Where is the Harvard University Police Department located?

The HUPD’s address is 1033 Massachusetts Avenue, Sixth Floor.  If you’re walking toward Central Square from the Holyoke Center, you’ll find the HUPD as you walk past the Crate and Barrel Furniture store. 

If you’re involved in an emergency, call 911 and you’ll be directed to the Cambridge Police Department or the Boston Police Department.  If you want to reach the HUPD directly, call (617) 495-1212. 

What types of crime does the Harvard University Police Department handle?

The HUPD handles the majority of crimes that happen on campus except for serious crimes like homicide.  About 95 percent of all crimes committed on campus involve property theft.  The HUPD still works with the Cambridge Police and Boston Police in most investigations though. 

What Should I do if I believe I’m being followed?

The Harvard University Police Department recommends that you trust your instincts.  If you suspect something is wrong, you’re probably right.  You can call a dispatcher using one of the phones on campus with a blue light.

You should also consider entering a public location like a restaurant or a heavily traveled part of campus.  The HUPD suggests that you program their phone number in your cell phone in case of an emergency. 

What should I do if I have lost a piece of property?

The Harvard University Police Department suggests you call the Property Custodian at (617) 495-1783.  The custodian will tell you if the lost property was turned in, and you can leave your contact information and description of the property for any future findings. 

What does the Harvard University Police Department suggest for scheduling a party?

The HUPD suggests that you visit the Office of Student Activities website or call the Dean’s Office at (49) 5-1558.  Remember, if you ever see anyone at a party who is very drunk, unconscious, and unresponsive, you need to call the HUPD right away at (617) 495-1212. 

What is the Alabama Judicial Building?

The building in Montgomery houses the Unified Judicial System, and the building is still referred to as the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building.  It houses the Supreme Court of Alabama, the Court of Civil Appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the State Law and Supreme Court Library.  Tourists are known to admire the state building’s neoclassical architecture. 

Glassroth v. Moore

The famous “Ten Commandments Case” involved the Alabama Judicial Building after Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court installed a 2 ½ ton monument of the Ten Commandments without notifying any of the other justices. 

A group of lawyers sued Chief Justice Moore because they claimed their clients may not receive fair hearings because of Moore’s personal religious beliefs.  The lawyers claimed that Moore’s actions violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution which calls for a direct separation of church and state. 

The case concerning the Alabama Judicial Building was eventually brought forth in front of U.S District Court Judge Myron Thompson and received a huge amount of media attention.  Myron ordered the removal of what he called “a religious sanctuary within the walls of a courthouse,” and the case was appealed by Moore. 

The case was affirmed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on July 1, 2003.  Moore continued to refuse taking down the monument at the Alabama Judicial Building, and he was eventually suspended as Chief Justice.  The justices ordered that the monument be removed on August 27, 2003, and Moore was removed from office due to ethics violations in November of 2003. 

Alabama Judicial Building Information

You can reach the separate Courts at the phone numbers below:

Supreme Court: 334-229-0700

Court of Civil Appeals: 334-229-0733

Court of Criminal Appeals: 334-229-0578

Administrative Office: 334-954-5000

A parochial school is a private school that is maintained by a religious body.  Elementary and secondary schools are the most common types of these religiously oriented schools, but some colleges qualify as well. 

Catholic schools are the most common types throughout the United States, and there are currently about 7,000 catholic schools across the nation according to the National Catholic Educational Association.  However, any school that includes religion in its curriculum is considered a parochial school. 

The teaching of religion is only allowed in a private parochial school because of landmark cases that mainly occurred throughout the 20^th century.  One of the most recent cases occurred in 2005, and some of these cases are described below. 

In 1948, McCollum v. Board of Education District 71 ruled that the use of a tax-supported school for the teaching of religion was unconstitutional.  The case occurred when people of differing faiths formed a group called the Champaign Council of Religious Education and offered voluntary religious education to students during regular school hours.  Students who did not wish to receive the education were sent to another part of the school. 

