Davis Political Review Spring 2016 Publication by Angela Su

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

CONTENTS | SPRING 2016

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW 4

The Armenian Genocide: 100 Years of Denial

By Roland Baldwin

Saying “I Do” To Chinese Feminism

By Connie Kwong

Oil in the Gulf: Time to Explore Other Industries

By Mikaela Tenner

Mute Monetary Policy: Reexamining Global Growth

By Itamar Waksman

How Evolving Political Rhetoric Stifles Debate

By Eric Quintanar

The Plight of Secular Activists in Bangladesh

By Upamanyu Lahiri

A Brave New World: Perceptions of Terror in Media

By Cynthia Murillo 28 Faces of DPR

Cover design by Angela Su. 2

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

MASTHEAD EDITOR IN CHIEF ANGELA SU CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

CHIEF OF STAFF

JASON COX

CYNTHIA MURILLO

PUBLICITY CHAIR

DEVELOPMENT CHAIR

TANVI VARMA

KIANA OKHOVAT

EDITORIAL BOARD DANIELLE DAMPER

AIDAN COYNE

KAILEE DAHAN

COPY EDITOR

GRAPHIC DESIGN EDITOR

MAXINE MULVEY

BETTY ZHOU COLUMNISTS

CONNIE KWONG

MIKAELA TENNER

STAFF WRITERS MEGAN GRAMLICH YOAN VIVAS BARAJAS BEN MARCHMAN ANTONIO CASTILLO LAUREN JOHNSTON ERIC QUINTANAR

UPAMANYU LAHIRI ITAMAR WAKSMAN ROLAND BALDWIN MALENA HANSEN Layout design by Angela Su. DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: 100 YEARS OF DENIAL BY ROLAND BALDWIN

pril 24, 2016 marked the 101st anniversary of the Armenian genocide, during which over one million Armenians were systematically starved, executed, and marched to death in the Syrian Desert by the burgeoning Republic of Turkey. It was the first modern genocide in which a sovereign nation used deliberate and calculated measures to systematically exterminate a specific group of people, the methods of which would appear again during the 4

Holocaust. Furthermore, it was an atrocity that today is almost unanimously viewed as a tragedy, a massacre, and a mass killing; it is not, however, often called a genocide. In spite of the efforts of Armenian advocacy groups and protesters who demand that their governments and the government of Turkey recognize the Armenian Genocide as a genocide, fewer than two dozen countries have made their recognition official.

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

The present-day government of Turkey argues that the killings have been exaggerated, and that both Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks lost their lives in the turmoil of the First World War. Scholarly associations and universities, Turkish and otherwise, still continue to publish arguments questioning the Armenian Genocide, and although the American government annually acknowledges the mass killing of Armenians, no

American president has dared use the word ‘genocide’ in nearly thirty years. During the Armenian Genocide’s centennial memorial, Pope Francis referred to the event as the “first genocide of the twentieth century,” before admonishing the “complicit silence of others who simply stand by,” resulting in heated criticism from the government of Turkey. Their anger, however, was not brought on by Francis’ condemnation of the inaction of others, nor accusations of the slaughter of children and the infirm, but rather by his use of the word “genocide.” A century later, in nearby Sinjar, Iraq, the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been carrying out the systematic enslavement, killing, trafficking, and forced conversion of the Yazidi people. The victimization of the Yazidi people is driven particularly by their religious affiliations; Yazidis observe a unique, monotheistic faith apart but not so different from

the various Abrahamic faiths found in the region. ISIL’s ‘campaign’ to eliminate Yazidi culture and enslave Yazidi individuals has resulted in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of refugees. In many ways, the Yazidi and Armenian genocides are remarkably similar; both are the result of states who, enamored with the imperialist conquests of their ancestors, seek to destroy an ethnically and religiously foreign people and culture. The Armenian Genocide occurred in part because of a Turkish nationalist movement that sprung up during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, while the Yazidi Genocide has largely been rationalized by ISIL as a necessary step in recreating the Caliphates of the Islamic Golden Age. The reaction of the international community, however, could not be more different. The Yazidi Genocide has garnered worldwide condemnation. For instance, the United States, which has still not official-

ly recognized the Armenian Genocide, unanimously ratified a bill recognizing the genocide of the Yazidi people and has committed troops to Sinjar in hopes of stopping the killings, a move which has been viewed as a continuation of a policy of American interventionism in the Middle East. Governments throughout Europe and the Middle East, including Turkey, have created relief and refugee networks in hopes of stymying the killings, while groups dedicated to the acknowledgement and veneration of genocides have pushed for national governments not to simply call the killings a massacre or a slaughter, but a genocide. Genocide, the word, and the recognition and validation of that word, is of the utmost importance. It is among the most immediately identifiable and potent differences between the Yazidi Genocide and what Turks call the Armenian Massacres. It is what separates gas chambers in Auschwitz from smallpox blankets during the colonial period of Vermont, or the systematic slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda from the death quotas instituted by Maoist communists. The validity of a nation is what we talk about when we talk about genocide. To elaborate, the modern conception of government, particularly in the West, is based on the philosophies of individuals such as John Stuart Mill, who considered ideal government to be an entity that protects its constituents. This means that anybody, regardless of race, religion,

