Cyber-dissident held in secret for past month in Beijing

first_img June 2, 2021 Find out more China: Political commentator sentenced to eight months in prison ChinaAsia – Pacific Organisation RSF_en News December 10, 2002 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Cyber-dissident held in secret for past month in Beijing Receive email alerts ChinaAsia – Pacific Follow the news on China News Police have been holding psychology student Liu Di in secret for over amonth, since she urged Internet users to ignore the communist government’spropaganda and live in freedom. More than 30 other cyber-dissidents are inprison in China. Democracies need “reciprocity mechanism” to combat propaganda by authoritarian regimes China’s Cyber ​​Censorship Figures Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières) said today it was concerned about the physical treatment of a student, Liu Di (photo), who has been held secretly in Beijing for more than a month for posting on an Internet website articles criticising the grip of the Communist Party on Chinese society. She is already in poor health and is one of at least 32 cyber-dissidents being held in China, 16 of whom have been given prison sentences.The organisation called on the country’s new president, Hu Jintao, to end her detention in secret, which contravenes the article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed by China.Liu, a 22-year-old psychology student, was arrested on the Beijing University campus on 7 November, on the eve of the 16th Communist Party congress. Her family only learned she had been picked up when police arrived at their apartment and searched through her possessions, taking away her books, notes and computer.  Her parents took a change of clothes to the police station but were told they could not see her. There has been no news of her since then.The dissident organisation China Labor Watch, which found out she had been arrested, said the authorities had not confirmed she was being held but that police told one of her teachers she had been arrested because of her links with an “illegal organisation.” However her father said she had probably been detained because of her postings on the Internet.Under the pseudonym of The Stainless Steel Mouse, she had urged Internet users to “ignore government propaganda” and “live in freedom.” She also criticised the arrest of Huang Qi, the founder of a web site who has been in prison since 3 June 2000 for having posted online articles the authorities considered “subversive”. News March 12, 2021 Find out more April 27, 2021 Find out more News to go further Help by sharing this information last_img read more

Amazon v. Amway: Managing Conflicts and a Case for Balancing Safeguards (Part 1)

first_imgColumnsAmazon v. Amway: Managing Conflicts and a Case for Balancing Safeguards (Part 1) Eashan Ghosh & Afzal B. Khan8 Aug 2020 8:42 PMShare This – xSummary The Amazon v. Amway dispute before the Delhi High Court in January 2020 raised some fascinating legal conflicts. At its conclusion, the Court rejected Amway’s claim for an interim injunction, thus undercutting a detailed judgment in Amway’s favour by the court of first instance. Since the dispute implicated the high-profile direct selling and the e-commerce industries, the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginSummary The Amazon v. Amway dispute before the Delhi High Court in January 2020 raised some fascinating legal conflicts. At its conclusion, the Court rejected Amway’s claim for an interim injunction, thus undercutting a detailed judgment in Amway’s favour by the court of first instance. Since the dispute implicated the high-profile direct selling and the e-commerce industries, the outcome was bound to be a significant one. The decision is of considerable interest to Indian law, not least because direct selling and e-commerce frequently intersect at the same set of consumers. In this three-part essay, we attempt perhaps the most exhaustive discussion yet of the Amway cases. This discussion is in service of two contentions of our own. First, we suggest that, even though the frameworks regulating direct selling and e-commerce may run into conflict, the dividing line of legality under both is similar. It is drawn, under both frameworks, by safeguards to secure consumers against market hazards such as product impairment and enforcing warranties. This, we argue, is a balance already familiar to Indian law and can be imported across Indian legislation with little loss of effect. Second, we contend that this cross-disciplinary approach would be ideal for India. It would benefit direct sellers, permit e-commerce platforms to facilitate rather than interfere with online marketplaces, and, ultimately, promote better outcomes for consumers. §1 Introduction The industries of direct selling and e-commerce in India are undoubtedly on the upswing. Their momentum is, in large part, because the two industries are close complements in the Indian marketplace. A 2013-14 estimate valued the size of the Indian direct selling industry in excess of US$ 1.2 billion.