In 1962, Engel v. Vitale ruled that allowing a short prayer at the start of the school day that referenced God was unconstitutional.  The reference to God was nondenominational, but the fact that the New York school approved the prayer meant the school approved religion.  The case was particularly important because it was the first case that attempted to eliminate prayer from public schools completely. 

Abington School District v. Schempp came to trial because the school district in Pennsylvania made students read at least ten bible verses before school started and recite the Lord’s Prayer.  Students had the option to excuse themselves from the religious activities with a signed note from their parents, but the court still ruled the activities were unconstitutional because the school violated the establishment clause. 

Lemon v. Kurtzman was one of the most important cases concerning funding to a parochial school.  The case addressed statute in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that offered financial support to non-public schools.  Ultimately, the Court found concluded that funding to a parochial school would entangle the government with religion. 

In 1992, Lee v. Weisman ruled that prayer at a public graduation ceremony was unconstitutional.  The case was brought to the Supreme Court when Daniel Weisman filed a temporary restraining order against a rabbi that was scheduled to deliver a nondenominational prayer at a graduation ceremony.  The restraining order was initially denied, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Weisman. 

One of the most recent cases involved the teaching of intelligent design versus evolution in public schools.  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was brought to court because the school district required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution.  The statement concluded that Darwin’s theory was in fact a theory and still had gaps.  The statement then referred students to a textbook on intelligent design called Of Pandas and People.  The court eventually ruled in favor of science faculty members who thought the statements were unconstitutional. 

Iron Arrow Honor Society

The Iron Arrow Honor Society is an association based at the University of Miami. Founded in 1926 as an all-male organization, the Iron Arrow Honor Society had a sister organization for women from 1936 to 1966. In that year, the sister organization chose to end its affiliation with the Iron Arrow Honor Society.

In 1972, Title IX was passed by the United States Congress. The goal of this legislation was to end discrimination on the basis of women. Title IX stated that no educational institution or entity receiving federal funding was allowed to deny anyone admission on the basis of gender. In 1974, regulations were issued to standardize implementation of this law. In 1976, the University of Miami was notified by the federal government that the Iron Arrow Honor Society was in violation of the law and therefore could not receive money from the school.

The University of Miami asked the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare for time to establish new membership protocols. The Department agreed as long as the Iron Arrow Honor Society performed its initiation ceremony off-campus. Formerly, this initiation took place on a mound located outside the student union building. The Iron Arrow Honor Society then filed a lawsuit against the University seeking an injunction that would prevent the school from moving the initiation ceremony.

The case was heard in Florida district court, which ruled in favor of the school. The Iron Arrow Honor Society appealed the verdict, which was then reversed. A series of rulings brought the case to the Supreme Court, which sent it back down for further review before issuing its final ruling. In the interim, the university informed the Iron Arrow Honor Society that it would not be permitted on campus regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling unless women were admitted into the organization.

In hearing the case for the final time, the Supreme Court had to consider the issue of whether it could issue a ruling in a case which seemed to have already reached a conclusion. The University argued that since their decision about the Iron Arrow Honor Society was already made, there was no point in a further Supreme Court ruling. In an appeals court hearing, a split opinion concluded that it was still possible for the courts to order the University to take additional actions, such as forcing the Iron Arrow Honor Society to quit using its name.

However, the Supreme Court declined to issue any such instructions, as did the courts below it. The case therefore was closed without further legal action. Two years later, the Iron Arrow Honor Society decided to allow women to join the organization. The University of Miami therefore permitted the Iron Arrow Honor Society to resume operation on campus. There have been no subsequent legal developments concerning the activities of the Iron Arrow Honor Society, which admits roughly 30 people a year.

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is an nonprofit organization founded in 1867 concerned with helping rural American families. The major focus of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is on issues related to agriculture. The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry describes itself as a non-political organization. There are four tiers of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, which operates on a community, county or district, state and national level. The organization regularly conducts fundraising activities to assist in the implementation of local projects.

The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry has been involved with a number of legislative and practical initiatives throughout its history. One of its current priorities is addressing problems with the Independent Patient Advisory Board, which is in charge of finding ways to reduce the cost of Medicare. The position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is that this federal board has been granted excessive authority and is likely to result in the loss of rural jobs in the medical industry.

