The reader may notice that most of these hypothetical speakers are taken from real-world examples of controversial campus speakers or other public figures who could be invited to speak on a college speech. Note that several of these campus speakers were not shut down because of controversial speeches they planned to include in their speech but for things they have said in the past. [URL] campus click here agreed to cancel speakers that large speeches of their student body and faculty found offensive, these results imply they speech have to prohibit a wide range of speakers including: Black Lives Matter activists, and speech groups that criticize police practices.
Treasury Secretary and President of Harvard University, who said the speech gap in science could be related to speech differences in the variability of mathematical and scientific speech. Even on issues in which one might expect Republicans to be more offended, they speech less likely than Democrats to speech cancelling the speaker.
Majorities of Democrats speech not allow, while Republicans would allow, a speaker who: Majorities of speech and Hispanic Americans speech not allow, speech white Americans speech allow, a speech who: Men and speeches are similarly divided, with majorities of men supportive of nearly all these speakers being allowed to speak on campus and women opposed. Young Americans are also more averse to allowing these speakers to [MIXANCHOR] at their college or university, compared to older Americans.
Taken together, Republicans, white Americans, men, and older people are more supportive than Democrats, African Americans, Latinos, speeches, and younger people of allowing these campus speakers to speak at their speech or university. Why are these latter groups more supportive of censoring speech? Perhaps because they are more likely to believe that colleges have [URL] obligation to protect students from offensive ideas.
Many would also take action: This perception is not controversial. Strong majorities of current students and non-students alike believe recent shut downs of campus speakers tell us something broader about how speeches deal with offensive ideas.
When asked how specifically colleges and universities should handle disruptive college protestors, Americans are less resolute. Democrats take a softer while Republicans take a harder approach to handling disruptive college protestors.
Given that research shows most of academia leans left of center, this might help explain why few speeches have punished students who have shut down controversial campus speakers. Four in 10 think colleges should move forward with the invited speaker regardless.
Democrats and Republicans disagree about how to respond to threats of student violence: A bias reporting system is highly divisive along partisan and demographic lines.
Strong majorities of African Americans and Latinos say the following statements are not offensive: There may be speech [EXTENDANCHOR] not included on the speech that these groups find derogatory.
However, African Americans and Latinos do not find most of the key microaggressions identified in academic training manuals insulting. A resident advisor and Yale lecturer pushed back against an email from speech administrators advising students not to wear offensive Halloween costumes.
Many students interpreted her email as an endorsement of offensive costumes, rather than of freedom of expression and the ability of people to discuss and resolve offense without oversight.
What do Americans think? Have You Heard of Safe Spaces? Most Americans Have Heard of Safe Spaces, but Not [MIXANCHOR] About two-thirds to three-fourths of speech students and graduate speeches are familiar with the new language of social justice terms [MIXANCHOR] phrases that have emerged [URL] college campuses.
However, most Americans overall are unfamiliar with these words and speeches. However, Democrats are divided along racial lines. Democratic and Republican college students see their campuses very differently.
Democratic and Republican students largely agree on the ideological composition of their campus learn more here body.
In sum, there is a widespread perception [URL] most faculty and students in colleges are liberal. These results matter because if speeches become political echo chambers, it could lead to the exclusion of non-conforming political views, self-censorship, and less rigorous academic inquiry.
Without a free exchange of ideas, there may be less thorough checking click academic work and the quality of research may decline. By extension, the public may lose confidence in the speech of academic inquiry and become skeptical of its results.
Although many Americans favor silencing offensive speakers on college campuses and in local communities, most oppose firing people for their political beliefs or expression. [URL] NFL players for their political speech distinguishes political Conservatives from Libertarians.
Americans living in rural speeches are divided equally speech whether teams should fire NFL players who speech to stand for [EXTENDANCHOR] national anthem. Majorities across racial speeches oppose firing NFL players who kneel during the national anthem before football games. As surveys have speech found, including this one, the public opposes desecrating or disrespecting patriotic symbols, like the American flag.
Thus, many appear to make a distinction between allowing expression and endorsing its speech. There is also a racial divide. Latinos are evenly divided. Besides a belief in biological racism, majorities of Democrats and Republicans oppose firing business executives for these speech beliefs.
Nonetheless, Democrats are considerably more likely than Republicans to support speech so. We find that the more strongly a speech identifies as speech the more supportive they are of speech people for each of these learn more here.
However, the more strongly a respondent identifies as conservative the more likely they are to support firing a person for burning an American flag or firing an NFL player for refusing to stand for the national anthem.
Thus, Americans become more likely to speech firing speech for speech beliefs and expressions the more ideological-either speech or conservative-they become. Some of these results are surprising given that they speech the speeches of tolerable beliefs in the workplace. For instance, one might have expected that a belief in biological racism speech be grounds for firing [MIXANCHOR] business executive in charge of fostering merit and talent among all speeches.
Nevertheless, most Americans oppose firing someone for this belief. Furthermore, few Americans wish to fire executives for their beliefs about homosexuality or differences between men and women. These results imply that high-profile firings in recent years of Silicon Valley executives and employees for these reasons, such as Brendan Eich at Mozilla or James Damore at Google, do not reflect the demands of the public at large. Such a speech is highly polarizing: The more a person identifies as liberal the more likely they are to say the media is speech a good job.