[1] The Indian e-commerce market, meanwhile, has followed an even more expansive trajectory, and was reckoned in 2017 to be worth US$33 billion.[2] The challenge for Indian law enforcement is to keep up with this breathless growth. Run-ins between e-commerce and consumer protection law in particular have become more common in recent years.[3] It is, therefore, natural that legal attention has been diverted towards the direct selling industry. A whirl of recent legislative activity has attempted to legally ring-fence marketing, sale and distribution of products and services through a network of direct sellers. These have come to be popularly known under the umbrella expression “direct selling.”[4] In effect, direct selling shortens the traditional chain of distribution between sellers and purchasers. Instead of defined and sclerotic roles of producer and consumer, purchasers turn distributors through the exploitation of direct selling networks. These networks are then leveraged for advertising, for recommendations to other purchasers and, ultimately, for executing physical sales. In September 2016, a notification by the Indian Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution published the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016.[5] Though this is not the point of origin for Indian efforts to regulate the direct selling industry, it is a fine point of departure. The Direct Selling Guidelines (“the Guidelines” hereinafter) carry the promise of much-needed clarity of instruction to sellers in an increasingly crowded direct selling marketplace.[6] Notably, they contain strong restrictions on misleading, false or deceptive trade and recruiting practices. These bind not just direct selling entities in their interactions with existing or prospective direct sellers[7] but also these direct sellers themselves.[8] Two more provisions of the Guidelines call our attention at this time. Both are found under Clause 7 of the Guidelines, which appear under the marginal heading ‘conduct for the protection of the consumer’. Sub-clause (5) to Clause 7 binds direct selling entities to provide consumers upon purchase with information, including the name of the purchaser and seller, the delivery date of products or services, procedures for returning the products, and information regarding the warranty of the products and their exchange / replacement in case of defect.[9] Immediately following it, sub-clause (6) to Clause 7 states: “Any person who sells or offers for sale, including on an e-commerce platform / marketplace, any product or service of a direct selling entity must have prior written consent from the respective direct selling entity in order to undertake or solicit such sale or offer.” (emphasis added) The cumulative effect of these provisions is appreciable. They extend traditional consumer rights – such as privity and security of purchase, product information, return and warranty, and grievance redressal – to purchases made from the direct selling model. A second set of developments of note on this subject arrived in the latter half of 2019. This was marked by the signing into law of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, followed soon after by the publication of the Draft Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Rules, 2019.[10] This 2019 reboot of the Consumer Protection Act has limitations, but it does benefit from a clarity of purpose. Parliamentary discussions on the subject in July-August 2019 flagged the enforcement of consumer rights and, specifically, of recall, refund and return of faulty products as an important goal of the new Act.[11] They also deliberated in depth on whether, under this Act, consumers were adequately protected against damaged or deficient products especially from State service providers,[12] and whether stricter penalties should be introduced for supplying damaged or fake products.[13] There were also some misgivings over e-commerce platforms escaping liability for products purchased on their platforms,[14] and the need to secure the rights of consumers against them.[15] The latter point in particular would gain prominent billing in the Amway cases. Also of interest is the dedication in the 2019 Act of a robust substantive chapter to product liability actions, which can be initiated against product manufacturers (Section 83-84),[16] service providers (Section 83 and 85), or sellers (Section 83 and 86).