Message from the editors
Dear reader,
On behalf of the entire SHAPE Magazine team, thank you very much for picking up this copy of our Summer 2024 edition.
As you will probably have noticed, the world is changing and moving at an incredibly fast pace. It is getting easier and easier to fall behind current affairs and miss out on the biggest issues of the day simply by not actively reading the news and keeping yourself updated.
But it is also getting easier to be swept up by the biggest issues, the events that capture the headlines, and to miss out other important affairs that we should all pay attention to. The advent of social media has made it much easier for any individual issue to drown out many other events and topics, in a world where more and more problems require our attention at once.
Thankfully, we’re here to help. In this edition, we have combined coverage of some of the hottest topics at the time of writing, as well as insightful deep dives into other, more obscure but similarly impactful topics. Amongst the pages of our Religion & Philosophy (RP) section, you can read about the importance of philosophy and the tragic reality of honour killings in Britain. In History you can find out more about the life of Anne Frank, Jeffersonian democracy and its impacts on the United States, the legacy of George W. Bush, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
In Politics, you can dive into articles about the ‘harm reduction’ approach to drug policy, the oppression suffered by transgender Britons, the growing trend of deglobalisation, and substance use in Parliament. In Business & Economics, you can learn about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the economy, as well as the prospect of governments relying on printed money from their central banks. Last but not least, in Geography you can look into the wonders of the Jungfraujoch summit in Switzerland.
Our objective through this magazine is to inform our readers and supplement them with information, with which they can shape their unique views on the world. We hope that you will have much to gain from this edition. Happy reading and learning!
Yours sincerely
Nina Hryniewicz-Sheppard,
Eddie Rowley, Hau Tak Ng and Tristan Cheng
Editorial Note
This issue of the magazine contains articles where the personal opinions and views of contributing pupils are expressed. At Bede’s we respect pupils’ freedom of expression, but our publication of pupils’ views does not mean that we endorse them. All opinions expressed in the magazine are those of the pupil contributors only.
Contents
Message from the editors
Religion & Philosophy
Philosophy: Why you should care and how you can
Hau Tak Ng - L6th Dorms
History
Anne Frank: Life in the annexe
Ava Hooper - U5th Charleston
How has Jeffersonian democracy shaped U.S. politics?
Tom McNicholl - L6th Knights
The Legacy Unveiled: George W. Bush, the War on Terror and the Unravelling of the Middle East
Francis Gordon - L6th Knights
Comic
By Rui He and Lily Ferguson (both U6th Dorter)
Politics
Nationalism and deglobalisation: where we have been and where we are heading
Charlie Bennett - U6th Knights
Substance shenanigans: A closer look at the use of drugs in Parliament
Ben Barlow - U5th Deis
Is affirmative action an effective means of achieving equality?
Noor Rahman - L6th Charleston
Political history in pictures: Affirmative action from creation to overturning Hau Tak Ng - L6th Dorms
Business & Economics
The impact of AI on the economy’s future
Tristan Cheng - U6th Dorms
Can the government rely solely on printed money from the central bank for its budget?
Tristan Cheng - U6th Dorms
Geography
A guide to the Jungfraujoch
Joseph Berry - FY Dicker
Religion & Philosophy
Photo by Yeshi Kangrang / Unsplash
Philosophy: why you should care and how you can
Hau Tak Ng - L6th Dorms
There is a widespread and popular assumption among our school that philosophy is boring. It is even possible to guess that most teenagers - and even adults - think the same way. This assumption is not unfounded, in my opinion, because philosophy is not designed to be easy - difficulty is entrenched in the practice of it. Deep thinking and high concentration, two dwindling qualities in our digitally addicted society, are essential to philosophy. But with this idea in mind - that philosophy is hard, and meant to be so - there still is a strong case for why you should care about it.
The examined life
The pursuit of philosophy can draw a person to examine nearly every aspect in life, with a degree of deep introspection and investigation that many people may have never done before. The average person may not put any thought into the choice between eating crisps and reading poetry, but for philosophers debating J. S. Mill’s idea that there are inherently superior and inferior pleasures, such a simple and trivial choice suddenly becomes an incisive question. Is there really something inherently more valuable in reading a book than eating crisps? Do both give us the same quantity of pleasure, or is it unequal? From this illustration we can see that philosophy encourages us to zoom in on the most mundane and basic aspects of life, and derive new meaning and room for debate from them. This makes it not only a very good tool to start a conversation, but also something that can help you become more interested and curious about the world around you; and it is that curiosity and passion for investigation and learning that drives social advancements and progress. The benefits that philosophy brings - through pushing us to not live an “unexamined life” (a life without meaningful thinking), as Socrates put it - are immense and lasting.
Philosophy is accessible
I should also mention that philosophy is not entirely inaccessible as many people suggest it to be. It is true that there are certain fields in philosophy and ethics that require a lot of in-depth study and review to comprehend and evaluate, but there are also parts of it that anyone can discuss with a companion. The “poetry vs. crisps” metaphor is a perfectly grounded illustration that any person can understand, but it’s also serviceable as an illustration that reflects the dichotomy between (1) accepting the existence of graded pleasures and (2) considering all pleasures to be equal in quality. The same applies for numerous other illustrations and thought-provoking tools - the trolley problem is another famous example of basic ethics made accessible and popular among the general public, while the Baby Hitler question makes us think if it is morally acceptable to take preventative action to avoid a supposed impending evil that has not yet even manifested itself, especially if we cannot guarantee that it absolutely will in the future. Far from being some kind of murky, shadowy subject that is championed by voluminously moustached men sitting in huge armchairs in universities, philosophy penetrates every visible and invisible aspect of our lives - right and wrong, good and bad, and so on. It is an eminently accessible subject that anyone can start looking to - provided they have the determination and commitment to see their investigations through to the end.
Philosophy and introspection
Philosophy can also help us to look inwards into ourselves. Though often times we believe that we are quite sure of what our opinions are on many things, the truth is that we often don’t know where we stand on issues we have yet to explore or consider. And it is by probing our own thoughts and hesitations on these matters that we can gain a deeper, more profound understanding of ourselves and our own psychology that we didn’t have before. If we think that white lies are acceptable under certain circumstances, what does that say about us - that we don’t value honesty or hold it supreme regardless of circumstance or situation? Or does it reveal that sometimes we care about others’ well-being more than the truth, if deception avoids inflicting pain on others that the unfiltered truth would otherwise administer? Philosophical analysis is an effective tool to help us draw out deep-seated and unconscious (or subconscious) beliefs that we didn’t know we actually held. In this sense, it’s one of the most effective ways to truly understand ourselves, the morals and ethics that inform our viewpoints and judgements, and the reasons and justifications (or lack thereof) behind the decisions we make, big and small. There may be times where such introspection will lead us to make uncomfortable and concerning discoveries about ourselves, but that is part of our journey to become better human beings, as well as more consistent and principled people. If you’re the kind of person who wants to know more about yourself, develop greater self-awareness of who you are, and fully come to understand the things you’ve done in the past and the ideas you believe in, philosophy is your best bet.
Making sense of a changing world
I think it is uncontroversial to say that our world is becoming less recognisable and more chaotic by the second. Progress on a vast number of fronts has been accompanied by bewildering new questions, dilemmas and crises that seem at best difficult to solve, and at worst impossible to tackle at all. Whether it be the lightning-fast development of so-called “artificial intelligence” - chatbots and AI-powered generative tools like ChatGPT, et al. come to mind - or the hot-potato debates on gender and identity politics, things seem to be moving way too quickly, leaving all of us ordinary people to play catch up. The average person inevitably finds themselves in a reactive position, confronted by these nascent problems and having to respond to them after they have surfaced. But obviously we all want to be at the forefront of tackling these issues and untangling them. Well, dare I say that philosophy is once again a great answer - if not the answer - to this.