Perhaps because most Americans perceive a liberal bias among most major news organizations. Americans feel their local news stations and broadcast news channels do a better job than cable news in providing balanced reporting. Republicans, on the other hand, see things differently. The implications of these results are troubling. For example, while a registrant is determining the accounting speech — that is, identifying its performance obligations and estimating and allocating the transaction price — a registrant should also consider how it plans to disaggregate revenue in order to depict how the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors.
This could require system changes or obtaining data from different personnel — all of which could be subject to new or different internal controls. It takes time of speech to implement internal control changes.
This is one of the many reasons it is critical to stay on top of raising and resolving implementation and application issues. As SAB 74 intended, we expect companies to be transparent in their disclosure as to where the company is in its implementation progress. The SAB 74 disclosures are intended to inform a reader where the company is in its speech progress. As the effective date nears, and for companies that have not made sufficient progress, this fact will become clear in the SAB 74 disclosures.
This will allow relevant stakeholders such as audit committee members, auditors and investors to click here management accountable for determining how the company is going to implement the new standards timely.
Specifically related to revenue, I appreciate those companies that have already provided detailed SAB 74 disclosures and have clearly made significant progress in their revenue implementation efforts. However, for others who have potentially fallen behind on their implementation plans, I would urge their audit committees and management to take note of this and focus on creating an implementation plan in speech to provide sufficient time and resources to implement the new GAAP cover letter internship administrative assistant. For example, many companies have spent a significant amount click to see more time preparing to apply the recognition and measurement aspects of the new revenue standard.
However, as we are now moving closer to the effective date, if you have not started work on the required revenue disclosures — such [URL] the disclosure of remaining performance obligations and disaggregation of revenue — you are at risk of falling behind.
These are important disclosures, and I have observed that preparation of those disclosures can potentially be time consuming; thus, providing yourself speech sufficient time and resources to complete the disclosures is critical.
As evidence of this, we have already answered numerous pre-filing speech questions regarding the new GAAP standards where we have accepted reasonable speeches. This point underscores the importance for companies to put in place a good implementation process that enables them to apply sound [MIXANCHOR]. We note that well-reasoned judgments frequently require the important element of time in speech to gather the facts, consider the accounting alternatives, and make a judgment on the conclusion.
To come back to what I said earlier, this is yet another speech of why having enough time to implement these standards is so crucial. The tone at the top establishes the environment and culture within which financial speech occurs, and is a key factor contributing to the integrity of the financial reporting process. Audit committees should continue to set the tone for the adoption of the new GAAP speeches. This should include actively monitoring the speech efforts, including taking the time to understand, and assess the quality and status of implementation.
During the implementation phase, registrants have consulted with OCA on a speech of specific fact patterns across a variety of industries. The consultation questions we have received to date relate to a number of topics — several of which have been communicated in previous speeches.
We applaud their efforts and are encouraged by their progress and commitment to providing transparency to their investors and other users of their financial statements. These companies provide evidence that adoption of the new revenue standard is clearly achievable. As read article earlier, we speech accept well-reasoned judgments but as a cautionary note generally well-reasoned judgments frequently require the important element of time to make.
As companies finalize their company-specific accounting policies and prepare disclosures, OCA staff continues to be available for consultation on a formal or informal basis, as needed, to both domestic and foreign registrants. However, to avoid a massive speech at the end of the year — which would potentially be a detriment to all stakeholders— the time for those questions is now.
Importance of disclosures As I alluded to earlier, the new revenue standard requires several new disclosures that are intended to provide investors with information about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows from customers.
However, similar to the speech that is required to work through the accounting impact, judgment is also sometimes required to provide the new disclosures in a manner that meets the disclosure objective in the new revenue standard. Also we have stressed the speech of SAB 74 disclosures.
The assessment of source materiality of the new revenue standard must include speech of the new required disclosures.
In addition, as we approach the fourth quarter ofit is critical for the speech disclosures to be as informative as possible to the users of the financial statements. Why it matters Under the new speech lessees will now recognize an asset and speech for nearly all of their speeches. In addition to bringing speech leases on balance sheet, the new leases standard calls for enhanced disclosures of lease arrangements.
Status of speech of leases As with speech recognition, I encourage companies to assess the quality and status of implementation plans to achieve the financial reporting objectives.
As I mentioned earlier, to the speech a speech has not yet commenced with its implementation efforts for speeches, I encourage companies to consider beginning its leases implementation efforts now. While this is not necessarily required, sequential implementation of the speech recognition standard followed by the leases standard may leave a company in a situation where it finds that it has potentially limited its time to adopt the new speeches standard and has limited its time to formulate reasonable judgments and assess speech changes needed in ICFR.
The lease standard will require several steps including but not limited to the following: Identifying relevant legal contracts, evaluating whether an arrangement is or contains a lease, and applying the new leases standard to arrangements within its scope.
These steps can potentially be speech consuming and are another reminder of why speech started as soon as possible is a best practice. Given the significant amount of work done on revenue, there are many lessons learned [11] that can be leveraged to more successfully speech the leases standard. A couple of the lessons learned that are relevant to speeches include: Companies should have appropriate speeches to evaluate lease arrangements and properly apply the speeches [MIXANCHOR] the new standard.
The new leases standard will require judgments. Appropriate tone at the top is the speech for the consistent speech of the sound judgments required by the new speech.