[17] The extensive liability of product sellers under Section 86, in particular, piques our interest for two reasons. First, it covers an exceptionally broad range of acts by a product seller who is not a product manufacturer. This provision makes it plain it offers a cause of action to consumers specifically against third-party sellers. This is of tremendous significance in the direct selling industry as well as for transactions conducted on e-commerce platforms, since it offers consumers a recourse against an entity other than the manufacturer. Second, from a qualitative standpoint, it safeguards consumers from non-manufacturing faults in transactions concluded on an ‘as is where is’ basis. In fact, the provision makes explicit mention of post-manufacture product alterations and modifications, add-on warranties, and reasonable care in relation to product assembly, inspection and maintenance prior to sale.[18] Each of these are fashioned as grounds for consumers to initiate claims against product sellers. As we shall see, these grounds are not just intrinsically valuable to aggrieved consumers but they bring consumer claims at par with causes of action afforded to brand owners, trade mark proprietors and manufacturers against product sellers in trade mark law. Securing this parity is deeply significant. It permits consumers to independently move complaints for unsatisfactory purchases rather than having to rely on rightsholders to bring legal action against sellers of their products. With this legislative backdrop and with consumer protection considerations firmly in the foreground, we will now navigate through the key issues raised by the Amway cases in the rest of this essay. §2 The Amway Claims The Amway cases arose out of a thicket of lawsuits instituted by Amway India Enterprises and other direct selling entities against several e-commerce platforms and sellers. Of particular interest to us are seven suits instituted before the Delhi High Court: five instituted by Amway in September-October 2018,[19] and one each by Modicare and Oriflame in February 2019.[20] Since common questions arose, the suits were heard together by a Single Judge as the court of first instance, which ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs in July 2019.[21] On appeal, this ruling was partly set aside by a Division Bench in January 2020.[22] The dispute was driven by the direct selling entities. As Plaintiffs, they objected to the fact that several products originating from them or their authorized direct sellers were being advertised and offered for sale, without their authorization or consent, on various e-commerce platforms. It also emerged that the sale listings were being placed on the e-commerce platforms by independent sellers. Further, there were doubts about the condition of the products, if not their authenticity, at the point of final sale to consumers.[23] This automatically presented the direct selling entities with two potential causes of action. The first and most immediate was for clear violation of the Direct Selling Guidelines, most notably Clauses 7(5) and 7(6) detailed above. The second, interestingly, was for trade mark infringement. This option was opened up by the Plaintiffs’ contention that sales by third party sellers without their consent amounted to unauthorized use of the trade marks affixed by the Plaintiffs onto their products.[24] §3 The Question of Direct Seller Consent The first hurdle before the Amway Single Judge, therefore, was of the applicability of the Direct Selling Guidelines. The approach of the Single Judge in assessing the question was ideal in tone. It offered generous consideration for the special circumstances and contractual obligations baked into the direct selling industry. On the substance of whether the Guidelines would attach, the decision returned a clear finding. Notwithstanding their nomenclature, the Guidelines were seen to have all the trappings of a general statutory rule: one which was not merely advisory but had the force of law. As a result, the Single Judge entered a strong finding for the Plaintiffs in favour of the applicability of the Guidelines to these facts.[25] Its upshot was that e-commerce platforms would be bound by the consent requirement under Clause 7(6). The Division Bench, however, ruled in the opposite direction. It held that a Gazette notification, by itself, was insufficient to give the Guidelines the force of law. This, said the Court, was because the Guidelines themselves were not executive instructions supplementing the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, they had to be considered as advisory and not binding.