Philosophers around the world are not merely reacting to developments in AI and technology, but grappling with the ethics and morality behind them, and considering how we can use these things for good, and the potential for them to be put to malicious use. They are diving deep into discussions on gender and identity, exploring the nuances of complex arguments and trying to derive the most supreme truth to it all that they can draw out from investigations and theorising. Philosophy is not just accessible and easy to get into, as I previously mentioned; it’s an excellent way for us to utilise our thinking skills and take a proactive stance to dealing with trending debates and topics, and to skillfully identify potential problems and benefits to any and every issue. In a world where things seem to make less sense, people can’t seem to agree on anything, and devastating crises seem to be popping up with increasing frequency, philosophy is the lighthouse in the stormy sea that we can call upon in our times of need, to enlighten us and show us the way to cut through the waves of dross and think deeply.
How do I do philosophy?
If you have become convinced about the importance of philosophy - somewhat or fully, doesn’t matter which
- after reading this far into the article, then you must inevitably be wondering what you can actually do. After all, it’s nice to talk about philosophy and its innumerable benefits, to quote hot topics and famous philosophers, but what is infinitely better and more interesting is to actually do philosophy yourself. And in this regard, there are in fact many things you can do to take an active part.
For those of you who are in the First Year or Year 11, consider choosing Religion & Philosophy as one of your GCSE/A-Level options! There is no better way to get introduced to philosophy by learning about all the greats and the ideas and theories they proposed. You will benefit from the instruction of our teachers at the Bede’s RP department, and also gain an informed and educated understanding of the major religions of Christianity and Islam along the way (quite the additional reward to obtain, isn’t it?). RP is a subject that encourages you to think critically and for yourself - not anyone else. After all, it is your ideas that matter, and it is your ability to put those ideas into words, then into speech, that will help you change the world for the better and help the people around you. You will gain the capability to not just absorb ideas and theories about the world we live in and the way we live, but run them through your own brain, contemplate them, understand their strengths and weaknesses, and make your own judgements on whether you agree or disagree with them. From there you can then form an informed and educated moral compass that you can refine to become a more consistent, contemplative and wise person - traits that most people value greatly, whether it be employers looking to hire you or just friends seeking counsel.
And for those who are already studying RP or who did not choose it - fret not! There are also a thousand other ways to get yourself stuck in with philosophy, like proactively starting to read philosophers, listening to podcasts, watching documentaries and educational television, and so on. But regardless of whatever way you choose to enter the wild and wonderful world of philosophy, and how you choose to go about philosophising, there is one rule to remember, and one that is applicable to everyone on the long journey to get better at philosophy: keep going and don’t give up. Have the tenacity to steadfastly and consistently practice philosophical analysis and discussion, be prepared to stand your ground and hold firm, while also retaining the humility to admit faults and concede defeat. As long as you keep these things in mind, you will be able to improve yourself and become a better philosopher (and person), and you can then enjoy all those benefits that I’ve mentioned earlier in the article: living a worthy and thoughtful life, understanding philosophy from A to Z and from easy things to difficult topics, becoming more aware of yourself, and making sense of a changing world.
Hau Tak Ng is a Lower Sixth pupil in Dorms House and one of the 2023-24 pupil leaders of the Philosophy Society at Bede’s. He fervently believes in the humanities’ potential to offer fresh, exciting and bold solutions to our problems.
Photo: cdd20 / Unsplash
Photo: Aaron Burden / Unsplash
History
Photo by Nina Hrywienicz-Sheppard (U6th Dorter)
Anne Frank: Life in the annexe
Ava Hooper - U5th Charleston
Life for Anne Frank was far from normal but her life in the summer of 1942 was heaven compared to what she would face in the years to come. Jewish people were not able to have the exact same rights as other people living in the Netherlands, life was made purposefully harder for them by the Nazis. This was done by a set of strict laws that were put into place for them; they weren’t allowed to use trams or cars, including their own; special times were allocated for Jewish people to do their shopping or be on the streets; they had to go to Jewish-owned barbershops and beauty salons; Jewish people couldn’t go to forms of entertainment, and couldn’t use pools or tennis courts; Jews had to go to Jewish-only schools, and Jewish people could always be identified because they wore yellow badges in the shape of the six-pointed star of David. Rules like this and many others always existed to make life a waking nightmare for them.
Anne Frank, a thirteen year old girl born in 1929, became famous through her vivid diary entries, which gave a real insight into life in World War II. When published cheaply in 1955, it became very popular and 700,000 copies were printed.
How did Anne’s diary become so famous?
The diary started as a form of support for Anne, who always felt as though she never had a real friend due to the ostracisation she faced. So when she would write, she would put “Dear Kitty”, as if writing a letter to a friend. Upon moving to the Annexe, the diary was comfort for Anne, and became much appreciated.
Life was as normal as it could be for the Franks at the time, until Margot (Anne’s older sister) received a call-up notice from the SS. This meant that Anne’s sister was going to be sent away to a concentration camp, and the other members of the Frank family would surely follow. Otto and Edith Frank, Anne’s parents, had feared that this would happen, so they had already prepared a place to go hide in, if necessary. The time to flee had come sooner than they could have ever expected. Anne and Margot packed their bags, stuffing their necessities and as many clothes as they could into their school satchels (as suitcases would cause too much suspicion). Early the next morning, the Frank family had breakfast, leaving the stuff purposefully on the table afterwards to make it look like they had left in a rush. They left a note to Mr Goldschmidt (whom they rented out their upstairs room to), saying that their cat should be taken to a neighbour. Then, wearing as many layers of clothes as they possibly could, they left the safety of their house and went off to their secret hideout. The destination was unknown to Anne - her parents had kept her completely in the dark about the location of the hideout - to protect herself and her family.
It turned out not to be a mystery at all, however - it was Anne’s father’s workplace; a spice company. Upstairs, behind a wooden door (a bookcase would later be built over that door to disguise it further) was their annexe. Up a steep flight of stairs was a living room and bedrooms, with a study (these were the Franks’ quarters, their private space). Upstairs there was a kitchen and bedroom belonging to Mr and Mrs Van Daan, the Frank’s friends, who were also going to live there at a later date. A general living room and study room was also there, as well as a small room for the Van Daans’ son, Peter. An attic and loft at the very front of the building finished the end of their secret space.
A diagram showing the layouts of each floor in the house that Anne Frank and her family hid in.
(Diagram sourced from Luisse Zanther Carreos / ResearchGate.com)
Life in the annexe
The van Daan family arrived at the annexe on the 13th of July. They all lived quite happily- and since they were friends outside of the annexe, they were bound to get along well, although not without some bumps along the way. Mrs van Daan was annoying and Anne was often irritated by her, since she criticised the Frank children a lot. Peter van Daan was unsociable and often moody at first,understandably, so he and Anne did not get along very well. However throughout the stay at the annexe, they became good friends and also even more than that. In November of the same year, Mr. Dussel, a Jewish dentist and another friend of the Frank family, moved into the annexe. He was astounded to see the Frank family, as the note that they had left with their neighbour had led to people making a lot of crazy assumptions about where they had gone: some said concentration camps, and others said they had gone to Belgium.
There was just enough food in the annexe to be fed- but not enough to keep them from being hungry. Since it was wartime, there were coupons to be taken to your local butchers or grocery store, where they would give you a minimal amount of everything you wanted. Miep, Bep, and Miep’s husband Jan Gies, who all worked for Otto Frank at the spice company, were the main helpers in getting food to the annexe without being discovered.
With the workers being downstairs a lot, they had to be very quiet around the house during certain times of the day, i.e. in the morning and afternoon they couldn’t shout in case the men in the warehouse heard them, so a knock on a table meant breakfast was ready.
There were times in the two years that were spent in the annexe when there was a ton of a certain food, and this was served with every meal. The food that they ate the most were bread, potatoes, and vegetables.
Of course, on special occasions like birthdays and Hanukkah, a Jewish celebration around mid December, sometimes food was given as presents, baking was done, and sometimes if Miep and Bep could get their hands on it, they had cake. In July 1944, a man who worked in the company called John Broks (who was unaware of the people living in the annexe) managed to get his hands on crates of strawberries. Some crates were snuck up to the annexe and a lot of jam was made, much to everyone’s delight.