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

or creed, ought to be safe within the borders of a governed nation. For a government to systematically plan and carry out the subjugation or execution of its citizens, not due to any crime, but due to their culture, faith, or ethnicity is the antithesis of government. Governments are defined and empowered by a social contract; by individuals trading their personal freedoms and the investment of their time and energy into a state, with the state then obligated to provide protection. It is a philosophy that has existed in nearly every social, political, and even religious philosophy observed today. A state that reneges on this contract is necessarily invalidated as a state. The invalidation of statehood is among the driving forces behind demands for Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide; in addition to the hundreds of thousands of Armenian casualties, the genocide ended with nearly ninety percent of Armenia being incorporated into the Republic of Turkey. While it is unlikely, given the amount of time that has passed since the genocide, that an admission of genocide would completely invalidate the nation of Turkey, it could instigate serious consideration for compensatory action, extending even to the repatriation of historically Armenian lands. Many Armenians feel that only by admitting guilt can Turkey truly begin to make reparations for the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, the invalidation of statehood is why it is so important to acknowledge the 6

slaughter and trafficking of Yazidis as a genocide rather than a mass killing. Genocides imply the intent and forethought that damns legitimization of governments. ISIL, by enslaving and killing the very people that a government ought to protect, has failed as a state. To recognize the Yazidi Genocide is to recognize ISILâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s illegitimacy. It has failed to live up to the contract between citizens and governments and thus, no matter how much they strongarm their subjugates, they have failed to create an Islamic state; their crimes in no way resemble the conduct prescribed both by Islam or by any political theory of government. ISILâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dreams of creating a caliphate will never be realized, for today, nobody will validate an empire built on the backs of slaves, refugees, and the innocent dead. As governments continue to condemn the Yazidi Genocide, however, they are obligated to remember how only a century ago, in the midst of another gen-

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

ocide, the world stood silently by. Perhaps it is cynical, but the greatest difference between the Yazidi and Armenian genocides are political, figuring into how nations rise and induct themselves into the world community. Turkey presented themselves as a political and economic mediator between the East and the West; ISIL considers itself a state of violence that wishes only to conquer. It is easy to condemn belligerent, antagonistic groups such as ISIL. What is harder, and thus much more important, is standing up for victims of genocide even when it means alienating friends and allies. Genocide should not simply be a political tool. It should be a brand swiftly and decisively applied to nations that commit atrocities, so that it may be emblazoned into their histories for future generations to remember, and more importantly, to prevent such an act from happening again.â&#x2013;

With upwards of 500 views per day, advertising with DPR is a fantastic way to reach UC Davis students and community members. (See page 21 for details)

CONTACT DPRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Development Chair Kiana Okhovat at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

GENDER ISSUES ABROAD

SAYING “I DO” TO CHINESE FEMINISM BY CONNIE KWONG

hen’s the last time you can remember a makeup brand’s video advertisement going viral for making a feminist statement? Last April, Japanese cosmetic giant SK-II put out a four-minute documentary-style video titled “Marriage Market Takeover.” It addressed the national stigma against unmarried Chinese women in their late twenties. In China, these women are often referred to by the derogatory term “sheng nu” (“sheng” meaning “rotten”). “Sheng nu” roughly translates to “leftover women” in English. The term has been popularized by the state media and the AllChina Women’s Federation, a non-governmental organization with strong ties to the Chinese Communist Party. “Sheng nu” reflects China’s long history of conservative and patriarchal views on marriage and family structure – which include marrying and having children young. Representing one in five women between the ages of 25 and 29, these “leftover women” tend to be educated, ambitious in their careers, and residing in urban areas. These traits should be celebrated as examples of drive and independence, but are often 8

instead viewed as reflections of selfishness and undesirability. In China, men significantly outnumber women at a ratio of 1.8 men for every woman. This disparity is largely due to China’s one-child policy and the resulting prevalence of sex-selective abortions. Young women are being increasingly pressured to marry and have children in order to offset the sex imbalance, especially because the one-child policy has been replaced with a two-child policy as of January 1, 2016 . Choosing not to marry and reproduce by the age of 27 is likely to result in a Chinese woman being called a “yellowed pearl,” who has failed to do her part to improve society. SK-II’s “Marriage Market Takeover” video is part of the company’s “#ChangeDestiny” global women’s empowerment media campaign, and has already gained over 2 million views on YouTube and over 4,000 shares on the popular Chinese microblogging site Weibo. It contains scenes of so-called “marriage markets,” in which Chinese parents gather in public parks holding pictures and profiles of their sons and daughters in hopes of finding a match. This

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

practice may seem bizarre to the non-Chinese eye, but marriage markets are a common sight in China. The video also captures the cultural importance of the tight-knit Chinese family unit by emphasizing how invested parents are in their children’s futures—in this case, their daughter’s marital futures. One young woman’s father even quips, “If she really can’t find the one, it will be a heart disease for me.” Nevertheless, the video’s objective is to highlight how young Chinese women are fighting against repressive norms and proudly declaring that they do not need a husband to be happy. It depicts the women’s parents eventually accepting their daughters’ personal freedoms and respecting their choice to not marry young. This is revolutionary in Chinese society—a society that is deeply rooted in tradition, especially when it comes to the importance of obeying one’s parents. Despite the wellwarranted positive reactions to this campaign, leftover women should not be the sole concern of Chinese feminism. Their experiences are not representative of all Chinese women, married or not.

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

But since marriage is an especially salient issue to the Chinese feminist movement, we ought to consider the experiences of Chinese women as well. It’s true that the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s led to some reforms in which women achieved greater legal equality. For instance, the Marriage Law of 1950 granted women property rights and put an end to arranged marriages. But while leftover women are often shunned for being too careerfocused, married Chinese women face different struggles in pursuing their economic livelihoods. Take the example of homeownership. China is the largest real estate market in the world, making homeownership arguably the most valuable investment and greatest means for economic mobility in the country. According to Leta Hong Fincher’s book, Leftover Women: The Resurgence of Gender Inequality in China, 51.7% of Chinese homes’ property deeds are in the husband’s name, while only 13.2% are in the wife’s. Only 25% are

jointly under both spouse’s names. These statistics evidence patriarchal norms; for instance, that women require men to own a house before marriage. Moreover, it’s frowned upon for women to appear greedy, so many leave their names off the deeds. These practices come with financially tangible consequences. 70 to 90% of women in major urban centers contribute assets to financing marital homes, but their investments don’t count because there’s no legal documentation. Under the 2011 Marriage Law, in the event of divorce, if both parties are unable to reach an agreement on the division of property, each side is entitled to keep whatever property is registered in his or her own name. Despite the supposed gender neutrality of this law, the consequences clearly aren’t neutral if so many women’s names are not listed on the deed, making it difficult for them to prove that they contributed to financing the home. As more Chinese marriages end in divorce, the issue of