[26] Even so, the Division Bench judgment acknowledged that, once notified, the Guidelines could create difficulties. Pointedly, the judgment identified that the written consent requirement – present in Clause 7(6) of the Guidelines and mirrored in Rule 8(6) of the Draft Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Rules, 2019 – may come into conflict with other elements of the Plaintiffs’ case under the Trade Marks Act and the Information Technology Act. Finally, the Division Bench expressed surprise that it was direct selling entities such as the Plaintiffs (rather than the government) that were seeking the enforcement of the Guidelines against third parties (rather than “against those who might be bound by” the Guidelines).[27] This is not just a terse treatment of the Guidelines but, in this context, it is also a false flag. Clause 7 of the Guidelines, very much at issue in these proceedings, illustrates the point. Sub-clause (5), we may recall, offers a cause of action to consumers against direct selling entities for violation of certain guarantees. Similarly, sub-clause (6) is specifically framed to strengthen the hand of direct selling entities to act against online sellers, to better guarantee genuine products and services to consumers. Nowhere in the architecture of these sub-clauses are there conditions restricting their applicability to specific categories of litigants. The characterization of the Guidelines by the Division Bench as being so restricted is therefore without foundation. In sum, the judgment is non-committal on the applicability of the Guidelines to future cases.[28] *** Eashan Ghosh is a practitioner and consultant specializing in Indian intellectual property law. He is the author of Imperfect Recollections: The Indian Supreme Court on Trade Mark Law, and writes about Indian intellectual property law at: https://medium.com/@eashanghosh. Afzal B. Khan is an advocate practicing in intellectual property law and commercial disputes before the Delhi High Court. [1] Hindu Business Line Bureau, “India’s Direct Selling Industry may reach Rs 64,500 cr by 2025: Report” . Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, “Report on Direct Selling Industry in India: April 2013”, available at [2] Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Debates: Official Report (Floor Version), 6 August 2019, Vol. 249, No. 34, p. 32, per Mr KC Ramamurthy, MP. [3] This is picked up in Part 2, §7 of this essay. See also Matrimony.com v. Google 2018 CompLR 101 (CCI) and Indigo Airlines v. KR Debbarma (2020) I CPJ 63 (SC). [4] Clause 1(6) of the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016, Section 2(13) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and Rule 2(1)(f) of the Draft Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Rules, 2019 each set out broadly ad idem definitions of “direct selling.” [5] The notification, identified under, envisioned these Direct Selling Guidelines being operationalized federally, and carried with it a request to state governments to “kindly take necessary action to implement” the Guidelines. Notification F No 21/18/2014-IT (Vol II): 09 September 2016, available at: [6] The 2016 Guidelines were welcomed by several voices in the direct selling industry, including by the CEO of Amway India. This latter fact would make Amway’s decision to sue multiple e-commerce platforms and direct sellers under its terms extremely apropos. The Hindu, “Centre Issues Model Guidelines on Direct Selling: 12 September 2016”, [7] Clause 3(7) of the Guidelines. [8] Clause 5(6) of the Guidelines. [9] These conditions are set out successively in Clauses 7(5)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Guidelines. [10] Notification F No J-10/1/2019-CPU: 11 November 2019, . However, what the Draft Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Rules offered in terms of endeavour, they lacked in originality. Key provisions of these Rules are identical in every respect to the Direct Selling Guidelines, 2016. [The point is borne out particularly starkly by Clauses 7(5) and 7(6), quoted above, which are identical to Draft Rules 8(5) and 8(6) of the 2019 Draft Rules.] This would be brought to the attention of the Amway Court on appeal, which conceded that the entire body of the 2019 Draft Rules “almost entirely replicates” the 2016 Guidelines. Thus, unfortunately, there is little to be parsed from a discussion of these Rules. Therefore, we proceed hereinafter with reference only to the Guidelines, secure in the knowledge that the 2019 Draft Rules mirror them every step of the way. This notification also circulated the Ministry’s Draft Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2019, which also contain several points of interest. However, since they were not directly at issue in the Amway cases, we have opted to make mention of them here and no further. [11] The pushback against this view, of course, was that it was uncertain whether the 2019 Act included