When it came to studying, Anne tried to keep up with the work. Otto tried to help Anne with subjects such as Algebra which she found difficult. Anne had definitely found school harder than Margo, who was a brilliant student. Via Miep, Margo was able to sign up for a journalism course. Anne studied subjects she loved very much like Classical Civilisation, which was the study of Greek and Roman mythology. Anne spent much of her school time and free time reading (some of the books were restricted so only Margo and Peter could read them which annoyed Anne a lot, as she was younger than them). She also wrote a lot, aside from her diary she authored entertaining accounts of times in the annexe, and other original stories. Mrs van Daan loved to have these stories read to her.
Despite this life sounding quite pleasant, they were not unaware of the difficulties that were surrounding the outside world. In the evening, they would all sneak down to listen to the radio (sometimes Anne would not join them as she was so scared that they might be caught) to listen to recent reports of the war. Anne sometimes had nightmares about Hanneli, one of her classmates. In the nightmare, Hanneli was in a concentration camp, and had a shaved head. They heard from Miep about people receiving call-up notes from the SS and being sent away to concentration camps. No one really knew what happened there.
There were a few times where the whole annexe had a scare, and this was when a few robbers broke into the warehouse. Even when the police were called, they did not find the people hiding away, to everyone’s justifiably extreme relief. However, this solace would not last. On August 4th 1944, after 2 years in hiding, the families hidden away in the annexe were discovered. They were all sent away to different concentration camps, separating men and women, children and families. In March 1945, Anne and Margo sadly passed away at a concentration camp. Anne was just sixteen years old.
Otto Frank was the only survivor of the annexe, and when Miep returned Anne’s diary (which she had hidden but not read after the soldiers took the families away) Otto knew his daughter’s story had to be published for the world to read
He, and all who have read the book since its first publication in 1947, realised the impact that Anne Frank and her vivid, honest and heart-wrenching diary has had on the world. It is an impact that time will not diminish, a timeless triumph of humanity over fear.
Ava Hooper is an Upper Fifth pupil in Charleston House. She is passionate about women through history, which led her to look at Anne Frank and her incredible bravery.
How has Jeffersonian democracy shaped U.S. politics?
Tom McNicholl - L6th Knights
While the American political landscape of today may seem completely dissimilar to the political world of America’s founding, let alone ten years ago, it is undeniable that American democracy as we know it today has been shaped significantly - arguably most notably - by Thomas Jefferson, his works and ideals, and that is as important as an understanding in primaries and polling for contemporary politics.
At the time, Jefferson expressed a sophisticated yet radical vision of liberty, under which he stated that personal freedoms and liberties should not only be protected in the Constitution but enshrined and that regular revisions of personal freedoms and liberties are key to maintaining a popular government.
Jeffersonian democracy, named after its proponent, Thomas Jefferson, the third US president, was one of the two dominant schools of political thought from the 1790s to the 1820s in early America. Jeffersonians were deeply committed to American republicanism, the opposition to what was considered an artificial aristocracy, corruption, and the insistence upon the social prioritisation of the ‘yeoman farmer’ and planter of an agrarian society. Jeffersonian democracy was also the term used to refer to the Democratic-Republican party, formally named the ‘Republican party’, which Jefferson founded in opposition to the Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton.
Jefferson’s democratic beliefs combined not only his philosophical principles - that governance should stem from decisions of the majority - but also his political pragmatism - Jefferson believed that the government should be ‘rigorously frugal and simple’ and that the protection of civil liberties and minority rights should be of the utmost importance.
At the forefront of Jefferson’s democratic vision was that American society, at least in its early part, should be shaped by its foundation in the values of the ‘Yeoman farmer’. Under this, Jefferson supported the notion that the planters, a demographic that made up a large majority of early America, exemplified the values of American republicanism under which the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are founded, in rejection of aristocracy, corruption and the ‘Westminster’ parliamentary system.
These beliefs and criticisms of the Westminster system, while evident later in Jefferson’s presidency and policies, are first outlined in his Summary View of the Rights of British America, in which he states that civil liberties such as representation and free trade are a ‘natural right’, and that the ‘series of oppressions’ pursued by the King and parliament (such as the suspension of colonial legislatures) are perfect examples of his criticisms of a lack of representation and high levels of corruption in government, which are to be avoided through a rural, planter society governed through regular revision of law and democratic participation.
As part of this fear of corruption and misgovernance derived from a divide between the governing class having ownership of large industries (such as the British monarchy at the time), Jeffersonians sought to align the American economy to be based on property ownership and a move away from industrialisation, under a
highly restricted government. For example, while Jefferson may be seen by many as a champion of libertarian ideals - at least through modern perspectives - Jefferson introduced one of the earliest forms of progressive income taxation as president, to disincentivise large accumulations of wealth and to redistribute financial resources. Furthermore, Jefferson also introduced import tariffs - as at the time the majority of imported goods were purchased by the wealthy - as a way to reduce the burden on the poorest in society, writing in 1811: ‘the revenues will be levied entirely on the rich … the poor man … pays not a farthing of tax to the general government’.
However, this is not to be confused with Jefferson’s strong belief in a limited government. Jefferson, influenced by his strong opposition to the Westminster system, for example, parliament and the monarchy’s central government and rule over Britain and its colonies, evidenced this for why a central authority could infringe upon the rights of its citizens, no better shown than in Jefferson’s authorship of the declaration of independence, in which he asserts that government should derive their power from the consent of those governed, and thus should protect citizen’s unalienable rights including, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Another key principle in Jeffersonian democracy is the notion of property ownership as an indicator of civic virtue. Jefferson wholeheartedly rejected the commonly held view of the time by many monarchies in Europe that a single upper class had an exclusive right to property and goods, but instead that individuals should have the infallible right to own and manage their own property for an indefinite period of time, going further to argue that this is of paramount importance to the stability of the republic: in Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he argues that in an agrarian society, individuals working the land would produce citizens with a strong sense of civic duty, responsibility and engagement, crucial to his notion of the renewal of laws through democratic processes.
From the 1980s and onwards into the modern era in US politics, GOP candidates and Republican politicians have increasingly adopted rhetoric endorsing Jefferson as a champion of states rights, property rights and individual liberties, to provide historical justification to championing increasingly fiscally and socially libertarian policies. For many Americans, especially those passionate about constitutional rights, this recent political rhetoric has embedded Thomas Jefferson’s most obvious political legacy as the libertarian, antiestablishment wave of the tea party, and later Trump.
However, I would argue that beyond candidates gesturing to the loose notion of ‘individual liberties’ championed by Jefferson, his most important political legacy in modern times has been the creation of the modern American middle class, and its vital importance to the future of democracy. As written above, while Jefferson is most commonly known for his authorship of the constituion, promotion of states rights, the separation of Church and state, he in fact did not champion a free market, ‘trickle down’ economic policy.
Jefferson’s political ideology was centered around the population of ‘yeoman farmers’, the early planters in colonial America, identifying that a prosperious middle class - not an unregualted industrial elite - would drive innovation, democracy and accountability for politicians.
While we cannot speculate what Jefferson’s opinion on modern-day US society would look like, and we cannot directly compare the early states from two and a half centuries ago to today, we can draw parallels
between the flourishing population of planters in the early to mid ninteenth century and the massivley succesful post-war middle class.
The post war middle class of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s saw not only significant economic success broadly (at the time of the 60s the US held half of the world’s wealth), but also significant improvements in the rights of minority groups in society. The US also had major influence in foreign policy, seen at its best during the reconstruction of Europe after the war. A prousperous middle class was the key to democratic accountability and stability.
The significance of the middle class is ever pertinent today - in the decades following the vast deregulation of major industries america (food, pharmaceuticals, energy, transportation, international trade) since the Regan administration of the 80s, economic, educational and social inequalities have skyrocketed. Today, some of the most economically disadvantaged groups in American society are situated the previously booming manufacturing hubs in the midwest and south. Economic inequality, as not only seen in the United States breeds distrust and disenchament with politicians, coming to fruition with the GOP’s fixation on the ‘antiestablishment’ figurehead Donald Trump, and the following complete affront to American democracy.
