1. Kim & Mullen. (1993). The spirit of the learning organization.C

1. Kim & Mullen. (1993). The spirit of the learning
organization.
Click https://thesystemsthinker.com/the-spirit-of-the-learning-
organization/ link to open resource.
2. TEDx Talks. (2013, June 26). Jumping the ingenuity gap:
Greg Galle at TEDxGrandRapids [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwWZkejhqjM&feature=yo
utu.be
Click https://youtu.be/wwWZkejhqjM link to open resource.
3. IFALOfficial. (2012, November 22). Action learning:
Introduction by Rev Revans [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bJ9RXkYPSU
Click https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bJ9RXkYPSU link to
open resource.
窗体顶端
Final Review Notes
I. Commercial speech
A. Advertising vs PR
B. Realty
1. Pitt Press v. Pitt Comm’n Human Rel. (1973)
a) Case
(1) Sex-designated help-wanted classifieds
(2) Employment discrimination illegal
b) SCOTUS decision
(1) Ads for illegal acts not allowed
(2) Suggested different result for legal act
(3) Noted newspaper could editorialize against the law
Acts legal in other states
2. Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
a) Case

(1) 1971 Charlottesville newspaper ad for legal abortion clinic
in NY; Editor arrested
(2) Abortion was legal in NY but illegal in VA
(3) Virginia Supreme Court upheld conviction, describing ad as
purely commercial in nature
b) SCOTUS
(1) Reversed VA decision 7-2
(2) Advertisement not stripped of all 1st Amendment protection
(3) This ad provided truthful, useful information of general
interest
(4) One state cannot assert control over interstate news and
publications
(5) Legal in state transaction would take place
Today’s rule
3. Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission
(1980)
a) Case
(1) Commission banned utilities from promoting use of
electricity by ads in order to conserve electricity
(2) They banned all ads of this nature, including those
promoting energy-efficient technology
b) SCOTUS
(1) Ban held unconstitutional
(2) Four-part test
(a) Ad must be truthful and for a legal activity
(b) Gov’t interest in regulating must be substantial
(c) Regulation must directly advance the asserted gov’t interest
(d) Regulation must be no more extensive than needed to
achieve the asserted gov’t interest
C. Nike, what's considered PR or advertising (gray area)
1. Nike v. Kasky & PR
a) Case
(1) Public Relations Campaign against Nike
From Doonesbury to opposite editorials
(2) Response by the company

Counter Campaign: Ads, letters
No Transactional Advs as part of Campaign
(3) Suit in California for false advertising
Not deceived into buying Nike products
b) Dismissal of certificate by United States Supreme Court
II. Corporate Speech
An Introduction
1st National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978): Case:
invalidated Mass. Law prohibiting corps from advertising to
influence voters, unless related to assets of the business
· Interest in flow of information re state graduated income tax
referendum
· Outgrowth of Buckley v. Valeo (1974)
· Later laws and campaign regulations develop
· For example: a later federal law prohibited any corporation (or
union) from making an “electioneering communication”
(broadcast ad reaching 50,000+) w/in 30 days of a primary or 60
days of election, or making any expenditure advocating the
election or defeat of a candidate at any time
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
a) Case
1) Conversation non-profit org. wanted to air a film critical of
Hillary Clinton & advertise it on TV shortly before the 2008
Dem. Primary.
2) The group challenged the federal regulation that prohibited
such speech by a corporation that close to an election
b) SCT: The Supreme Court ruled for the group
1) Court relied on principle established in Bellotti and other
cases that the Government may not suppress political speech
based on the speaker’s corporate identity
2) Concluded political speech, even by a corporation, is
“indispensable to decision making in a democracy”
3) Court ruled that independent expenditure limits were

unconstitutional because, unlike campaign contribution limits,
they fail to “serve any substantial government interest in
stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral
process
A. When can businesses spend business money to influence
politics?
1. Business can donate money to politician or cause as long as
they don't coordinate with any political campaign, etc
B. Another case, didn't understand name
C. Citizens United
1. Allowed corporate money to come flooding into realm of
political space
III. Speech by govt employees
A. Government v. Private Employees: (Public school counts as
govt)
Pickering v. Board of Ed. (1968)
a) What was at stake in the public debate over the bond issues?
Two losses at the polls; teacher’s letter published
b) SCT (8-1)
Public School teacher had a right to speak on issues of public
importance without being fired unless the teacher knowingly or
recklessly made false statements when he criticized school
funding decisions by the board & superintendent
B. Personal Concerns v. Public Policy Concerns:
Connick v. Myers (1983)
a) Case
1) Ass’t DA strongly objected to her transfer in private
conversations with her boss and the chief assistant district
attorney
2) She gave a questionnaire to fellow prosecutors asking about
their experience with the DA’s management practices… Fired.
b) SCT: SCT agree with firing (5-4)
Matters of personal, not public, concern…: Damaged the

harmonious relations necessary for efficient operation of the
office
C. Private v. Public concerns: (government as an employee?)
1. Waters v. Churchill (1994; 7-2)
a) Case
Public Hospital Nurse criticized superviosr to co-workers
b) SCT:
Not necessary to determine what the nurse said, as long as the
hospital reasonably thought her remarks would disrupt
operations, the firing was allowed
1) Plurality: when government acts as employer (not as a
sovereign) it has a lower obligation to respect constitutional
rights
2) Will this discourage whistleblowers?
3) Note: Nurse had been very local about her criticisms &
management had in the past accused her of
insubordination
2. Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006; 5-4)
a) Ass’t DA investigated the accuracy of a warrant affidavit: He
found serious misrepresentations & strongly recommended
dismissal of the prosecution in a memo and heated discussion
with his boss. He was overruled & the case proceeded
(1) He was called as a defense witness in the case and so
testified. Subsequently he claimed retaliation by the DA
b) SCT (5-4): rejected his claims
(1) Held he expressed himself as an employee, not as a citizen,
and it related to his work-product, not public policies;
therefore, no First Amendment protection
Bottom Line: Private Concern speech can be regulated as a
condition of employment; and with public concern speech the
courts will balance free speech interests with government
efficiency/needs as employer
IV. Govt grants

