Law & Order (and spin-offs): Each episode follows the investigation of a crime (gathering evidence) and the subsequent prosecution in court, where lawyers and judges weigh facts and witness statements. The series consistently shows the process of building a case with hard evidence while also scrutinizing the credibility and motives of witnesses, mirroring the American business approach to resolving disputes.
Sacco and Vanzetti
The Sacco and Vanzetti trial had a profound influence on American perceptions of conflict resolution by exposing the limitations and vulnerabilities of the open hearing system when prejudice and social tensions are present.
Public Hearing as a Double-Edged Sword: The trial was highly public, with both defendants and accusers present, embodying the American expectation that justice is served through open hearings where all sides confront each other. However, the proceedings revealed how such openness could be compromised by widespread nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment, leading to a process where the accused were judged as much for their background and beliefs as for the actual evidence against them.
Exposure of Systemic Bias: The case became an emblem of injustice, demonstrating that even in a system designed for fairness through open confrontation, outcomes could be deeply affected by societal prejudice. The trial and its aftermath showed that “who you are and, in this instance, what you believe, has an enormous amount to do with how you’re treated by the judicial system”.
Catalyst for Reform and Debate: The public outcry and international attention the case generated led to calls for legal reforms, such as changes in Massachusetts law to allow the Supreme Court to review facts in death penalty cases, rather than only procedural matters. The trial forced Americans to confront foundational questions about equality, fairness, and the role of bias in conflict resolution.
Symbol of Ongoing Debate: Sacco and Vanzetti’s case turned into a rallying point for those seeking to combat injustice and prejudice, and it remains a touchstone in debates about the American justice system, open hearings, and the treatment of minorities and dissenters.
In summary, the Sacco and Vanzetti trial revealed both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the American approach to conflict resolution through open hearings, highlighting that true justice requires not only procedural openness but also vigilance against bias and prejudice within the system.
“that make us miserable”
June 16, 2025. Wall Street Journal. “Many of us feel compelled to say yes to things that make us miserable. Yes to work that is not our job. Yes to taking on jobs when we’re at home or on vacation. Yes to boring, unnecessary meetings or company dinners.”
Key Points: saying yes to unwanted tasks leads to unhappiness, while saying no, when done correctly, brings relief; evaluate requests by weighing their cost to you against the benefit to others before responding; base your “no” on personal principles, use empowered language, and reinforce with confident body language.
The author is Vanessa Patrick, associate dean of research and Bauer professor of marketing at the University of Houston’s C.T. Bauer College of Business. She is the author of “The Power of Saying No: The New Science of How to Say No That Puts You in Charge of Your Life.”
Some interesting comments on the article:
“Like so many things, it depends. In my experience, unless the corporate world has changed much more than I think it likely has, saying “no” to your boss is generally not a great career move.”
“Following this advice will result in getting you and your priorities fired! This article is written by an academic who clearly has no idea how large, fast organizations work. It’s incredibly arrogant to assume that one always knows the valid reason to do something that seems out of one’s lane. It assumes you work with the same knowledge/data as your boss. That’s rarely the case. The current environment is so ultra-competitive that missing even a slight competitive edge or event could mean the decisive difference. Do not listen to someone so entranced in academia (with tenure and no competition ) who is advising you to do.”
“I started reading this article, then quickly said, “No”.”
“The author clearly never worked at a consulting firm or any kind of matrix organization where there were many bosses with competing interests. However, she is publishing, and that’s important for academicians.”
“After moving 3 times in 4 years for my employer, he then asked me to move again after one year. Talked to my wife over the weekend and decided the family would stay while I listed conditions for accepting the move including weekend flights back home. On following Monday told the boss I would accept the assignment and handed him my written list of conditions. He said forget about it and asked me who he should give the assignment to. I stayed at the then current location for 6 years and moved to final location before retirement. Oh and got a another promotion along the way. Cannot just say no; must be strategic/political. Always do what is best for the company with caveats.”
both sides
“Let’s hear both sides of the story.” Emphasizes the importance of considering all perspectives—objective facts and subjective witness accounts—before making a decision.
“The jury is still out.”
“The jury is still out.” Indicates that a decision hasn’t been made yet because all evidence and arguments are still being considered.
“Have your day in court.”
“Have your day in court.” This phrase expresses the right and expectation to present one’s side of the story openly and directly before an impartial audience.
Zuverlässigkeit
The German term Zuverlässigkeit conveys the concept of reliability; ability to count on what has been promised. It is culturally significant because seen as a core personal and professional value in Germany.
“Air your grievances.”
“Air your grievances.” Encourages openly expressing complaints or accusations, typically in a forum where all parties are present.
“Tell it to my face.”
“Tell it to my face.” Demands that criticism or accusations be made directly, not behind someone’s back.