Tom McNicholl is a Lower Sixth pupil in Knights House. He is a student of History, Economics and English Literature.
Rembrandt Peale’s presidential portrait of Thomas Jefferson. (Sourced from the White House Historical Association.)
The Legacy Unveiled: George W. Bush, the War on Terror and the Unravelling of the Middle East
Francis Gordon - L6th Knights
The 42nd president of the United States, George W. Bush, has been one of the most popular and unpopular presidents in U.S. history. From once being the leader of the free world to hiding away from the public and painting in his basement, I will explore the legacy and history of one of the most controversial presidents in recent U.S. history. We will cover what his presidency and administration did to tackle the iraq war, and the events leading up to it. And we will look at his legacy today and how he will likely be perceived in the future.
The year is 2000, and the nation is under a Clinton administration; it is the dawn of a new presidency. The Republican nominee is George W. Bush, the son of former President George H.W. Bush. The Democrats went with a safe bet: Al Gore, the current vice president under Bill Clinton. Everyone in the nation knew this would be a tight match. The beginning of election night looked good for Gore as the state of Florida flashed blue, signifying Gore’s victory in the state. However, things would take a turn, and the Supreme Court would flip the state to Bush due to the state being too close to call. This gave Bush the final electoral votes he needed to win the White House. Thus, the Bush presidency was born.
However, the Bush presidency did not have a smooth beginning; Bush could not seem to get any legislation passed, and his popularity was plummeting. It looked as if he would go down as a “lame duck” of a president, so he did what any of us would do: go on vacation. In the eight months leading up to 9/11, Bush was on holiday for 40% of the time. On that fateful day in 2001, when airplanes hit the World Trade Centre, the world was shocked and stunned. It is commonly repeated that Bush’s leadership in 9/11 was represented in a truly heroic fashion, and it’s all very well said. But during Bush’s time on vacation, no meeting was ever called to combat terrorism, and FBI funding was also cut by a large portion under Bush’s orders. So it raises the question: Could this have all just been avoided? Well, yes, but that’s not important. “What’s done is done, and you can’t change the past.” So the Bush administration laid out their priority to rule out terrorism days after 9/11.
Iraq and the War on Terror
It was the early 2000s, and the War on Terror was in full swing; in fact, only weeks after 9/11, bombs were already being dropped in Afghanistan. Weeks after 9/11, the U.S. had come up with a plan: The United States had a memo describing how it would take out seven countries in the short span of five years that had links to terrorism, starting with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.
While a handful of those countries were involved in U.S. military operations, the biggest and most memorable was Iraq. On March 20, 2003, George W. Bush made a speech to the nation: The USA was at war with Iraq. But why? Well, Iraq had been somewhat involved in terrorism, but not to the same extent as other nations on that list. Iraq at that time had made a tremendous recovery from the first Gulf War, and while the country wasn’t as luxurious as America or the UK, it was certainly a surviving nation. Iraq was also doing well economically; however, it was ruled by Saddam Hussein, a cruel and unforgiving dictator who killed his own people based
on their backgrounds or beliefs. However, all of this information does not give a valid reason for a full-scale invasion, so what did?
Weapons of Mass Destruction
The United States publicised information showing that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that could be used to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. in the future, and after the horrific event that was 9/11, the United States did not, therefore, want to take any risks. It is not for me to say whether or not the United States knew that there were weapons of mass destruction, as, of course, only they know that. Despite that, the United States claimed they received intelligence on the development of weapons. This gave the United States the growing light to go to war. Within only a few months, Saddam Hussein was thrown out of power and found in a ditch, hiding away from the United States and coalition forces. However, that was not the end for Iraq, as the war would end up dragging on for another eight years.
Once Hussein was removed, mass political instability filled the vacuum, and large military groups in Iraq began fighting the U.S.-led coalition forces as they believed their home and the nation were under a complete invasion, and they were right. The United States, as well as its fellow coalition partners, such as the United Kingdom, did their best to conceal the atrocities committed in Iraq by the U.S. In fact, it has been proven that as of 2006, over 500,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the conflict, whether intentionally or not. This was a shocking figure. Years after years, the war raged on with no end inside, and it became clear that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, therefore proving the United States held deeply flawed intelligence on Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld, then-Secretary of Defence, resigned, as he felt the failure of intelligence partially orchestrated by himself was unacceptable.
By the time the next election rolled around in eight, the atmosphere created by the Bush administration about the fears of terrorism is somewhat beginning to fall apart, and the people of America have become tired and frustrated with this constant radical republicanism ruling the country. In 2008, the U.S. elected a young man known as Barack Obama, the intelligent, charismatic, and skilled orator running as the Democratic nominee for President. Years into his term, on the 15th of December 2011, Barack Obama announced the end of the Iraq War as the final U.S. forces left. They did not leave Iraq as it was before they came - they left Iraq, which was once a bustling nation with economic growth and oil reserves, in pieces. Hundreds of thousands had died with little real accomplishment in exchange. The Iraq War was proven to be the worst policy decision in the history of the United States. Iraq is now looked at not as it once was but as a big nation destroyed by history with a politically stable government, and that is how I’ve sadly believed it will remain for many years to come.
In addition to the historical context provided, it’s crucial to consider the broader geopolitical implications of Bush’s decisions. The Iraq War, based on the premise of WMDs, not only led to a destabilised Iraq but also strained international relations. Many nations questioned the legitimacy of the invasion, and the lack of concrete evidence for WMDs damaged the credibility of the United States on the global stage. Moreover, the aftermath of the war saw the rise of insurgent groups and sectarian violence in Iraq, contributing to the broader unrest in the Middle East. The Arab Spring, a series of protests and uprisings across the Arab world, was partly fueled by the desire for democratic reforms and a response to decades of authoritarian rule exacerbated by the Iraq War.
Francis Gordon is a Lower Sixth pupil and Deputy Head of Knights House. He is passionate about American politics and hopes to share his research and its findings.
Comic
By Rui He and Lily Ferguson (both U6th Dorter)
Politics
Photo by Matt Flores / Unsplash
Nationalism and deglobalisation: where we have been and where we are heading
Charlie Bennett - U6th Knights
The global impact of Russia’s conflict in Ukraine is undeniable. With global value chains under attack and essential food and manufacturing supplies being derelict and prices skyrocketing exponentially across the globe, an international step change towards isolationism and deglobalisation can be seen, even from afar. These events, coupled with seismic global geopolitical shifts, including Britain’s split from Europe and the race to net zero, have uncovered a possible trajectory of deglobalisation.
Deglobalisation has been described by the European Parliament (European Parliament, 2022) as a “movement towards a less connected world, characterised by powerful nation-states, local solutions, and border controls, rather than global institutions, treaties, and free movement.” However, to understand why the world is in a profound period of deglobalised behaviour and forecast whether or not the world is heading into a period of deglobalisation, it is essential to understand the factors of deglobalisation and how they lead to deglobalisation.
Political agendas within the last decade have catalysed and ignited certain ideological groups to push a nationalist agenda and promote deglobalised behaviour. From Nigel Farage’s UKIP Brexiteer slogans ‘We Want Our Country Back’ and ‘Believe in Britain’ to Donald Trump’s iconic presidential chants ‘Make America Great Again’ and ‘Save America’, there has been a heavy focus on internal developments and distrust in the international community within these G7 countries in recent years. This trend has also spread across Europe with the victory of Georgia Meloni in Italy with her anti-immigration and anti-LGBTQ manifesto and the inevitable prospect of the rise of nationalism in France under Marine Le Pen. Within these G7 countries, farright manifestos are winning elections, and we are seeing the effects immediately.
