.cfm and http://ec.europa.eu/education/highereducation and http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/Bologna (accessed February 3, 2010).

16. See for example, National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators 2006. Global higher education, higher education in science and engineering, 2–36 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c2/c2h.htm (accessed August 18, 2009). NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 2006. Restoring US competitiveness for international students and scholars. http://www.nafsa.org/_/Document/_/restoring_u.s.pdf (accessed August 13, 2009).

17. See Terry, L. Degree changes, note 63, at 210 (quoting Tate, Paul. Graduate education and American competitiveness), CGS COMMUNICATOR (Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, DC), June 2005, at 2. http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/O/pdf/comm-2005-06.pdf).

18. See Terry, L. Implications, supra note 63, at 241.

19. Farrington, D. 2008. Strategic and legal implications of the Bologna Process for universities. Paper presented at the Legal Impact of Bologna Implemention symposium, Vienna. The Convention was drafted in 1969 and entered into force in January 1980.

20. See Palfreyman, D. 2008. The legal impact of Bologna implementation: Exploring criticisms and critiques of the Bologna Process. Education and the Law 20, 3: 249–57. The Higher December 31, 2009: 18–19. The literature review covers a range of statements related to policy that contend, inter alia, that the whole agenda is for governments to bring about change that singly they could not achieve (Temple); dumbing down to vocational training instead of higher education (Palfreymen and Tapper); crude cost-cutting (Ritzer); reforming continental higher education on a somewhat mythical Anglo-US model of commercialized … higher education (Moodie); that the end of fictional success has arrived with the rise of the new sobriety (Neave and Amaral); dull homogeneity (Teichler); soft law becoming hard law (Corbett) but Garben does state that it is a process of voluntary policy convergence … [albeit that] … poses several concerns. Palfreyman further argues that the United States has the best system of higher education in the world, a diverse system. He finds it unthinkable that European countries would want a system that supports convergence.

21. See http://esu-online.org (accessed February 3, 2010).

22. See Palfreyman, D. 2008. The legal impact of Bologna implementation: Exploring criticisms and critiques of the Bologna Process. Education and the Law 20, 3: 249–57 (reference to Garben).

23. Kaplin, William A., and Barbara A. Lee. 2007. The law of higher education, student ed., 16.

24. US Constitution, amendment X.

25. See US Constitution art. I, § 8, ¶ 1; art. I § 8, ¶ 3; amendment XIV § 5; see also, Kaplin, W., and B. Lee. 2007. The law of higher education, fourth edition. Jossey Bass, supra note 2, at 613 (describing federal constitutional powers over education).

26. It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country – and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world’. Barack Obama, US President, Remarks of President Obama, Address to Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress. See Wildavsky, Ben. 2009. International studies: How America's mania for college rankings went global. Washington Monthly, September–October: at 46.The Obama administration's higher education initiatives are focused on more resources for community colleges, completion strengthening data and research, and improving remedial education for under-prepared students. The American graduation initiative proposal calls for an unprecedented federal investment in community colleges.

27. See http://www.ed.gov (accessed February 3, 2010)

29. Kaplin, William A., and Barbara A. Lee. 2007. The law of higher education, student ed., 16, at 17.

30. See infra Part III. C. 2.

31. Zemsky, Robert. 2009. The don'ts of higher ed reform. Inside Higher Education, September 4. See also, Zemsky, Robert. 2009. Making reform work: The case for transforming American higher education. Rutgers University Press.

32. See idem.

33. The Morrill Act, 7 USC. §301 (1862).

34. Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, Pub. L. No. 78-346, 58 Stat. 28 (codified as amended).

35. Higher Education Act of 1965, 89 Pub. L. No. 329, 79 Stat. 1219 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 20 USC).

36. Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1; 20 USC. 1070a.

37. See supra notes 33–36 and accompanying text (listing examples of previous federal intervention in higher education).

38. Wildavsky, Ben. 2009. International studies: How America's mania for college rankings went global. Washington Monthly, September–October: at 30, 49.

39. For an analysis of the role of the European Union in GATS negotiations and the potential effect on the UK, see Birtwistle, Tim. 2006. Higher education and the general [lack of] agreement on trade in services: From Doha to Hong Kong and beyond. Education and the Law 18: 295.

40. The WTO originated in 1947 in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The agreement was designed to provide an international forum to encourage free trade between member states by regulating and reducing tariffs on traded goods and by providing a common mechanism for resolving trade disputes. There were originally 23 signatory states that sought to establish the International Trade Organization (ITO) as a specialized agency of the United Nations, but in 1948 the United States did not ratify the Havana Charter. Consequently, from 1948 until 1995 GATT was the only multilateral instrument governing world trade. See http://www.wto.org.