enough procedural circuit-breakers to ensure that consumers would benefit from, rather than labour under, the consumer litigation process. Lok Sabha Parliamentary Debates, First Session: 30 July 2019, 17th Series, Vol. IV, p. 35-37, per Mr BDP Rao, MP, and p. 53, per Dr K Veeraswamy, MP. [12] See Lok Sabha Parliamentary Debates above, at p. 45-48, per Dr MKV Prasad, MP and p. 94-95, per Ms SS Sule, MP. [13] See Lok Sabha Parliamentary Debates above, at p. 40, per Dr GR Reddy, MP. [14] See Lok Sabha Parliamentary Debates above, at p. 49-50, per Dr MKV Prasad, MP, p. 78, per Mr SS Ulaka, MP, p. 96, per Ms SS Sule, MP, p. 111, per Mr AM Ariff, MP, and p. 126-127, per Mr PR Kumar, MP. See also Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Debates above, at p. 32, per Mr KC Ramamurthy, MP, p. 80, per Dr A Yagnik, MP. [15] See Lok Sabha Parliamentary Debates above, at p. 64, per Ms Pratima Mondal, MP. [16] The liability of product manufacturers includes critical grounds such as deviation from manufacturing specifications [Section 84(1)(c)] and failure of the product to conform to express warranties [Section 84(1)(d)]. [17] Ms Sarangi, MP, speaking in support of the legislation, described the inclusion of product liability claims as a “wonderful thing”. See Lok Sabha Parliamentary Debates above, at p. 104, per Ms A Sarangi, MP. [18] These grounds are set out in Sections 86(b), (c) and (e) respectively. [19] These suits were docketed as CS(OS) 410/2018 Amway v. 1MG (instituted 27 August 2018), CS (OS) 453/2018 Amway v. Adinath (14 September 2018), CS (OS) 480/2018 Amway v. Pioneering (26 September 2018), CS (OS) 531/2018 Amway v. Flipkart (16 October 2018), and CS (OS) 550/2018 Amway v. Bright Lifecare (29 October 2018). [20] These suits were CS (OS) 75/2019 Modicare v. Amazon Seller Services (05 February 2019) and CS (OS) 91/2019 Oriflame v. Dinender Jain/Amazon Seller Services (13 February 2019). [21] Amway India Enterprises v. 1MG Technologies 2019 (79) PTC 425 (Del). [22] Amazon Seller Services v. Amway India Enterprises 2020 (81) PTC 399 (Del)(DB). The underlying appeals were classified on the Delhi High Court docket as FAO(OS) 133/2019, 134/2019, 135/2019, 141/2019, 142/2019 and 157/2019. [23] The facts are captured in summary here, as they were the cause of much disagreement between the two Amway Courts. We introduce more relevant factual material during our discussion of the rulings in Part 2 of this essay. [24] The curiosity here arose not from the cause of action itself, which was perfectly valid, but from the framing of the Plaintiffs’ claim for relief. The Amway Division Bench would eventually conclude that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a case of trade mark infringement. See Note 22, at ¶102-107. [25] “The fact that the Guidelines have been in operation since 2016, the same having been repeatedly notified to e-commerce platforms, who have chosen not to challenge them and the broader public/consumer interest behind the said Guidelines sought to be safeguarded, persuade this Court to hold that they are binding in nature,” said the Single Judge. To find otherwise, she felt, would leave Direct Selling Entities “with no remedies to enforce a binding law.” See Note 21, at ¶173-174. See also Vestige Marketing v. Flipkart Internet (2020) I AD (Delhi) 568. [26] “The Plaintiffs appear to have jumped the gun in not waiting for the law to be formally made and enforced,” concluded the Court. See Note 22, at ¶88. [27] See Note 22, at ¶91. [28] However, it does recognize in passing the potential conflict between Clause 7(6) on one hand and the trade mark infringement defence under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 together with the accessibility of safe harbour classification to e-commerce platforms under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on the other. See Note 22, at ¶88. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Justice Department gives up Washington Redskins Name Fight

first_img Justice Department gives up Washington Redskins Name FightIL for www.theindianalawyer.comThe Justice Department is giving up the legal fight over the name of the Washington Redskins.In a letter to a federal appeals court, the department said last week’s Supreme Court decision in Matal v. Tam in favor of an Asian-American band calling itself the Slants means the NFL team will prevail in a legal battle to cancel the team’s trademarks because the name is disparaging to Native Americans.