This has also been underlined in the economic footprint of deglobalisation. According to World Economics (World Economics, n.d.) G7 nations make up approximately 27% of the world’s total global gross domestic product (GDP), with G7 nations being responsible for creating 14.5% of global GDP growth in the last decade. However, with G7 nations finding themselves governed by nationalist and anti-international-establishment leaders, working in situ with global events such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it is possible to forecast a period of deglobalisation with low international GDP growth and high inflation felt across the globe. It could be argued that this has happened at such an exponential rate due to the conflict in Ukraine. Due to the overreliance on the Eurozone’s oil and gas supply predominantly coming from the Russian oil and gas network, the total cut off of this commodity by Europe, as a result of Western sanctions working hand in hand with the lack of sustainable energy policy at a legislative level, has now forced countries to create independent paths towards achieving net zero. The realisation of the scale of energy dependency has made it apparent to countries that the race to net zero cannot be interdependent, and countries must be able to draw on local resources for energy.
The World Economic Forum recently published a report entitled ‘Deglobalisation: what you need to know’ (Keller and Marold, 2023), which discusses how the rise in oil prices (see Figure 1) (Appiah-Otoo, 2022) has pushed the
world into the adoption of renewable solutions rather than depending on one primary source of nonrenewable fuel. The report stated that “the rise of renewables will fundamentally reshape fossil fuel trade flows,” this highlights a country’s newfound ability to depend more on its infrastructure and create its process in fuelling its nation. However, the report says, “The green transition will have to be supported by the minerals industry that will be used to build its infrastructure. This will result in the increased trade integration of mineral-endowed countries.” This highlights the perpetuity of global cooperation and how we will still depend on multilateral cooperation within international organisations regardless of how ‘deglobalised’ we become to survive a new age in a climate crisis, mitigating this forecasted period of deglobalisation.
Figure 1: The trend of crude oil prices. “The figure shows that the U.S. witnessed a sharp rise in oil prices from $84.5 per barrel on 24 January 2022 to $123.6 per barrel on 8 March 2022.” (Appiah-Otoo, 2022)
Nevertheless, there is no real evidence to support this statement. During this dawn, where a new kind of nationalist and anti-establishment leader is present in society, we see the cogs of deglobalisation spinning. However, this idea of multilateral cooperation is still hidden. Whilst this is a worldwide issue, it can be investigated and highlighted in the cases of Britain’s departure from the European Union and President Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement. In the argument of Brexit, immigration has stood at the forefront of the debate since Britain’s entry into the then-dubbed European Economic Community in 1973. Whilst momentarily returning to the European Parliaments’ definition of deglobalisation, it is crucial to highlight the line “movement towards a less connected world” (European Parliament, 2022). The antiimmigration policy, which has recently been delivered in the forms of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (2022 c. 36) and the recently passed Illegal Migration Act, has sought to create a less connected world and to put Britain back at the top of the British government’s priority list. A report from the Migration Observatory has stated that “freedom of movement will end, and E.U. citizens will be subject to the same immigration rules as citizens from the rest of the world.” (Walsh, 2020) concerning the government legislation since Brexit. This evidence directly supports the notion that nationalists and far-right politicians in government, such as the European Research Group (ERG), have begun to plunge the world into this new era of
deglobalisation.
Similarly, like Brexit, Trump’s forceful withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement demonstrated a lack of international partisanship and uncovered a nationalist agenda at the forefront of Trump’s decision to deglobalise. President Trump stated that the Paris Agreement sought to “undermine” the U.S. economy and put the U.S. “at a permanent disadvantage.” This is becoming a pervading attitude amongst nationalist politicians putting the country first and the international community second on very prominent issues like climate change, contributing to why we are currently deglobalising.
This argument commonly links deglobalisation and nationalism as we are currently in a similar state to where we were in the early 1900s, both politically and economically. The article ‘Europe’s deglobalisation and surging nationalism...’ (Bove, 2022) comments on the period of nationalism, citing the work of E. H. Carr and his study with Chatham House. E. H. Carr stated, “The international system was falling apart by the middle of the 1930s, and one of the key reasons for this was growing nationalist rivalries and the very real possibility of war.” This view creates greater consistency in the argument that the rise of nationalism leads to deglobalisation. By taking a more economic outlook, Europe is in a parallel position to where it was in the 1930s during and following the Great Depression. Bove also states, “The strongest resemblance between now and Europe’s 1930s economy, experts say, is the transition from a highly globalised world to one that is quickly becoming more regionalist.” (Bove, 2022). It is this rapid change between a globalised world and a regionalist world that we are now experiencing, which mirrors the 1930s, suggesting that we are forecasted a short period of domestic growth of infrastructure and the economy. However, within this era of deglobalisation, a simple look back at the impacts of the Great Depression in the 1930s suggests that this short-term growth forecast will inevitably lead to a global decline in real GDP, employment, trust in banking and consumer prices. While the world will not feel the same devastating impact of the Great Depression on a micro-scale, we are seeing similar effects suggesting that we have entered an era of deglobalisation. According to research (International Monetary Fund, 2023), we can see that Europe as a continent has the highest lack of growth in real GDP in 2023 than any other continent. The United Kingdom is reporting a negative growth rate of -0.3% GDP for 2023 (International Monetary Fund, 2023), an unemployment rate of 4% (Statista, 2023) and a consumer price index of 129.5 (Office for National Statistics, 2023) suggesting that as a result of the previously mentioned factors of deglobalisation (Conservative domination, nationalism and Brexit) we are seeing the effects of deglobalisation on a G7 country.
Although it is through this underlying economic deficit that we are seeing in the U.K. as a result of deglobalised behaviour, it must be taken into consideration that the government will act in accordance with this negative growth and seek to address it. This has begun with the U.K. signing multiple Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Recent trade agreements have come into force, including deals with Australia and New Zealand and with potential agreements currently in pursuit with countries such as Mexico, Japan, India, Israel and Switzerland. However, this raises the question, can a country continue to trade globally in a deglobalised world? Ultimately, yes. The Australian government outlines the benefits of their FTAs with Britain on their country. It states, “Free trade agreements contribute to greater economic activity and job creation in Australia, and deliver opportunities for big and small Australian businesses to benefit from greater trade and investment.” (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2020), which illustrates that by enabling international trade, domestic growth can happen. This highlights how domestic growth can be intensified by FTAs, and an economy can still run on domestic products without being tied to an international community. It is clear that
the U.K. is still facing a period of deglobalisation as a result of its departure from Europe as it still chose singular trade partners to grow its own domestic product, then take part in a larger international organisation such as the European Union.
A clear distinction between bilateral and multilateral is essential. A country can still be independent and participate in bilateral agreements that benefit different industries at a domestic level. However, this does not tie countries to; treaties, legislation and breaches of their sovereignty. Therefore allowing a country to still be dependent on the international community, exclusively without participating in broader international organisations, allows nations to be globally active in trade in a deglobalised world. This re-introduces the resemblance between nationalism and deglobalisation. Britain’s exit from Europe has set a precedent for other nationalist-led countries in the European Union to question their involvement. The term “Eurosceptic” can best be associated with nationalists such as Marine Le Pen. Le Pen has been a vocal advocate for France to abandon the European Union and the Euro as a currency as a whole. With current President Emmanuel Macron being ineligible to run again in 2027 it is almost certain that France’s position in the Eurozone is in peril. This dangerous precedent set by Britain and, most likely, France next could have a knock-on effect that is felt amongst generations and ultimately lead to a more prolonged period of deglobalisation. This poses a severe threat to the future of international organisations such as the E.U. EU Commissioner for Education, Culture and Youth stated during the 2016 Brexit referendum that “Europe in general, which faces a number of serious challenges: terrorism, immigration, Eurosceptic nationalistic populism and persistent youth unemployment, to mention a few. The last thing the E.U. needs is its attention diverted from these challenges, which need unity and cooperation between all members.” (Vassiliou, 2016). This particularly highlights the worries of nationalism and the Union splitting back in 2016. Nevertheless, with nationalism being at its highest in Europe in the last few decades and France potentially looking to split the Union, these concerns look even more credible now than ever.