41. See Altbach, Philip. 2004. Higher education crosses borders. Change 36: 18.

43. See Terry, L. Implications, supra note 63, at 17.

44. See Terry, L. Implications, supra note 63, at 622.

45. See Terry, L. Implications, supra note 63, at 622.

46. See Terry, L. Implications, supra note 63, at 623.

47. H.R. Rep. No. 89-621, at 2 (1965).

48. Finkin, Matthew W. 1994. The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 89, 94–5.

49. Finkin, Matthew W. 1994. The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 97.

50. Ryan, Kerry A. 2008. Access assured: Restoring progressivity in the tax and spending programs for higher education. Seton Hall Law Review 38: 6.

51. Martin, Jeffrey C. 1994. Recent developments concerning accrediting agencies in postsecondary education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 121, 124.

52. Finkin, Matthew W. 1994. The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 89, at 137.

53. Finkin, Matthew W. 1994. The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 89, at 137.

54. Finkin, Matthew W. 1994. The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 89, at 20.

55. Finkin, Matthew W. 1994. The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 89, at 20.

56. Finkin, Matthew W. 1994. The unfolding tendency in the federal relationship to private accreditation in higher education. Law and Contemporary Problems 57: 89, at 20.

57. See Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). 2002. The fundamentals of accreditation 2–3, http://www.chea.org/pdf/fund_accred_20ques_02.pdf (accessed August 13, 2009).

58. See 20 USC. § 1099b (2008).

59. Michael, Douglas C. 1995. Federal agency use of audited self-regulation as a regulatory technique. Admininstrative Law Review 47: 171, 228.

60. See 20 USC. § 1099b (2008).

61. See for example, The Chronicle, January 28, 2010 re Missouri medical school ‘probation’

62. Paul Quinn College v. The Southern Ass'n of Colleges and Schools Comm'n on Colleges, Inc., No. 1-09-CV-2327 (N.D. Ga. August 26, 2009).

63. Congressional Research Service. 2008. A primer on the Higher Education Act (HEA) 2 (March 25) [hereinafter Primer]. The full list of amendments from the Congressional Research Service is: Higher Education Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 09-975); the Higher Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318); the Higher Education Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-482); the Higher Education Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-374); the Higher Education Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-498); the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-325); the Higher Education Amendments of 1998; the Higher Education Amendments of 2008 (P.L. 110-315).

64. Congressional Research Service. 1993. Institutional eligibility: The Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (September 21) (Summary) [hereinafter Institutional Eligibility].

65. Congressional Research Service. 1993. Institutional eligibility: The Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (September 21) (Summary) [hereinafter Institutional Eligibility].

66. Congressional Research Service. 2008 A primer on the Higher Education Act (HEA) 2 (March 25) [hereinafter Primer]. See the Higher Education Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 09-975); the Higher Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318); the Higher Education Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-482); the Higher Education Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-374); the Higher Education Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-498); the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (P.L. 102-325); the Higher Education Amendments of 1998; the Higher Education Amendments of 2008 (P.L. 110-315), at 16.

67. Congressional Research Service. 2008. The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 34 (September 8).

68. Congressional Research Service. 2008. The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 34 (September 8).

69. Congressional Research Service. 2008. The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 34 (September 8).

70. Congressional Research Service. 2008. The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 34 (September 8).

71. Congressional Research Service. 2008. The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 34 (September 8).

72. Sutton Trust. December 2006. University fundraising – An update, http://www.suttontrust.com (accessed February 3, 2010).

73. Gaston, P. 2010. The challenge of Bologna: What United States higher education has to learn from Europe, and why it matters that we learn it. Stylus Publishing (Virginia).

74. The language of the spending clause reads: ‘[t]he Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States’. US Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. Most commentators turn to the phrase ‘provide for … [the] general welfare’ as the constitutional basis for the power to spend. See Engdahl, David E. 1995. The basis of the spending power. Seattle University Law Review 18: 215, 216.

75. The provisions listing conditions to the receipt of different types of federal aid are codified in various sections of Title 20, Chapter 28 of the United States Code.

76. See Buckley v. Valeo [1976] 423 US 387, 391; Lawrence v. Lead-Deadwood School [1985] Dist. No. 40-1, 469 US 256, 269-70 (stating that ‘[i]t is far from a novel proposition that pursuant to its powers under the Spending Clause, Congress may impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds, absent some independent constitutional bar’.)