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

property rights will continue to create significant problems for these women. Of course, even without divorce, the social codes that discourage married women from claiming ownership for their contributions are clearly wrong. In fact, Fincher’s book also points out that prior to the wedding, many engaged women choose to give up homeownership claims for the sake of not being left at the altar – in other words, choosing to forsake financial empowerment, and possibly even true love, lest one become a leftover woman. We cannot, in good faith, claim that women’s equality is achieved simply because the word of law says so. De facto sexist norms police women’s everyday actions, and formal institutions are greatly limited in their ability to correct these problems. Women’s empowerment means achieving social equity, both in terms of equal legal treatment and ownership of a respected and dignified place in society. SK-II’s media campaign is a positive presence in this effort, but it’s only one battle in a much bigger fight. Ending sexism means changing sociocultural norms, and this applies to married and unmarried women alike. As China’s economic and political development take off, the world will take note of its successes or failures to promote gender equality.■

PRINT ADVERTISING

WEB ADVERTISING

Single Issue Advertisement:

Box ad (250 pixels x 250 pixels):

•

Quarter-page: $25

•

2 weeks: $50

•

Half-page: $45

•

1 month: $85

•

Full-page: $65

•

3 months: $250

Multi-Issue Advertisement: •

Quarter-page: $45

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

OIL IN THE GULF: TIME TO EXPLORE NEW INDUSTRIES BY MIKAELA TENNER

ith the wars and revolutions that have plagued the Middle East over the last decades, many countries in the region have been struggling to find economic and political stability. However, six of the Middle Eastern states located on the Persian Gulf, frequently termed the “Gulf States,” currently have some of the highest GDP per capita rates in the world. While their counterparts lag far behind, six of the Gulf States currently rank within the world’s 35 highest GDP per capita earners, comparable with Western countries including the United States, 12

France, and Israel. The reason for their great economic success is simple; these Gulf States have plentiful oil that they sell to the rest of the world. However, as oil reserves begin to be depleted, and the price of oil drops, these states must figure out how to support their economies in the absence of this resource. The oil industry within the Gulf was developed relatively recently. Oil was not even discovered in the region until 1911, and was initially owned by foreign companies rather than the Gulf States themselves. In 1932, when the Anglo-Persian Oil

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

Company, who supplied much of Britain’s oil, had their contract revoked by the Iranian government, the British set out missions in the region to find new sources of oil. After the discovery of oil across the Gulf, foreign entities ran the oil trade until the 1970s, so it was not until after this time that the Gulf States began to benefit from the revenues that it brought. Today, on average, oil makes up over 80% of the Gulf State revenues. Currently, most projects in Gulf States are funded almost exclusively by state revenue budgets. This essentially means

that any project to support and build their infrastructure - whether it be building highways, malls, or skyscrapers - depends upon a budget that relies almost exclusively on the oil industry. Many of the Gulf States today look exactly how one may imagine an extraordinarily wealthy country to look; luxurious cars, huge malls, and enormous skyscrapers tower over cities like Dubai, and Abu Dhabi. As the oil industry has skyrocketed, these six Gulf States have spent in excess each year: further developing their cities, producing more consumer products, and constantly adding to their cities’ already towering skyline. Although their government spending appears to show no signs of slowing down, one thing that is projected to slow down are their excessive government revenues. Over the past year, oil prices have dropped, and economists reckon that just last year, this drop took $340 billion out of the revenue of the Gulf States. With oil prices continuing to drop further, if government spending does not fall, all of the Gulf States are projected to fall into debt during 2017. With the expected drop in prices, and their depleting oil supply, Gulf State leaders are faced with figuring out how to support their economy despite the expected loss in oil revenue. With an economy so reliant on one particular resource, changing the economy so much could potentially plunge these states into economic instability, so it would be wise for the leaders to explore other options slowly and careful-

ly. One of the more promising avenues that has been explored is the possibility of expanding the financial sectors in these countries to make them comparable with countries with major stock exchanges. Currently, only nine stock exchanges exist in the entire world, and are based in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, Hong Kong, and Japan, With the absence of an international stock exchange in the Middle East, this opens the possibility for one of the Gulf States to explore opening one. In June of 2015, Saudi Arabia became the first of these states to open up their national stock market to foreign direct investment. Being one of the more prominent nations amongst the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia’s move could indicate that the other states may take similar steps to expand their financial sector in the future. However, the Saudi market still has a ways to go before becoming a successful stock exchange. One of the primary roadblocks in the Saudi market expansion is that many of the regulatory laws that govern markets in other countries currently do not exist in Saudi Arabia. For example, currently the Saudi market is not part of an index, which will compare the Saudi rates to rates around the globe. By joining an index, the Saudi market would have the potential to increase by close to $400 billion, according to economists. Yet another issue with the current market is that only licensed professionals are allowed to trade, rather than the

general public. By doing so, the Saudi market has been limited to only those professionally licensed to trade, and those who can afford to pay a professional to trade for them. Their market could potentially become more significant if they opened their regulatory laws to allow the general public to trade. According to economists, further improvements must also be made to Saudi companies themselves in order to attract foreign investment. Currently, there is a very limited range in what Saudi companies produce, so by varying their market, they will likely attract more foreign attention. Any economy that is almost solely dependent upon one product is clearly in danger of financial collapse. Although the oil industry has been incredibly profitable in recent years, it is dangerous for the Gulf States to continue to balance their state revenue nearly entirely on a single industry. Not only are oil prices expected to decrease in the coming year, but if the Western world’s shift towards more environmentally friendly production continues, then there will be less demand for oil than ever before. In order to become as economically viable as many Western countries, it would be wise for the Gulf States to exploit their financial markets, and work on expanding this industry within their own countries. Although the Gulf States currently appear to be living in luxury, with the instability of the oil industry, this luxury could soon be depleted.■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

MUTE MONETARY POLICY

REEXAMINING GLOBAL GROWTH How should the developed world stimulate economic growth?