While economic and political deglobalisation is apparent here, to bring back the analogy of 1930s Europe, there will always be an event to bring the international community back and restore multilateral cooperation. The United Nations’s 2030 goals are unachievable; the U.N. Global Compact commented on this by saying, “The global response to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is far behind schedule. The 2020 Social Progress Index, released in September, says that, based on current trends, the Global Goals will not be met until 2082.” (United Nations Global Compact, 2020). However, the issues of climate change will not go away, eventually forcing international organisations to change their approach to encourage multilateral cooperation. Without international organisations like the U.N. responding to the new deglobalised world and adapting their agenda, there will be a sincere struggle to achieve any of their goals. However, according to research (Active Sustainability, 2019), the existential crisis of whole nations, including Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Maldives, disappearing as a result of climate change will surely be the driving force in restoring multilateral cooperation at the end of this period of deglobalisation to combat climate change.
As a result of the heightened rise of nationalism across the globe, it is apparent that we now live in a new era of deglobalisation. Whilst there are many contributing factors, and individually they might have led to a short period of isolationism, collectively, the factors, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Brexit, and the race to net zero, have led to what is likely to be a sustained period of deglobalisation. The most extensive creation of this period of deglobalisation is the heightened rise of nationalism, and it is evident that the most significant risk is now to allow this rise of nationalism to spread. Whilst the research laid out predominantly focuses on
Europe, nationalism and deglobalisation are featured all around the globe. However, allowing it to grasp power internationally, like we are seeing across Europe, would potentially turn deglobalised behaviour into conflict. This research further shows that the international community is learning to regrow economies, infrastructure, and trust independently from their neighbours. Does this mean globalisation is here to stay? Overall, this is unlikely. Whilst global trade can still exist in this era of deglobalisation, inevitably, this need for international support will never end and can only prosper into greater international cooperation. The existential threat of climate change will eventually force nations back into General Assemblies of international communities to work together. However, for the foreseeable future, we live in an age of independent growth and deglobalisation.
Charlie Bennett, an Upper Sixth pupil in Knights House, discusses the divide in global cooperation and the correlation between a rise in nationalism and the de-globalising effect it has on trade and cooperation, both historically and contemporary. He hopes to spread awareness of the dangers of nationalism and polarisation and the isolation and lack of cooperation that follows.
Pictured above: Far-right French politician Marine Le Pen speaks during her 2017 presidential campaign. Le Pen has been a staunch Eurosceptic and supporter of a French return to using Francs as the currency. (Photo: AFP / Getty)
Pictured below: the European Central Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany. (Photo: Visual China Group)
Substance shenanigans: A closer look at the use of drugs in Parliament
Ben Barlow - U5th Deis
It’s time to pull back the curtains and delve into the enigmatic world of the British Houses of Parliament. Yes, the hallowed halls where politicians debate, pass laws, and engage in high-stakes politicking. But there’s more to this venerable institution than just politics; there’s a secret, shadowy side that involves the use of drugs. Join us on a rollercoaster ride through the surreal world of substance shenanigans in the British Parliament.
The hushed whispers, sidelong glances, and furtive exchanges in the corridors of power hint at a world far removed from the mundane. To the casual observer, the British Parliament may seem like a haven of decorum and sobriety. However, behind those imposing doors and beneath the veneer of respectability, there’s an underbelly of partying and indulgence that might leave you scratching your head.
First, let’s tackle the use of alcohol, the grandfather of all substances. After all, what’s a proper parliamentary session without a stiff drink or two? MPs have been known to gather in the Palace of Westminster’s numerous bars, allegedly consuming alcohol like it’s going out of style. In an institution where grand speeches are made and crucial decisions are taken, a little liquid courage seems to be the order of the day.
Even during critical debates, some MPs have been rumored to sneak flasks of their favorite tipple into the chamber, just to keep the proceedings a tad more interesting. Forget water; it’s time to pass a decanter of fine Scotch down the aisle.
And let’s not forget those “boozy lunches.” Parliamentary insiders have occasionally spilled the beans about these legendary midday feasts where MPs indulge in gastronomic extravagance and fine wines. The workday suddenly takes a backseat, and the chambers transform into a culinary battleground, where MPs engage in gourmet battles of one-upmanship.
Of course, we can’t ignore the rumors of cannabis making its way into the sanctified halls of power. It seems that some MPs have a taste for the green herb, and it’s whispered that they might even partake in a discreet puff or two in their offices. Perhaps this is a modern twist on “smoke-filled rooms” where political deals are hatched.
Imagine a Member of Parliament, red-faced from passionate debate, taking a toke to unwind. It’s a surreal image, but truth can often be stranger than fiction in the mysterious realm of politics.
Now, let’s turn our attention to the infamous “sniffing” scandal. A story circulated a few years back that had tongues wagging in the Westminster village. A shadowy figure claimed that cocaine use was prevalent among certain MPs, giving a whole new meaning to “lines of inquiry.” The allegations were denied by those involved, but it certainly added an air of intrigue to an already dramatic institution.
One can’t help but wonder how an MP manages to fit a “bump” into their busy schedule of political
manoeuvring. Perhaps they have their sources right in the heart of power, discreetly supplying them with that white powder of temptation. Just another example of the peculiar juxtaposition between responsibility and indulgence within the British Parliament.
But it’s not all about alcohol and illicit substances; some parliamentarians have a thing for prescription medications. A few whispered stories suggest that MPs might be popping pills to cope with the relentless demands of their job. It’s not entirely shocking; who wouldn’t want to dull the edge of stress and anxiety that comes with a career in the public eye?
You can just imagine an MP reaching for a bottle of anxiety medication as they prepare to step into the lion’s den, hoping to keep their nerves in check during a particularly heated debate. After all, it’s not every day that you face the nation and make crucial decisions that affect millions.
Of course, it’s essential to take these rumors with a pinch of salt. Without concrete evidence, it’s challenging to separate fact from fiction. The British Parliament has a long history, and with that history comes a fair share of urban legends and tall tales.
In a place where every word is scrutinized, and every action is a potential headline, it’s no wonder that some MPs might seek solace in the embrace of substances. Politics is a high-stakes game, and the pressure can be suffocating.
The Houses of Parliament are, in many ways, a world unto themselves. In an environment where power, prestige, and public scrutiny collide, the allure of substances, whether it’s a glass of fine wine, a toke of cannabis, or a line of something stronger, is undeniable. For those who navigate these illustrious halls, the temptation to escape into an alternate reality may be too much to resist.
The truth about the use of drugs in the British Parliament remains a tantalizing enigma. The rumours persist, the anecdotes circulate, but the concrete evidence remains elusive. In the grand tapestry of British politics, the use of substances is just one more thread, weaving together the complex, multifaceted world of the Houses of Parliament.
In a world where sobriety and decorum are the order of the day, it’s curious how this hallowed institution conceals its secrets and indulges its vices. As we peer into the mysterious shadows of the British Parliament, it’s a reminder that even in the most solemn of places, there’s a hint of unpredictability, a touch of rebellion, and an undercurrent of the extraordinary.
Ben Barlow is an Upper Fifth pupil from Deis. He is greatly interested in the topic of drug use in the Houses of Parliament due to the fact that it greatly contrasts our general perception of politicians (at least for some it does) and his aim with this topic is to expose the reality of politicians and their seedy actions from behind closed doors.
Is affirmative action an effective means of achieving equality?
Noor Rahman - L6th Charleston
Activists gather before the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. to demonstrate in support of affirmative action before the Court rules on its legality. It was ultimately declared unconstitutional. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters)
Affirmative action, stemming from Executive Orders No. 10925 and 11246 under the stewardship of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, respectively, represents a proactive governmental initiative aimed at rectifying entrenched disparities in employment and educational opportunities for marginalised demographics. By mandating fair practices among both government contractors and employers, these policies underscore a commitment to fostering inclusivity and dismantling systemic barriers hindering the advancement of marginalised groups. Despite ongoing debates regarding its efficacy, conscientious implementation of affirmative action serves as a potent instrument for promoting societal equality, highlighting its crucial role in addressing historical inequities and fostering a more equitable future for all.