A. Government funding
Rust v. Sullivan (1991; 5-4) Title X Grantee
a) Case
Congress/HHS regs prohibited use of federal grants to family
planning/health care groups for any abortions or counseling
about abortion. Challenged by doctors and clinics
b) SCT
(1) The restrictions did not significantly impinge on the doctor-
patient relationship or 1st Amendment b/c funding recipients
remain free to speak as they wish outside the scope of the Gov’t
funded project.
This is not a case of the government suppressing a dangerous
idea, but of a prohibition on a project grantee or its employees
from engaging in activities outside of its scope."
“The Gov’t can, without violating the Constitution, selectively
fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be
in the public interest, without at the same time funding an
alternative program….In so doing
B. When is govt using grant making power to affect voting
process
1. Finley v. NEA (1998; 8-1)
a) Case: NEA established in 1965 to fund individual artists and
arts organizations
b) SCT: decency standards did not necessarily violate the 1st
Amendment right to free expression and not impermissibly
vague
(1) …the law merely added factors to the grant-making process
& did not state that all grants should be denied to applications
involving indecent or disrespectful art -- only required
“consideration” of the factors & did not prohibit indecent art.
C. Govt speech doctrine
1. Government Speech Doctrine: government does not infringe
free speech rights of individuals when it is not viewpoint
neutral in its own speech

a) That is, the government is the speaker, it may make content-
based choices; it can communicate an official message
b) Think Rust v. Sullivan (gov’t as the speaker), not Legal
service Corp v. Velazquez (2001, 5-4) (through gov’t-funded
legal services is similar to gov’t-funded doctors, the lawyers’
speech was held to be private speech b/c lawyers spoke on
behalf of their clients; therefore, gov’t could not prevent the
lawyers from filing constitutional suits against the gov’t).
D. Govt advertising
1. Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires… Uncle Sam Wants
You…E Pluribus Unum…I Love New York…
a) Controversial v. Non-Controversial: anti-drug campaigns,
social welfare programs, wars, agricultural techniques, public
health…
2. Federal government spends $1Billion or more on advertising
a year!
a) Concerns? Money (power); Size matters with bullhorns;
misrepresentation/manipulation of the marketplace of ideas;
compelled speech by people paying that bill.
b) Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn (2005)
(1) Case: Federal marketing of beef program assessed
mandatory fee on all cattle sales to be used by the Cattlemen’s
Beef Promotion and Research Board to market and promote beef
sales. Attributed to “America’s Beef Producers”; challenged by
one cattle producer
(2) SCT: upheld (6-3) by SCT as government speech.
Whose speech & beef?
Issue: Compelled Subsidy of Private Speech w/which some
producers disagreed? 1St Amendment violation?
Held to be gov’t speech b/c Secretary of Agriculture held to
have ultimate control over the message though the beef

board…appoints half & can remove all
No 1st Amendment right not to fund government speech even if
the funding is through targeted assessments (rather than through
general taxes) for to a program to which some assessed citizens
object
E. Government speech generally
1. Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate veterans
(2015)
a) SCT Court held LICENSE PLATES= government speech:
therefore, Gov’t can regulate content (b/c not private speech
under the 1st Amendment). Effectively upheld (5-4) the state’s
denial of a request to create a confederate flag license plate.
2. Pleasant Grove City v. Summun (2009; 9-0)
a) Case: City allowed privately donated monuments, including
one w/the 10 Commandments, on public property and then the
Summun church wanted to place its own statue (similar in size)
in the city park…City declined.
Held allowing some privately funded permanent monuments
erected in a public park while refusing to accept others = a
valid expression of governmental speech…Therefore, the
rejection of the Summun monument was NOT an
unconstitutional violation of 1st Amendment
Held a permanent monument is perceived by ordinary persons
to be government expression, unlike temporary displays or even
long-winded speakers at rallies in public parks.
3

Compendium
Full Legal Name
Trinity Western University
LDRS 310: Learning Organization
Hyne-Ju Huizenga, PhD (cand.)
September 15, 2020
1
Compendium
Name of Unit Resource
Start here.
Start here.
Start here.

References
Marquardt, M., Banks, S., Cauwelier, P., & Ng, C. (2018).
Optimizing the power of Action Learning: Real-time strategies
for developing leaders, building teams, and transformi ng
organizations (3rd ed.). Nicholas Brealey.
1
Compendium
Full Legal
Name
LDRS 310
:
Learning Organization
Hyne
-
Ju Huizenga, PhD (cand.)

September 15, 2020
1
Compendium
Full Legal Name
LDRS 310: Learning Organization
Hyne-Ju Huizenga, PhD (cand.)
September 15, 2020

1. Kim & Mullen. (1993). The spirit of the learning organization.C

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1. Kim & Mullen. (1993). The spirit of the learning organization.C

Similar to 1. Kim & Mullen. (1993). The spirit of the learning organization.C (20)

More from SantosConleyha

More from SantosConleyha (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1. Kim & Mullen. (1993). The spirit of the learning organization.C