BY ITAMAR WAKSMAN

his past January, the Bank of Japan – the nation’s central bank – adopted a new policy: negative interest rates. The bank did this in the hopes of finally reinvigorating its longtime stagnant economy. In a 5-4 vote, the Monetary Policy Board of the BOJ set the bank’s discount rate - the rate of interest they charge commercial banks for borrowing – at negative 0.10%. This move came one and a half years after the European Central Bank first began experimenting with negative interest rates in an effort to stimulate inflation and economic growth. Negative interest rates are a relatively unfamiliar concept to the average person. Interest is the cost of borrowing money from a

bank. The typical borrower is accustomed to paying a positive interest rate to a bank every time they take out a loan. Negative interest rates seem counterintuitive: why would a central bank actually pay commercial banks to borrow money? The reality is that central banks are not paying commercial banks to borrow from them. Rather, they are charging commercial banks for holding excess reserves in their balance sheets, with the hope of dis-incentivizing banks from holding onto these reserves and instead incentivizing increased commercial lending. Until these recent changes, negative interest rates were thought to be an unthinkable policy approach in modern central banking. Even John Maynard

Keynes, father of modern Keynesian Economics, believed negative interest rates to be too difficult to administer. Many economists also believed that setting a negative bank rate would force banks to pass on reserve charges to their customers, incentivizing people to hold onto their wealth in cash. This would reduce the amount of money in the banking system and, in turn, would raise interest rates and further deflate the currency. However, despite these valid concerns, the various policymakers of the BOJ and ECB found themselves in a desperate situation. Years of deflation, stagnant growth, and endemic unemployment have forced central banks throughout

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

the developed world into an unprecedented long-term struggle to stimulate economic growth. Following the 2008 Global Recession, central banks throughout the developed world had to find innovative ways to stimulate growth. As growth became negative and citizens began losing jobs, economists called on institutions to take measures to stimulate the economy. The economic consensus was two-pronged: governments would have to enact fiscal stimulus through deficit spending while central banks would lower interest rates and buy bonds, freeing capital for increased borrowing and investment. But as central banks enacted inflationary monetary policy, they noticed that states were not doing their part. In the United States, the stimulus was weakened by Republican lawmakers opposed to increasing deficit spending. In Europe, austerity hawks dominated politics, forcing budget cuts throughout the Eurozone, especially in debt-ridden states like Greece and Spain. This left the full mandate of economic stimulus on central banks, forcing them towards extreme policy. Interest rates were set at historic, near zero lows, in conjunction with Quantitative Easing, the injection of trillions of dollars of liquidity into the banking system through massive bond-buying programs. Eight years after the financial crisis, the results have been mixed. GDP growth has greatly improved throughout the developed world, employment 16

has increased, and economic activity has begun to stabilize. But there have also been several endemic problems during the economic recovery. In Europe, the Euro risks falling into deflation, and unemployment remains at 10.2%. The United States finds itself with labor force participation that has still not recovered as

been unwilling to lend to a large portion of lower-income Americans due to memories of the 2008 meltdown, easy credit has made buying assets considerably easier for the wealthy individuals, furthering the divide between the rich and the poor. These economic factors h a ve c o n trib u te d to a n

well as stagnant wages. Japan continues to grapple with decades of weak consumption and borrowing beginning in its economic crisis during the 1990s. On a more general basis, income inequality, while already on a positive trajectory before the recession, has been greatly exacerbated, with record corporate profits being coupled with a continuously weakening middle class. An asset bubble has grown, with housing prices growing 17% in the last three years throughout the United States, with prices in desirable cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles increasing by as much as 46.6% and 28.4%, respectively. While banks have

atmosphere of increasing political discontent and social problems manifesting itself in different ways throughout the developed world. It was economic fragility and fiscal irresponsibility that initially sparked both the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements in the United States. While both of these movements had vastly different aims and bases, they demonstrated the broad, across the aisle dissatisfaction in American society during the recovery. When these movements floundered, their energies were rechanneled into this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s presidential election, with disaffected citizens coming out in support of two

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

radically different outsider candidates: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. In Europe, austerity precipitated the rise of extreme-left parties like Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, parties that rejected sharp budget cuts imposed on them by European authorities. Now, with the advent of the refugee crisis due to insta-

have been so far unable to find a reasonable response. It is clear that citizens in the developed world find the policy status-quo unsatisfactory. Developed societies demand true reform in order to improve their situation. People want economic gains to be distributed more inclusively in order to give each in-

bility in the Middle East and North Africa, far-right parties have gained political power throughout continental Europe, even forming a government in Poland. Japan finds itself with a nationalist prime minister in power who hopes to revive their military aspirations. The inflated yen has failed to stimulate borrowing and consumption, especially with the imposition of an increased consumption tax. The hope that came with “Abenomics,” Shinzo Abe’s bold plan to spur new economic growth, has clearly dimmed. The very concept of liberalism and inclusion is at risk within the developed world and policy makers

dividual a chance at a better future. For this to happen, institutions need to make selfadjustments. The state must first take the burden of economic stimulus away from central banks and return it to legislatures. Governments throughout the developed world must commit themselves to economic stimulus, regardless of party orthodoxy. This should be done through a focused effort on increasing infrastructure spending and an extension of social services to needy individuals. Infrastructure throughout the United States is crumbling. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the

United States needs an additional $3.6 trillion of spending to bring infrastructure back up to par. While this is an unrealistic number, it demonstrates an opportunity for smart investment in the nation. Infrastructure spending has the effect of stimulating the economy in two ways: by instantly creating thousands if not millions of jobs while simultaneously making the country more competitive and efficient. This increase in employment will force an increase in wages and consumption, finally driving the inflation the Federal Reserve has so desperately sought. And by extending social program spending and tax benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, the government can put more money into poor household’s pockets. American households will have more disposable income to invest in themselves, increasing their capabilities and quality of life. None of these policies can be enacted without appropriate changes in taxation policy or borrowing targets. It may be necessary to increase both top marginal tax rates and an already large sovereign debt, but this is acceptable if it is responsibly invested. Political systems must adapt themselves in order to accommodate the changing needs of citizens. Europe, North America, and East Asia all have the ability to reinvigorate their countries. What is yet to be seen is the political capital to commit to reform.■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