77. The Dole test has been applied in numerous subsequent Supreme Court and lower federal court decisions examining the limits of the federal spending power. See for example, New York v. United States [1992] 505 US 144; Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ. [1999] 526 US 629 (dissent); Arlington Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy [2006] 548 US 291; Pace v. Bogalusa City School Bd. [2005] 403 F.3d 272 (2005).

78. South Dakota v. Dole [1987] 483 US 203, 207.

79. South Dakota v. Dole [1987] 483 US 203, 207.

80. South Dakota v. Dole [1987] 483 US 203, 207.

81. Dole, 483 US, at 208. This aspect of the decision has been called into doubt by commentators who question allowing Congress to circumvent any restrictions on its regulatory power through unlimited spending power ability to regulate state activity. See Baker, Lynn A. 1995. Conditional federal spending after Lopez. Columbia Law Review 95: 1911, 1933.

82. South Dakota v. Dole [1987] 483 US 203, 210.

83. The clause states that Congress shall have the power to ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes’. US Constitution art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

84. Nowak, John E., and Ronald D. Rotunda. 2007. Principles of constitutional law 74 (3rd ed.).

85. Nowak, John E., and Ronald D. Rotunda. 2007. Principles of constitutional law 74 (3rd ed.), at 160.

86. Nowak, John E., and Ronald D. Rotunda. 2007. Principles of constitutional law 74 (3rd ed.), at 161.

87. See for example, Coyle v. Oklahoma [1911] 221 US 559; National League of Cities v. Usery [1976] 426 US 833; New York v. United States [1992] 505 US 144.

88. For examples of challenges to intervention with state and institutional autonomy, see Printz v. United States [1997] 521 US 898, 935 (explaining when state sovereignty prevents the implementation of a federal regulatory scheme: ‘The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a Federal regulatory program’.); Sweezy v. New Hampshire [1957] 354 US 234, 263 (delineating ‘the four essential freedoms’ of a university, including who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to the university).

89. See generally, United States v. Lopez [1995] 514 US 549.

90. United States v. Lopez [1995] 514 US 549.

91. United States v. Lopez [1995] 514 US 549, at 560.

92. United States v. Lopez [1995] 514 US 549, at 58–59.

93. In fact, the Lopez court found that the ‘business’ of elementary, middle and high schools classifies as economic or commercial activity. See Lopez, 514 US at 552. Courts have found that a diverse array of activity classifies as economic or commercial. See for example, Hodel v. Virgina Surface Min. and Reclamation Ass'n, Inc. [1981] 452 US 264 (intrastate coal mining); Perez v. United States [1971] 402 US 146 (intrastate extortionate credit transactions); Wickard v. Filburn [1942] 317 US 111 (consumption of homegrown wheat); US v. Bongiorno [1997] 106 F. 3d 1027 (payment of child support).

94. For examples of activities that courts have found to ‘substantially affect’ interstate commerce, see Gonzales v. Raich [2005] 545 US 1 (home-grown marijuana); United States v. Gregg [2000] 226 F. 3d 253 (interfering with the operation of reproductive health clinics); United States v. Jeronimo-Bautista [2005] 425 F. 3d 1266 (local production of child pornography).

95. Macerinskiene, Irena, and Birute Vaiksnoraite. 2006. The role of higher education to economic development. Vadyba/Management 2 (11): 82–3, 88–9.

96. An earlier line of cases challenging civil rights legislation that was justified under the commerce power suggested that discrimination in places such as restaurants and hotels substantially affected interstate commerce by inhibiting the free movement of persons among states. See Heart of Atlanta Hotel, Inc. v. United States [1964] 379 US 241; Katzenbach v. McClung [1964] 379 US 294.

97. See Pilkington, E. 2010. Tea but little sympathy for government as US movement gets ready for convention. The Guardian February 3.

98. See for example, Printz v. United States [1997] 521 US 898, 935 (explaining when state sovereignty prevents the implementation of a federal regulatory scheme: ‘The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a Federal regulatory program’.); Sweezy v. New Hampshire [1957] 354 US 234, 263 (delineating ‘the four essential freedoms’ of a university, including who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to the university).