Across history, marginalised communities, including racial minorities, women and individuals with disabilities, have confronted systemic discrimination and exclusion from various facets of society, such as education and employment. This legacy of discrimination, deeply ingrained in social structures, has hindered the social and economic progress of these groups. Affirmative action emerged as a response to these historical injustices, recognising the imperative to rectify past wrongs and foster equitable opportunities. Its fundamental rationale lies in the acknowledgement of the need to level the playing field, ensuring that all individuals have fair access to opportunities, regardless of their background. By implementing preferential treatment or quotas for historically disadvantaged groups, affirmative action endeavours to mitigate the entrenched disparities and foster a more inclusive society.
Historical injustices, ranging from slavery and segregation to gender-based restrictions and institutionalised bias, have had enduring impacts, perpetuating inequalities across generations. Practices like Jim Crow laws,
redlining, and gender-based hiring biases exemplify the systemic barriers that have hindered the advancement of marginalised groups. Despite legislative strides and societal progress, these injustices persist in contemporary society, reinforcing disparities by actively promoting diversity and inclusion, thereby striving to dismantle the structural impediments that hinder the full participation of marginalised communities. Through its proactive measures, affirmative action aims to foster a society where equal opportunities are not just a principle but a lived reality, thus paving the way towards greater social justice and equality.
Affirmative action policies play a pivotal role in fostering diversity within both educational institutions and workplaces. These policies actively seek to include individuals from historically marginalised groups, thereby contributing to the creation of environments that reflect the rich tapestry of society. The advantages of such diversity are multifaceted. In educational settings, a diverse student body enhances the learning experience by exposing students to a variety of perspectives, cultures, and ways of thinking. Research underscores the benefits of racial diversity in classrooms, showing that students in such environments exhibit higher levels of critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and cultural competency. Moreover, diverse educational environments have been found to mitigate stereotypes and prejudice while fostering empathy and understanding among students. In the professional sphere, diversity is associated with heightened levels of innovation, creativity, and productivity.
Harvard University (pictured) had been one of the highest-profile universities to use affirmative action in its admission processes before the Supreme Court’s ruling. Since then, it has updated its process. (Photo: Harvard University)
A notable case study conducted at the University of Colorado Denver underscores the positive impact of affirmative action policies on student outcomes, including increased graduation rates and academic success. Similarly, diverse workplaces are better equipped to cater to the needs of a heterogeneous customer base and are adept at tackling challenges through the integration of diverse perspectives. Overall, affirmative action policies serve as catalysts for cultivating inclusive environments that not only benefit individuals from marginalised backgrounds but also contribute to the overarching success and vibrancy of educational institutions and businesses alike. By fostering diversity, affirmative action lays the groundwork for a more equitable and prosperous society where individuals of all backgrounds have the opportunity to thrive.
(continued next page)
Affirmative action, while aimed at rectifying historical injustices and promoting inclusivity, encounters significant challenges and criticisms, particularly concerning perceptions of reverse discrimination and tokenism. Critics argue that affirmative action policies may inadvertently disadvantage individuals from dominant groups, particularly white men, leading to claims of reverse discrimination. Moreover, there’s a growing concern that affirmative action can foster tokenism, where marginalised individuals, including white
Affirmative action had its fair share of critics. One of the foremost arguments against it was that it went against the concept of admission based on merit. Some argued it discouraged hardowrking people. (Photo: Mariam Zuhaib / AP)
women, become the face of movements intended to uplift people of colour. This phenomenon undermines the original intent of affirmative action, diverting attention from systemic barriers faced by historically marginalised communities. Despite being a step towards fostering diversity and levelling the playing field, affirmative action requires nuanced changes to ensure its focus remains on addressing disparities experienced by marginalised groups. Criticism often misdirects attention away from core issues, focusing on perceived unfairness towards dominant groups rather than addressing deep-seated inequalities faced by marginalised communities. Legal challenges and controversies further complicate affirmative action’s landscape, with ongoing debates over its constitutionality and efficacy. Despite these challenges, affirmative action remains a crucial tool in advancing social justice. However, it necessitates continual evaluation and adaptation to genuinely prioritise the needs of the most marginalised in society. By addressing these criticisms and refining its implementation, affirmative action can better fulfil its intended purpose of promoting equality and opportunity for all individuals, especially those historically disenfranchised.
The effectiveness of affirmative action in addressing structural inequality is a topic of considerable debate, necessitating a thorough evaluation of its impact. Statistical data from sources like the Equality and Human Rights Commission reveal disparities in education, employment, and earnings among marginalised groups, highlighting the persistence of structural inequality. Affirmative action aims to redress these disparities by providing preferential treatment or quotas for historically marginalised groups, thereby enhancing their representation in education and employment sectors. While affirmative action has made strides in improving
access for marginalised individuals, its effectiveness in closing the opportunity gap remains a subject of scrutiny. Proponents argue that affirmative action has played a vital role in diversifying educational institutions and workplaces, creating pathways for individuals who have historically faced discrimination. However, critics contend that affirmative action measures may not address the root causes of structural inequality and could lead to resentment among dominant groups. Furthermore, challenges such as tokenism and inadequate enforcement may limit the effectiveness of affirmative action policies. Thus, while affirmative action has contributed to progress in mitigating structural inequality, sustained efforts and complementary strategies are necessary to achieve lasting and meaningful change. Continued research and evaluation are essential to refining affirmative action policies and ensuring they remain relevant and impactful in addressing contemporary inequalities.
Alternative approaches to achieving equality encompass a spectrum of strategies beyond traditional affirmative action. Merit-based selection and socio-economic affirmative action represent two prominent alternatives. Merit-based selection prioritises qualifications and skills over demographic factors, aiming to create a level playing field based on individual merit. However, critics argue that such approaches may inadvertently perpetuate existing inequalities by overlooking systemic barriers faced by marginalised groups. On the other hand, socio-economic affirmative action considers economic disadvantage as a criterion for preferential treatment, recognizing the intersectionality of inequalities. While this approach addresses broader socio-economic disparities, it may not fully capture the unique challenges faced by marginalised communities based on race, gender, or other identities. Thus, while alternative approaches offer potential avenues for promoting equality, they also pose limitations in addressing complex and intersecting forms of discrimination. To enhance equality alongside affirmative action, complementary strategies such as targeted support programs, mentorship initiatives, and anti-bias training can be integrated. By adopting a multifaceted approach, societies can better address the diverse and interconnected dimensions of inequality, ensuring more inclusive and equitable outcomes for all individuals.
Case studies and comparative analysis provide valuable insights into the diverse landscape of affirmative action policies globally. By examining affirmative action measures in different countries or regions, researchers gain a comprehensive understanding of the varied approaches and their respective outcomes. For instance, a comparative analysis utilising data from a wide range of countries, as discussed in the Washington Post article, reveals the nuanced implementation of affirmative action and its impact on addressing systemic inequalities. Countries such as India, Brazil, and South Africa have adopted affirmative action policies tailored to their unique socio-political contexts, showcasing the adaptability and effectiveness of such measures. However, challenges and controversies persist, as highlighted in the UNU-WIDER publication, with debates surrounding the fairness and efficacy of affirmative action. Comparative analysis allows for the identification of best practices and lessons learned from different models, informing policymakers and practitioners on effective strategies for implementation. For instance, studying the success of quota systems in increasing representation of marginalised groups in educational institutions or workplaces can provide valuable insights into designing affirmative action policies that yield tangible results. Moreover, comparative analysis facilitates cross-country learning, enabling countries to learn from each other’s experiences and refine their approaches to address persistent inequalities more effectively. Ultimately, case studies and comparative analysis serve as indispensable tools in advancing the discourse on affirmative action and shaping equitable policies worldwide.
In conclusion, affirmative action, stemming from Executive Orders No. 10925 and 11246, represents a proactive governmental initiative aimed at rectifying entrenched disparities in employment and educational opportunities for marginalised demographics. By mandating fair practices among both government contractors and employers, these policies underscore a commitment to fostering inclusivity and dismantling systemic barriers hindering the advancement of marginalised groups. Despite ongoing debates regarding its efficacy, conscientious implementation of affirmative action serves as a potent instrument for promoting societal equality, highlighting its crucial role in addressing historical inequities and fostering a more equitable future for all. It’s imperative to acknowledge the challenges and criticisms surrounding affirmative action, but there’s a reaffirmation of its potential effectiveness in achieving equality. Continued research and dialogue are essential to refining affirmative action policies and ensuring they remain relevant and equitable in addressing contemporary inequalities.