Another current priority of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is reforming the US Postal System. Currently, the US Postal System is experiencing financial difficulties primarily due to a large decrease in the amount of physical mail sent. The position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is that immediate reforms are needed in the operation of the Postal Service, which is vital as both an employer in rural areas and a provider of mail to rural residents.

Another current priority of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is to agitate for open auctions of spectrum frequencies used for wireless technology. The position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry is that open auctions should be held soon by the Federal Communications Commission, which must also implement strict guidelines to avoid favoritism and ensure that the highest possible sale price is obtained. This is important to The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, which is concerned with providing greater access to high-speed wireless technology to rural areas.

Another current priority of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry concerns the regulation of pesticides used against mosquitoes and other flying insects, to control aquatic pests and weeds, and those used in the control of forest canopy pests. The passage of a new law amending the already in effect Clean Water Act has created requirements for compliance which many states will be unable to prepare for in time. It is the position of The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry that Congress must pass legislation to amend the Clean Water Act to protect farms from large fines.

National Collegiate Athletic Association

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (commonly abbreviated NCAA) is a private non-profit organization which organizes intercollegiate athletics in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1905, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has been involved in several controversial lawsuits.

 One major case involving the National Collegiate Athletic Association occurred in the 1984 Supreme Court case of NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma. The case concerned the right of member universities of the NCAA to negotiate their own television contracts concerning the broadcast of college football games. In 1953, the National Collegiate Athletic Association created a Football Television Committee whose purpose was to negotiate the broadcast of collegiate football games. This committee restricted the number of games of each school which could be broadcast, as well as stipulating that the proceeds generated by advertising revenue during these broadcasts would be split between the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the colleges in question.

Due to dissatisfaction with the terms negotiated and imposed by the Football Television Committee, several major football programs formed their own alternative organization, named the College Football Association, which proceeded to negotiate a new contract for its member schools with the NBC television network. The National Collegiate Athletic Association announced in response that schools participating in this contract would face sanctions in all of their sports programs. As a result, the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma district court with the purpose of obtaining an injunction preventing such punitive actions.

After a series of lower court hearings, the case was argued before the Supreme Court in March of 1984. A ruling was issued in June of that year in favor of the College Football Association. In its majority ruling, the court that the actions taken by the National Collegiate Athletic Association constituted restrained its member schools for reasons that were not reasonable and which violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The National Collegiate Athletic Association argued in court that its actions were justifiable because they made college football programs more competitive. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this was not the case.

As a result of this ruling, the National Collegiate Athletic Association lost total control of television broadcast rights, allowing schools to negotiate fees for the broadcast of their games. An initial decline in revenue generated was soon reversed.

Another lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association concerning antitrust laws occurred in 2007, when several former student-athletes filed a lawsuit claiming that the organization's restrictions on athletes receiving full scholarships was a violation of the law. They argued that if this restriction was lifted, schools could be competitive in offering complete scholarships in athletes, benefitting both the students and the school programs. The court ruled in favor of the students, thereby placing an end to these restrictions. However, controversy is still widespread regarding the perceived unresponsiveness of the National Collegiate Athletic Association to member complaints.

The California Department of Real Estate (or Department of Real Estate, California, as it is sometimes called), is an organization devoted to protection of the consumers within the real estate markets of California. The California Department of Real Estate describes its own primary goals as helping to monitor and regulate the practices within the real estate markets of California; raising public awareness of issues within the real estate markets of California; and providing any necessary or important services to consumers as well as licensees of the Department of Real Estate, California.

The California Department of Real Estate indeed must spend a large amount of its resources and time in regulating those with a California real estate license, as well as issuing further such licenses to those who apply. A California real estate license is required for those who wish to act as real estate brokers and real estate salespeople within California. A California real estate license is also significant in that only those individuals who both show themselves to have the appropriate and necessary knowledge and who show themselves to have the proper character will receive such a California real estate license. In this way, the Department of Real Estate, California, is able to maintain some control on the real estate market of California in order to protect the consumers.