POLITICS OF LANGUAGE

HOW EVOLVING POLITICAL RHETORIC STIFLES DEBATE BY ERIC QUINTANAR

he idea that language is ever-changing is not a foreign one. Words become dated, adopt new meanings, or are replaced constantly. What is often not considered is that words that represent broader ideas, such as those found in politics, also undergo change. When confronted with a situation of political consequence, our response to the situation will differ depending on the denotation, and often unrealized connotation, of the word we choose to identify that situation with. It is thus of great importance that we understand the totality of ideas represented by the terms we use so profusely in politics. Failure to acknowledge the explicit and implicit definitions of these terms serves to impede political conversation. Consider classical Greece, the first civilization to develop a society that primarily sought to elevate the status of mankind over nature. The creation of activities and concepts such as theater, athletics, democracy, and citizenship all represented ideas which reinforced their humanistic approach to life. One such word in particular, ”barbarian”, was de18

veloped to distinguish between those who spoke Greek, and those that did not. The term did not contain (contrary to popular belief) the derogatory connotations we have come to associate it with. It simply meant someone who, since they did not understand the Greek language, was incapable of understanding Greek ideas and thus the Greek worldview. It was not until the establishment of the Roman Republic that the term “barbarian” became a way of alienating other cultures; cultures that the Romans believed, by their very existence, delegitimized their own. So, in an effort to assert their superiority over others, the Romans altered the term barbarian, already used to identify these other cultures, to mean “uncivil." The subsequent era of military expansionism was an effort to civilize the uncivil people surrounding their borders. Although “barbarian” is now a dated term, bringing to mind images of the Sack of Rome more so than 21st century armed forces, its history shows us a great deal about the capacity of language to convey ideas. With

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

this in mind, we can better assess a more colloquial word, “xenophobic." The term “xenophobic” was originally used to describe Sparta’s hostility toward foreigners, the ideas foreigners brought with them, and the fear of the instability that these ideas could bring to their society. It is not difficult to understand why the Spartans felt their world would be so easily threatened; their rigid social structure would be susceptible to collapse with the introduction of more appealing, foreign ideas. Given this, and presuming that the Spartans sought to preserve their way of life, few would say that Spartan xenophobia was irrational. Today, a Google search of the definition of the word “xenophobia” yields “[the] intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries," Prominent politicians such as Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are quick to crusade against the “xenophobia and racist rhetoric coming from [the Republican presidential field.]" When Sanders and others label political adversaries as xenophobic today, it is not to suggest that these

adversaries have a rational fear of immigrants not contributing to society, for example, but rather an irrational fear of an “inevitably” multicultural society. Any facts that can be used to support an anti-immigration stance are therefore deemed xenophobic. Thus, it is deemed xenophobic to say, as the Center for Immigration Studies has found, that the average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) receives $6,234 in federal benefits, compared to the average household headed by a native born resident receiving $4,431 in federal benefits; it would be deemed even more xenophobic to say that the average household headed by an immigrant from Central America or Mexico (legal or illegal) receives $8,251 in federal benefits. Many crusaders against xenophobia are quick to label such studies as “discredited” or “biased,” in order to avoid debating their findings. Indeed, even entertaining the possibility of these findings being accurate is enough to be accused of xenophobia, of irrationality. To be accused of irrationality, in turn, is to be distrusted, to call into question the validity of your participation in political conversation. This demonization of opposing viewpoints through implicit assumptions in the suffix “phobia,” an irrational fear, is rife in modern politics. An accusation of homophobia, for example, is enough to receive social sanctions from many members of the public sphere. Consider the late Justice Scalia’s dissent in Oberge-

fell v Hodges, which rendered gay marriage a constitutional right. “It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me … This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty … the freedom to govern themselves.” Few news outlets even attempted to refute his textualist interpretation; Vanity Fair called him “bitchy”, while Salon said he was “blinded by his own anti-gay bias.” Because the detractors to Scalia’s dissent viewed themselves as pro-gay, as good and rational, then Scalia’s audacity to disagree with the majority opinion was sufficient evidence to convince these detractors that Scalia was homophobic; that he was bad and irrational. The detractors argue that if Scalia had simply not been homophobic, he would have agreed with the court’s majority. But alas, Scalia’s entire argument and judicial philosophy was poisoned by accusations of homophobia; because a “homophobic” argument can never be a rational, sound argument. The idea that you can start with a word, and by the word’s desired implications determine whether opposition to an argument can

be valid is an exercise in folly. Yet, that is precisely how politics today functions. Similar to how the Romans used the term “barbarian” to rationalize their desire to expand their empire, contemporary politicians and their advocates have used the suffix “phobia” to rationalize their own agendas and stifle debate. The arrogance of these phobia-wielding frauds can not be understated; to be so confident in your own beliefs that you not only dismiss any argument contrary to your own as irrational, but attempt to take a moral high-ground while doing so, should be inconceivable to any truly rational imagination. Political discourse requires an honest discussion of policies. We need to increase our awareness of the intellectual dishonesty implicit in our modern language if we want to live in a society with a truly free exchange of ideas.■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

BANLGLADESH

THE PLIGHT OF SECULAR ACTIVISTS In Bangladesh, advocating for secularism comes with a price on your head.