“Consistent with Tam, the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Pro-Football,” Mark Freeman, an attorney for the Justice Department’s civil division, wrote to the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.The Redskins case had been on hold in the federal appeals court while the Slants decision was rendered. The Supreme Court found that Simon Tam could trademark the Slants as the name of his Asian-American rock band because it would be unconstitutional for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to discriminate against it, citing the First Amendment’s free speech protection. The justices were unanimous in saying the 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights.Redskins’ owner Dan Snyder said last week he was “thrilled” by the Supreme Court’s ruling, and lawyer Lisa Blatt said it resolves the team’s dispute and vindicated its position. Snyder has refused to change the name despite intense public pressure, saying in the past that the name “represents honor, respect and pride” for Native Americans.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailSharelast_img read more

Bundesliga: Bayern clinch eighth straight title with Bremen win

first_img Read Also: Bundesliga: Awoniyi rules self out of Dortmund clash Germany goalkeeper Manuel Neuer pulled off a stunning finger-tip save in the 90th minute to deny Japan forward Yuya Osako, with Pizarro sliding in searching for a tap-in, as Bayern held on. The result means club stalwart Thomas Mueller now equals the league record of former Bayern great Franck Ribery with his ninth Bundesliga title FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Bayern Munich secured their eighth straight Bundesliga title on Tuesday as Robert Lewandowski’s first-half volley saw them claim a 1-0 win at Werder Bremen. Lewandowski has scored 31 league goals this season The Bavarian giants were confirmed German champions for the 30th time in the club’s proud history to maintain their iron-grip on the Bundesliga shield in recent years. Lewandowski struck two minutes before the break with a brilliant chest and low strike, but Bayern had to endure a nervy final 11 minutes after teenage left-back Alphonso Davies was sent off for a second yellow card. At the end of a first 45 minutes dominated by Bremen’s dogged defending and pouring rain, Bayern broke through when centre-back Jerome Boateng chipped over the top for Lewandowski to score. It was the Poland striker’s 31st league goal of the season, a career best, keeping him on course to be named the league’s top scorer for the fifth time. Head coach Hansi Flick landed the Bundesliga title in his first season in charge having stepped in when Niko Kovac was sacked last November. Even the coronavirus lockdown could not stop Bayern’s momentum, with the champions winning eight consecutive games in all competitions since the resumption of German football last month. Flick, assistant coach when Germany won the 2014 World Cup, could land the treble as Bayern face Bayer Leverkusen in the German Cup final on July 4 and hold a 3-0 first-leg lead over Chelsea in the Champions League last 16. The home defeat means Bremen, who are three points from guaranteed safety with two games left, badly need a result at fellow strugglers Mainz this Saturday or against Cologne at home on the final day of the season. This was Bayern’s 13th straight win in Bremen, but Florian Kohfeldt’s hosts worked tirelessly. Having given Bayern the lead, Lewandowski went chasing a second and had the ball in the net in the 54th minute but was flagged offside. Canada left-back Davies showed a lightning pair of heels by clocking 36.51km/h, which will be a Bundesliga record if the speed is confirmed, before his late dismissal. Having been shown a first-half yellow card for a foul on Leonardo Bittencourt, Davies was booked again for blocking the run of Milos Veljkovic. Bremen piled on the pressure in the final 10 minutes, with Boateng doing excellently to prevent a late cross from reaching Josh Sargent. Kohfeldt threw on strikers Niclas Fuellkrug and 41-year-old Claudio Pizarro, against his former club.center_img Loading…last_img read more

More USC students go abroad

first_imgThough a recent report indicated that the number of U.S. students traveling abroad declined during the 2008-2009 school year, this trend was not seen at USC.The “Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange,” an annual report that measures the number of students traveling outside the United States, was released last week by the Institute of International Education. Approximately 1,000 higher education institutions in the United States contributed to the report, including USC.This was the first time in 25 years that the numbers had decreased. The study found that from the 2007-2008 to the 2008-2009 school year, there was a decline of 0.8 percent in the number of students choosing to study abroad.Peggy Blumenthal, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the institute, said the economy played a large role in causing this decrease.