99. The authors surveyed the state codes in Indiana, Utah, Minnesota, Alabama, Illinois and Montana to obtain a general idea of how higher education is treated statutorily by states. See, for example, Ala. Const. art. XIV; Ill. Const. art. X; Mont. Const. art. X; Minn. Const. art. XIII; Utah Const. art. X; Ind. Const. art. 8. See generally, Kaplin, William A., and Barbara A. Lee. 2007. The law of higher education, student ed., 24 (explaining the placement of higher education in state constitutions and statutory schemes).

100. See, for example, Ill. Const. art. X, § 2; Mont. Const. art. X, § 9; Utah Const. art. X, § 3; Minn. Stat. § 136F.06 (West 2003); Ind. Code § 21-18-6-1 (2007); Ill. Comp. Stat. 205/2 (West 2006); Ala. Code §16-5-8 (2001). See also McGuinness, Aims C. 2001. The Education Commission of the States, policy brief: Governance and coordination: Definitions and distinctions (December), http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/31/62/3162.htm (accessed August 10, 2009) (explaining the responsibility of a state governing or coordinating board).

101. 101. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Organization, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

102. See Armstrong, Walter P. Jr. 1991. A centennial history of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 16–19. White, James F. 1991. Ex Proprio Vigore. Michigan Law Review 89: 2096, 209.

103. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Organization, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

104. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Organization, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

105. See Rosenthal, Albert J. 1997. Uniform state laws: A discussion focused on revision of the Uniform Commercial Code Moderator. Oklahoma City University Law Review 22: 257. See also, 25 Ill. Comp. Stat. 135/5.07 (West 2006); Iowa Code § 5.1 (West 2003).

106. See Rosenthal, Albert J. 1997. Uniform state laws: A discussion focused on revision of the Uniform Commercial Code Moderator. Oklahoma City University Law Review 22: 257. See also, 25 Ill. Comp. Stat. 135/5.07 (West 2006); Iowa Code § 5.1 (West 2003).

107. See Rosenthal, Albert J. 1997. Uniform state laws: A discussion focused on revision of the Uniform Commercial Code Moderator. Oklahoma City University Law Review 22: 257. See also, 25 Ill. Comp. Stat. 135/5.07 (West 2006); Iowa Code § 5.1 (West 2003).

108. See Armstrong, Walter P. Jr. 1991. A centennial history of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 16–19. White, James F. 1991. Ex Proprio Vigore. Michigan Law Review 89: 2096, 209, at 2098.

109. See Armstrong, Walter P. Jr. 1991. A centennial history of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 16–19. White, James F. 1991. Ex Proprio Vigore. Michigan Law Review 89: 2096, 209, at 2098.

110. See Armstrong, Walter P. Jr. 1991. A centennial history of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 16–19. White, James F. 1991. Ex Proprio Vigore. Michigan Law Review 89: 2096, 209, at 2098.

111. See Armstrong, Walter P. Jr. 1991. A centennial history of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 16–19. White, James F. 1991. Ex Proprio Vigore. Michigan Law Review 89: 2096, 209, at 2103-4.

112. See Armstrong, Walter P. Jr. 1991. A centennial history of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 16–19. White, James F. 1991. Ex Proprio Vigore. Michigan Law Review 89: 2096, 209 at 2103-4. Acts adopted by more than 40 states include the UCC, the Uniform Partnership Act, the Uniform Acts of Controlled Substances, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

113. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009). See also, The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, New Project Proposals, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=42 (accessed August 10, 2009) (listing the criteria that the Scope and Program Committee uses to evaluate project proposals).

114. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009). See also, The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, New Project Proposals, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=42 (accessed August 10, 2009) (listing the criteria that the Scope and Program Committee uses to evaluate project proposals).

115. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

116. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

117. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

118. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

119. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

120. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

121. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

122. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

123. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009).

124. See The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Procedure, http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=&tabid=11 (accessed August 10, 2009). See also, Rosenthal, Albert J. 1997. Uniform state laws: A discussion focused on revision of the Uniform Commercial Code Moderator. Oklahoma City University Law Review 22: 266–71 (discussing issues that arise during the uniform law adoption process by individual state legislatures).

125. See Rosenthal, supra, at 262.

126. See Rosenthal, supra, at 262.

127. The American Law Institute, About the American Law Institute, http://www.ali.org/doc/thisIsALI.pdf (accessed August 10, 2009).

128. 128. The American Law Institute, About the American Law Institute, http://www.ali.org/doc/thisIsALI.pdf (accessed August 10, 2009).

Log in via your institution

Access through your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

Restore content access

Restore content access for purchases made as guest
Purchase options * Save for later
Routledge Revisited Collection USD 6.60 Add to cart
* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.