BY UPAMANYU LAHIRI

ast month in Bangladesh, yet another liberal, secular activist was allegedly murdered by Islamists. Nazimuddin Samad, 28, was a postgraduate law student and member of the Ganajagan Mancha, an organization advocating for secularism in Bangladesh. A Bangladesh native, Samad regularly criticized religion and Islamic fundamentalism via Facebook and other media. He was attacked with machetes as he 20

was on his way back from classes at his university in the capital city of Dhaka. People on the street allegedly heard the attackers shouting “Allahu Akbar” – Arabic for “God is greatest” – as they fled. This event was followed a few days later by the murders of Reazaul Karim Siddique, Julhas Mannan and Tanay Majumder, in a similar manner. Rezaul Karim Siddique was a college professor who espoused liberal values while

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

Julhas Mannan and Tanay Majumder were gay rights activists. Julhas Mannan was the editor of Roopaban, Bangladesh’s first magazine for the LGBT community. He had organized the gay pride “Rainbow Rally” in the capital Dhaka on April 14, 2015 on the day of the Bengali New Year. These attacks are unfortunately the latest in a series of attacks on liberal, secular activists and freethinkers in the

Muslim-majority South Asian nation. Bangladesh is officially secular but has seen a growing Islamist movement in recent years. Just last year, five secular activists, including Avijit Roy, a naturalized American citizen, were murdered in similar attacks and there were unsuccessful attempts on several other individuals. Ironically, the current wave of attacks began in 2013, when the youth and netizens of the country led a massive movement against the growing religious fundamentalism in the country. Among other things, they demanded the restoration of secularism, stricter punishment for war criminals from the country’s War of Independence from Pakistan in 1971, and a ban on the Jamaat-e-Islami, the country’s largest Islamist party, from politics. The protests were a huge success and for over a month, thousands of people gathered at the capital’s Shahbagh Square, holding peaceful rallies, demonstrations and hunger strikes. According to reports in the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star, the police also joined the protesters. Estimates vary, but according to The Guardian, at the height of the movement, anywhere between 100 thousand to a staggering 500 thousand people gathered at Shahbagh, far outnumbering the number of protesters at the Occupy Wall Street protests in the United States a year earlier. This was particularly surprising, coming from a conservative and deeply religious country like Bangladesh and was noted in capitals across the globe.

On the night of Feb. 15, 2013, at the height of the Shahbagh Movement, atheist blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider was found dead near his home, his body mutilated with machete stab wounds. Haider’s blogs criticized religious fundamentalism and were instrumental in igniting the Shahbagh Movement. His murder, occurring as it did at the height of the growing movement, sparked widespread outrage, particularly among the protesters and served to only strengthen the movement across Bangladesh. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited Haider’s family and promised action against the perpetrators. Just a month before, fellow blogger Asif Mohiuddin was similarly attacked by four men outside his house. An avowed atheist like Haider, Mohiuddin’s online articles strongly criticized religion making him a target for fundamentalists. He had previously won the International Bobs award for online activism in 2012. Although badly injured, Mohiuddin survived the attack, but not without consequences. In response to the Shahbagh protests, the Islamists including the Jamaat-e-Islami and others like the Hefazat-e-Islam began violent demonstrations of their own, demanding arrests of the ‘blasphemous’ atheist bloggers. Unlike the Shahbagh protesters, they resorted to violence, vandalism and attacks on people and property across the country. Several people were injured and some killed in the ensuing violence. In March 2013, bowing to the thuggish violence, the

‘secular’ Bangladesh government shut down Mohiuddin’s blog. In April, just three months after his attack, he and other secular bloggers were arrested for their ‘blasphemous’ posts on religion. His attackers, who were arrested, were incarcerated in the same prison as him. Chillingly, he claims he met them in jail and they promised to attack him again once they were out of prison. Responding to international pressure and criticism over curbing free speech, he was released a few months later. Following his release and fearing continued threats to his life, he emigrated to Germany where he continues his activism. On 7th March of the same year, Sunnayur Rahman, another atheist blogger was attacked. Rahman and Mohiuddin survived, but others wouldn’t be so lucky. On Nov. 15, 2014, Shaiful Islam, a professor in the sociology department in Rajshahi University in northwestern Bangladesh, was attacked in a similar fashion and killed. Unlike the bloggers, Shaiful Islam wasn’t an atheist. According to Al Jazeera, he did not permit female students to wear the burqa (full-face veil) in his classes as he felt this could be used to cheat in exams. 2015 was one of the worst years on record for prominent freethinkers in the country. No less than five secular bloggers and publishers were murdered in the same brazen way and several more were attacked. The pattern of the attacks was all too similar almost to the point of being identical. Every time, a group of men

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

would attack the victim on the street with machetes before quickly fleeing the scene. This made it obvious, if it wasn’t already, that the murders were part of a planned conspiracy. A shadowy extremist group calling itself the Ansarullah Bangla Team, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, claimed responsibility for the attacks and promised to carry out more. The group allegedly also had links to the Jamaat-e-Islami, the country’s largest Islamist party. Among those killed was Avijit Roy, a prominent activist, writer and blogger who had founded MuktoMona, the largest online site for freethinkers, secularists and humanists in Bengali. A naturalized American citizen, Roy had been living in the United States for over a decade and was on a visit to his home country when murdered. The fact that Roy was an American citizen brought some much needed international attention to the plight of secular activists in the country. UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice and the government to protect freedom of expression. British Bangladeshi author and columnist Tahmina Anam, in an article in the New York Times, described blogging as a “dangerous profession in Bangladesh”. The Bangladesh government was widely criticized for not doing enough to bring the attackers to justice and providing security to bloggers who were at risk and in some cases like Mohiuddin’s, even imprisoning them for “blasphemy.” None of this criticism stopped 22

the wave of attacks which continued unabated. In fact, the extremists have now widened their net from just atheist bloggers to anyone who espouses liberal values in the country as evidenced by the

murder of gay rights activist Julhas Mannan last month. Perhaps one of the most chilling events last year was when Ansarullah Bangla Team put out a hit list of secular bloggers now in Europe and North America, whom they labelled “enemies of Islam.” Fearing for their lives, many of the bloggers had fled to Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. The group vowed to find them and kill them wherever they may be and urged others to do the same. This horrifying attempt to effectively outsource murder shockingly (or perhaps not so shockingly) invited no action from the government. So what can the United States and rest of the world do? We could grant these activists asylum for one. But as the hit list prepared by the Ansarullah extremist group shows, even then they might not be safe. Besides, it raises another question. People like Avijit Roy, Asif Mohiuddin, Julhas Mannan are needed now more than ever to challenge the growing strain of extremism in the country. If these secular activists, gay rights advocates and other liberal voices are forced to flee the country, then who will fight to stop Bangladesh’s slide into religious fundamentalism? Clearly something more needs to be done than just granting asylum to these activists. But