“The serious economic challenges that American families and U.S. campuses were facing in 2008 certainly affected participation rates in study abroad that year,” Blumenthal said in an e-mail.At USC, however, the numbers have been increasing moderately since 2007.In the 2007-2008 academic year, the Open Doors survey reported that 1,931 USC students traveled abroad. In 2008 to 2009, the number rose to 2,348, making USC number five in the top institutions that sent students abroad.Stephen Bucher, chair of the Off-Campus Studies Panel committee and director of the Engineering Writing Program at the Viterbi School of Engineering, said there are three main reasons why the study abroad numbers have been increasing at USC.“One is that the university leadership has made globalization one of the priorities of the university,” he said. “That has an effect on encouraging students and faculty to participate in these types of efforts.”The other two reasons, he said, are the innovative new study abroad programs that faculty are creating and the enthusiasm of the students.“For whatever reason, the students who come to USC tend to want to go abroad,” he said.Daniella Acuna, a junior majoring in international relations, will be studying abroad in Spain next spring.Acuna said she had always planned on studying abroad.“USC wants you to have a really full college experience and I think studying abroad is one of the best things you can do in college,” she said.Despite the slight national decrease in the number of students traveling abroad, Blumenthal said a fall 2010 survey conducted in cooperation with the Forum on Education Abroad indicated that the study abroad numbers are already beginning to rebound.“More than half of the campuses responding (55 percent) said they had seen an increase in the number of their students studying abroad in 2009-10 compared to the previous year,” she wrote.In addition, the Open Doors report also found that students are now choosing less traditional destinations for their time abroad.Four of the top five destinations  — the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and France — have witnessed declines in the number of exchange students over the past couple of years.However, the number of students traveling to China, the last of the top five countries, has increased steadily in the last two years.Bucher said this trend is also seen at USC.“The new programs that are being proposed tend to be in more non-traditional locations,” he said.Blumenthal said, however, that many students are still interested in studying in the more popular locations.“The U.S. continues to have strong educational ties to countries in Western Europe,” she wrote.Colleen Brosnan, a junior majoring in neuroscience and international relations, said she is planning on traveling abroad in Prague next fall.Brosnan said she traveled to China for the summer two years ago and thought about spending the semester there.“I considered going there for the whole semester, but I decided I wanted to go somewhere different,” she said. “I’ve heard really good things about it.”last_img read more

Behind Enemy Lines: Oregon Ducks

first_imgTo preview Saturday’s game against Oregon, the Daily Trojan spoke with associate sports editor Jarrid Denney of the Daily Emerald about things to watch for.Daily Trojan: Oregon has very much followed the USC template this season at the quarterback position, replacing Dakota Prukop with true freshman Justin Herbert. So far, Herbert has shined. Was the switch the right move and what do you make of Herbert thus far?Jarryd Denney: Oregon’s decision to switch to Herbert was most definitely the right move. Prukop was far from Oregon’s biggest problem; he threw eight touchdowns and just two interceptions in five games while boasting a 153.19 QB rating. But with losses piling up, Oregon needed to look to the future, and Herbert looks like a superstar in the making so far. Herbert has revitalized Oregon’s blur offense, and has the Ducks moving at a tempo that Prukop never reached this season. He is taking more shots downfield and using all of his playmakers. Since August, Oregon players have been talking about how special they thought Herbert could be, and how “catchable” of a ball he throws; it’s easy to see why now.D.T.: Some USC critics say Sam Darnold has saved Clay Helton’s job. How hot is Mark Helfrich’s seat, and can Herbert do for him what Darnold did for Helton?J.D.: After Oregon’s blowout loss at Washington State on Oct. 1, there was definitely a sense that Helfrich may not survive the season. Many Oregon fans felt like the offense had become stale, recruiting was lacking and that Helfrich simply wasn’t fit to be a head coach at major program. Since Herbert has taken over as Oregon’s starter, a lot of that speculation has disappeared. Herbert gives Duck fans something to be excited about; it helps that he grew up playing at Sheldon High School, less than 2 miles from Autzen Stadium. Along with Herbert, the Ducks are starting four freshmen offensive linemen, and their two most consistent defensive players are true freshman. Even if Oregon misses out on a bowl game, I think Helfrich’s job is safe for at least another season due to the potential that Herbert provides.D.T.: We’re so used to seeing Oregon as a national powerhouse. How strange and frustrating has this season been?J.D.: It has been very strange to see Oregon collapse this quickly. Fans in Eugene have become so accustomed to seeing the Ducks run up the scoreboard, and there’s a sense that this simply isn’t the same program that it was when Chip Kelly was running the show. It was apparent early in the year that Oregon’s defense was inexperienced and simply not very good. But issues on the offensive end have been much more alarming. Oregon superstars Royce Freeman and Darren Carrington haven’t put up numbers this year, and the offense looked really, really slow at the start of the year. Herbert has alleviated a lot of the early frustration, but a lot of Oregon fans still see this as a lost season.D.T.: Aside from Herbert, who are some key players to watch for from OregonJ.D.: Reserve running back Tony Brooks-James has been fantastic for the Ducks over the past two weeks and ran for 132 yards on just nine carries last Saturday. Just 5-foot-9, 185 pounds, Brooks-James is beginning to remind Oregon fans of former Duck great LaMichael James. He hasn’t taken the starting spot from Royce Freeman yet, but with Freeman struggling of late, it may not be long before he does. Freshman linebacker Troy Dye has been Oregon’s most consistent tackler this year, albeit while struggling a bit in the passing game, and is the Ducks’ best playmaker on defense. Redshirt junior cornerback Tyree Robinson returned an interception 84 yards last weekend and is a dangerous playmaker in the secondary.D.T.: Final score prediction and why?J.D.: Final score: USC 49, Oregon 35While Oregon looked much improved last week, its run defense is still abysmal and Ronald Jones is going to have a field day. The Ducks don’t have a player who is capable of covering JuJu Smith-Schuster and he won’t have any trouble getting open deep. Herbert will continue to show flashes of brilliance during his first game in a truly hostile environment, but it doesn’t matter how well he plays if Oregon can’t get the USC offense off the field.last_img read more

Monday Night Preview: Houston Texans at Pittsburgh Steelers

first_imgMike Tomlin watches from the sidelines in the first quarter of an NFL football game against the Cleveland Browns, Sunday, Oct. 12, 2014, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/David Richard)At 3-3, the Steelers are in a must win situation on Monday night as they enter a tough three game home stretch vs. the Houston Texans.Houston is a much improved team and has a very strong defense that is capable of disrupting the Steelers offense with ease. It won’t be an easy game on Monday night and should the Steelers fall to 3-4, their playoff hopes will take a serious hit along with it.Here are the Keys to A Steelers Victory:•    They must contain JJ Watt. Watt is the best defensive player in the league, capable of blocking passes, sacking the QB, stuffing the run and scoring touchdowns on big defensive plays. The Steelers will need to chip him, double him and do whatever they can to keep him as far away from the line of scrimmage as possible.2. The defense needs to stop Arian Foster and make Ryan Fitzpatrick beat them. Fitzpatrick has faced the Steelers in the past as a member of the Bengals but he’s not a big threat. It’s all about containing the run game.3. While it’s important to stop the run and force Fitzpatrick to throw, the black and gold can’t let Andre Johnson make the big plays. The secondary needs to keep him in front of them and hit him immediately after he catches the football.4. The Steelers’ offense must run the ball effectively. LeVeon Bell needs to go for 100 yards.Here are a Few Things to Watch:•    Big Ben-He’s had a few bad outings and I look for him to bounce back in a big way.  He will not let the team go down meekly again.2.  Martavis Bryant-I fully expect this kid to play this week and I believe he can be a true threat on 3rd down and red zone plays.3. Bryce McCain-He’s starting over Cortez Allen this week. How will the former Texan do?4. The fans-They’re growing antsy, how will they react if the team starts off slow?Mike Pelaia hosts the website Steel Nation Association www.steelnationassociation.com- Covering the Steelers and helping Children’s Hospital All Day Everyday. You can e-mail him at [email protected]last_img read more