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

unfortunately, very little more can be done apart from urging the government to take action against the perpetrators of these atrocities. It would be hypocritical of the United States to impose any human rights related sanctions on Bangladesh while it continues to support Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Gulf states which execute and publicly lash dissenters and bloggers and have abysmal human rights records. Besides, as woefully inept as its response may have been, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government remains the only viable secular alternative in Bangladesh. The other alternative is the right-leaning Bangladesh Nationalist Party which allied with the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami to form the government in the 1990s and early 2000s. Liberal and secular voices were intimidated, attacked and killed during the BNP’s tenure, and its record on protecting religious minorities was far worse than the present regime. In the meantime, the people of Bangladesh remain the only hope in this struggle against the fundamentalists. The thousands who turned up at Shahbagh in 2013 and those who came out to protest the killings of Avijit Roy, Ahmed Rajib Haider and others give hope that the people stand with the slain bloggers and activists and will not be intimidated by theocrats. Not to mention the brave civil society activists who refuse to be intimidated into silence by the Islamists and continue to speak out against them at great risk to their own lives.■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

MEDIA

A BRAVE NEW WORLD: PERCEPTIONS OF TERROR IN MEDIA BY CYNTHIA MURILLO

errorism has become a common and very frequent headline on almost every media source, increasing international awareness and calling for deeper attention to it. People care about their safety and citizens naturally want national security to be tightened and increased as they sense the urgency and threats from terrorist attacks as reported by media. Nowadays, technology and innovation allow 24

us to learn about and see events happening on the other side of the world as they unfold, serving as an immediate way of communicating information. There is no doubt that the media has a huge influence on sentiments towards terrorism and support for stricter and more militaryoriented U.S. foreign policies, as its sensationalist reporting can often be described as fearmongering. But to what extent

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

does this media coverage provide unbiased, neutral, and fair reporting on all terror attacks? Another concern arises from the widening gap in coverage between terror attacks in Western countries and terror attacks in non-Western countries, specifically in the Middle East. To eradicate terrorism and its spread, it is essential to give equal attention and unbiased reporting to all countries, as skewed journalism significantly

influences the perception of and the legislative response to the global issues surrounding terrorism. Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World , written in 1931 , aims to teach readers how repetitive actions of mind manipulation and conditioning can result in a controlled society where things are accepted without question. This fictional novel describes a world where people are discouraged to think critically and are given information to shape their roles and actions in society. Media coverage can often be selective and biased, and when this bias becomes the norm, it becomes a dangerously effective tool of influence on the public. Frequency and depth of media coverage matter and the disproportional difference in the reporting of attacks in the Middle East compared to those in Western countries plays a key role in the way people are being conditioned to think and act. Ultimately, it is citizens who have the power to pressure governments into taking specific actions, and when fast journalism misleads by omitting information, it is detrimental to counter-terrorism initiatives. Most of the major terror attacks that are underreported occur in non-Western countries, especially in the Middle East, and instead more focus is given to attacks in Western countries. One of the most recent and clear examples is the series of attacks in France which received unprecedented media coverage and global support. While the world’s at-

tention was completely focused on the events that were unfolding in Paris on Nov. 13, 2015, media coverage of the attacks, a day earlier, in Beirut and Baghdad, was stagnant in comparison. The world was in awe and complete shock after learning about the deaths of innocent civilians in the Paris attacks, while it forgot about the innocent who died in Beirut and Baghdad, which did not receive the same social commotion. A research study by Sean Darling-Hammond, a lawyer based in Washington, DC, shows that on the day of the respective attacks, “there were only 392 articles online about the attack in Baghdad and 1,292 articles about the attack in Beirut. But on the day of the Paris attack, there were over 21,000.” Social media sites started their own solidarity campaigns in support of the victims of the Paris attacks, as was seen by the numerous hashtags and by the profile filter on Facebook showing support for France.

However, Beirut and Baghdad’s flags were not widely spread all over social media, nor were their stories covered in the same frequency and depth. So, why does this matter? The role of media has become increasingly important in a technology-driven world. Social media is a tool used by the terrorists themselves, in the form of videos or messages, to recruit followers and to further instill fear on the public because they have seen its powerful influence. Critics often blame social media for feeding terrorism and for aiding their purposes of spreading fear and of compelling followers. Although media can have a negative effect and can be used in malicious ways, at the same time, the information that media transmits to people has become pivotal to the subsequent reactions, sensitivity, and pressure on political leaders to act. Media and communication are very powerful tools, but they need to be used wisely and

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

properly for them to actually have positive effects in society. Western countries’ attacks that do not result in losses in life often still receive more coverage than the deadly attacks in non-Western countries. For example, in August of last year, there was a train attack in Oignies, France, which resulted in no deaths but still received wider attention and coverage than attacks in Yemen. It was particularly highlighted that three U.S. nationals and a British national heroically stopped the armed Moroccan national, thus avoiding what could have been a huge massacre. Furthermore, even when there is coverage of attacks in non-Western countries, the focus tends to turn to the casualties of Western citizens such as headlines that read “British national among four killed in Kabul suicide car bomb” when the number of Afghans killed is greater. On the other hand, it is rare to see headlines, as evidenced by the attacks in Paris, where a national of a nonWestern country is the focus of concern and empathy. Because we rely so heavily on media, when the attacks of certain groups are kept in darkness, the attacks on those groups persist. This unequal treatment by media sites is causing a growing political problem in which the awareness and empathy created from the horrors of these attacks is a privilege available only to some. The political implications of the skewed media coverage include the further spread of antiWestern sentiments, which is one 26

of the key factors feeding terrorism. When the victims from nonWestern countries realize the vulnerability of their position in the face of terrorism and how Western media tends to underreport them, they will undoubtedly blame the West for the lack of preventive action. Information is essential and necessary to inform and educate people about the dangers of terrorism as well as how widespread the effects of terror are on a global scale. However, if the information or knowledge that is presented to people is not representative of all of the attacks and victims in general, terrorism will only continue to grow and claim more victims. Smaller countries or countries with less political and economic power need help from the rest of the world to inform their citizens of the collective actions they can do to protect their countries, including putting pressure on their governments for protection. It is our responsibility as citizens to dig a little bit deeper below the sensationalist news and social media, in order to become aware of the entirety of the damage caused by terrorist attacks around the world. The difference between Huxley’s fictional world where people are conditioned to think one way by receiving partial information and our contemporary world is that we do have the power to think for ourselves. Huxley describes a world where people are heavily drugged to be kept under control and order, which decreases their capacity for critical thinking. It is our respon-

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

sibility as citizens, to start taking the kind of action that will help end terrorism by increasing awareness of every single affected spot regardless of its location or political importance. People need to become aware of the selective biases in media coverage and to develop their own critical thinking abilities to raise equal awareness of the global problems that terrorism imposes. Neither political scientists, economists, or national security specialists have come up yet with the single solution against terrorism. However, we do know that the way media coverage of the phenomenon has been handled is definitely not helping and certainly not the solution. Citizens need to be informed of what happens to be able to create the necessary pressure on their political leaders to act equally on behalf of all victims of terrorism in the world. Media and institutions must give equal coverage in frequency and depth to terrorism in nonWestern countries to start a movement that will end the terror, the fear, and the sense of vulnerability. This will be a movement in which non-Western countries must receive the necessary support and attention from the West to be able to tackle terrorism head-on.■

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

FACES OF DPR Aidan Coyne is a fourth-year Political Science and Economics double major from Walnut Creek, CA, and the National Section Editor for DPR. Antonio Castillo is a second-year History major from Oakland, CA and a State Staff Writer for DPR. Angela Su is a second-year Economics and English double major from Santa Clara, CA and the Editor-in-Chief of DPR. Ben Marchman is a fourth-year International Relations major from La Crescenta, CA, and an International Staff Writer for DPR. Betty Zhou is a third-year Design and Communications double major from Pleasanton, CA, and the Graphic Design Editor for DPR. Connie Kwong is a fourth-year International Relations and Economics double major and History minor from San Jose, CA, and the author of DPRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s The Golden State column.

Cynthia Murillo is a fourth-year Economics, International Relations, and Spanish triple major from Mezquitic, Jal. Mexico, and the Chief of Staff for DPR.

Danielle Damper is a third-year Political Science: Public Service major and History minor from San Diego, CA, and the State Section Editor for DPR.

Jason Cox is a fifth-year Statistics major and Economics minor, from Antioch, CA. He serves as DPRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Chief Financial Officer.

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

Kailee Dahan is a fourth-year History and Psychology double major from Woodland Hills, CA, and the International Section Editor for DPR.

Kristine Craig is a fourth-year Political Science and Economics double major from San Ramon, CA, and the former Editor-in-Chief of DPR. Kiana Okhovat is a second-year Political Scienceâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Public Service major and Middle Eastern History minor from Granite Bay, CA and the Development Chair for DPR. Megan Gramlich is a fourth-year Political Science and Philosophy double major, and Economics minor from San Diego, CA. She serves as a National Staff Writer for DPR. Mikaela Tenner is a fourth-year Political Science and International Relations double major, and Professional Writing minor from Los Angeles, CA. She is the author of DPRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s The Middle East Eye column.

Maxine Mulvey is a second-year English major from Poway, CA, and the Copy Editor for DPR. Tanvi Varma is a fourth-year Economics major from San Jose, CA, and the Publicity Chair for DPR.

Yoan Vivas Barajas is a third-year International Relations major from Delhi, CA and an International Staff Writer for DPR.

Not pictured: Lauren Johnston, National Staff Writer. Eric Quintanar, National Staff Writer. Upamanyu Lahiri, International Staff Writer. Roland Baldwin, International Staff Writer. Itamar Waksman, International Staff Writer. Malena Hansen, State Staff Writer. DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

Davis Political Review is the first and only nonpartisan political commentary magazine on the campus of UC Davis. Our story begins with a simple question

weekly online articles and a quarterly printed

asked by Founder and Former Editor-in-

publication, writers of the Davis Political

Chief Alex E. Tavlian in October 2012: “Are

Review inform and educate students about

there any UCD Political Science majors

meaningful political issues they may not have

interested in starting a political commentary

paid attention to otherwise. While the

magazine?” The first editorial board was

editorial board of our publication remains

elected and the publication was formed on

nonpartisan, each writer is encouraged to

December 5, 2012. In late April, the Davis

take a distinct viewpoint in crafting opinion

Political Review launched its website and

pieces published daily online.

released its first print issue on the Davis campus.

After restructuring and condensing the makeup of the publication, the Davis

After a four-month rest period, the Davis

Political Review now consists of a 23-

Political Review was reestablished by

member staff that is completely student-run.

previous Editor-in-Chief Kristine Craig, in

The dedicated writers, editors and board

January 2014. The baton was passed to

members of the Davis Political Review make

current Editor-in-Chief Angela Su in March

it possible to achieve our mission: engaging

2016.

students and members of the community in a constructive dialogue around complex

At a critical point in the Davis Political

political issues in a way it has never before.

Review’s history, our publication took on an entirely new approach to its capability to reach all students on campus. Through

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016

Enjoy.

YOUR AD HERE With upwards of 500 online views per day, advertising with DPR is a fantastic way to reach UC Davis students and community members.

CONTACT DPR’s Development Chair Kiana Okhovat at DPRMAGUCD@GMAIL.COM for further information.

DAVIS POLITICAL REVIEW | SPRING 2016