Noor Rahman is a Lower Sixth pupil from Charleston. She is passionate about talking about the difficult topics in life and hopes to raise awareness about issues that many are ignorant to, especially those that actually affect many people.
Political history in pictures: affirmative action from creation to overturning
Curated by Hau Tak Ng - L6th Dorms
Affirmative action is first used when President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925 in 1961, ordering federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure applicants are treated equally without regard to race, colour, religion, sex or national origin”. (Photo: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)
The Supreme Court upholds affirmative action in the 1978 landmark decision on Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Some affirmative action supporters argued, however, that Bakke ought to be overturned because it would limit affirmative action and set back gains in equality. (Photo: Charles Tasnadi / AP)
The Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in 2023, overruling both Regents of UC v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The Court held that considering race in university admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Photo: The Brookings Institution)
Business & Economics
Photo by Shea Rouda / Unsplash
The impact of AI on the economy’s future
Tristan Cheng - U6th Dorms
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers , 30% of jobs can be automated and therefore replaced by artificial intelligence and robots by the start of the 2030s. Human society has gone through many milestones introducing new innovation and technology to the world, such as the Industrial Revolution around 17601840 and the current rise in the capabilities of AI, more specifically the trend of new responsive AI such as ChatGPT and Bard, along with image generating tools such as getimg.ai.
When we approach these milestones, most only see the destruction of careers and jobs. What many fail to see is that all these milestones are cases of creative destruction. In creative destruction, long-standing practices and industries are made out of touch by newly introduced technologies, in which the advancement in those industries can only be achieved at the cost of the decline of another.
The rise of AI is one of the prime cases of creative destruction in this modern age. Critics of AI would argue that the increase in the use and development of AI would lead to profound economic consequences. They may list the resulting unemployment due to AI replacing the jobs of drivers, receptionists, secretaries, tour guides and solicitors. The increased number of unemployed people would lead to less disposable income for these people, thus leading to lower consumption and therefore slowing down economic growth. More unemployed people may also cause the government to spend more on welfare benefits, which will lead to less spending on other sectors such as healthcare and education.
One example can be the introduction of the drone. Transportation services have always been a case of derived demand. As cars, helicopters and other means of transportation become less efficient and more expensive compared to unmanned means such as drones, many firms will turn to drones to replace human operators. Some workers that may be caused to suffer may be taxi, food delivery drivers and pilots for flights. While that may cause even the most skillful and fast driver or pilot to become unemployed, it will lead to increasing demand for drone operators as more people are now seeking this form of transport. However, it is not only the drivers that may suffer. Many parties related to the production or operation of the old means of transportation will suffer, such as the car manufacturer, the insurance or the motel industry. Eventually, these industries will not earn enough income to sustain all their workers, leading to unemployment.
Firms therefore switch to the drone, which will require operators, builders, programmers and engineers thus causing employment for the people proficient in skills in those industries.
While people make a living by doing housework and housesitting, drones and autonomous systems can perform these duties with much lower cost and higher efficiency. Drones can also be used to help fetch items from home if the owner has left them, and also perform these tasks with possible higher speeds and much less possible complaints. This is reflected by Swedish firm Electrolux which launched a tiny drone concept to conduct house cleaning duties, and a study written by a professor from King’s College and a futurist stating that 90% of household duties can be performed by robots.
One of the consequences of the use of AI may be the declining demand for personnel in law enforcement and traffic conduction. While law enforcement in some unique cases require human judgement, many roles in law enforcement can be replaced, such as patrol, traffic conduction and prosecuting minor crimes such as speeding and illegal parking. AI can and is already used by forces across the world to identify such crimes. However, the decline for the law enforcement industry may lead to perhaps catering companies in the police station and uniform manufacturers who rely on the continued employment of the law enforcement officers to generate income and afford to employ workers, to lay off people to maintain profits. Thus, it can be seen that AI can lead to a chain of decline in industries which throughout the times of operation, have formed a chain of mutual interdependence.
Meanwhile, while law enforcement roles are replaced by the use of bots, firms will start to have increasingly higher requirements for these systems to ensure they can replace human operators effectively, being able to respond to unique circumstances with effective solutions. All these require programmers to develop the bot’s capabilities, and there will always be demand for more as bots will be required by more industries to replace more roles. Engineers and technicians will then be in high demand to ensure these systems run well and are well maintained. The city of Dubai has been a key pioneer in the use of robots for law enforcement. This new practice was followed closely by South Korea, Japan, the USA and China with “robocops” and surveillance equipment, with purposes of damage control and reducing danger to human officers, patrol, assistance to personnel and in the case of Korea, an eventual complete replacement of the police force with robots and robot dogs. The rapid adoption of these technologies by the listed countries shows their willingness to adopt new practices.
The Industrial Revolution led to unemployment in skilled cottage industry craftsmen, and the rise of secondary industry and mass production. With the same patterns, the rise of AI led to the replacement of repetitive jobs with the use of bots which allows for higher efficiency and lower cost. This led to heavy resistance from parties that benefit from the industries that are facing the fate of being replaced, such as wool producers and cotton spinners in the Industrial Revolution and jobs such as secretaries, manual labourers and drivers currently. While critics only state the brutal consequences of the advancement of AI, they do not recognize that these industries are the unfortunate sacrifices in the process of creative destruction, with them paying the bill for the rise of IT industries with their own decline.
Tristan Cheng is a Upper Sixth pupil and 2023-24 Deputy Head of Dorms House.
Bibliography
Phillips, Tricia. “Robots and Drones Could Carry out Household Chores by 2040 - and Learn Our HabitsMirror Online.” Mirror, The Mirror, 18 Mar. 2020
Trends, Market. “Top 5 Countries Adopting Robot Cops in 2022.” Analytics Insight.
Pinkstone, Joe. “Robots, Drones and AI Will Carry out 90 per Cent of Household Chores by 2040 | Daily Mail Online.” Mail Online, Daily Mail, 19 Mar. 2020
Garun, Natt. “New Electrolux Design Lab Concept Uses Tiny Drones to Clean House | Digital Trends.” Digital Trends, Digital Trends, 5 Sept. 2013
PricewaterhouseCoopers. “How Will Automation Impact Jobs: PwC UK.” PwC.
Kaplan, Jerry. “Possible Future Impacts of Artificial Intelligence.” Artificial Intelligence, Oxford University Press, 2016,
“The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on International Trade | Brookings.” Brookings.
Jones, Benjamin F. “2 Factors Will Determine How Much AI Transforms Our Economy.” Kellogg Insight, 1 May 2023. Accessed 14 July 2023.
“How Is AI Strengthening the Global Economy?” Times of India Blog, 18 June 2022.
Pictured above: A promotional graphic advertising the capabilities of the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT, which has seen an explosive rise in popularity since its launch in November 2022. (Photo sourced from Ultimate.ai) Pictured below: a promotional graphic for getimg.ai, a popular AI image generator. (Photo from TheSecretAi / Medium)
Can the government rely solely on printed money from the central bank for its budget?
Tristan Cheng - U6th Dorms
A government budget is the amount of money the government receives as income. It is normally funded through taxes and government investments, in contrast to the proposal currently to fund it through printing money in the central bank. Many governments lack the money, however, to fund all its public services that help all and in many cases fall into a budget deficit. The central bank, meanwhile, uses policies such as quantitative easing, in which they purchase bonds and make loans to banks to stimulate the economy and increase money supply in hopes that it can lead to economic growth.
If the government only spends money printed by the central bank, there will be a consistent increase in injections to the circular flow of income, with no more leakages from the circular flow from government taxation. This will cause consumption and investment to skyrocket. The increased investment will allow for firms to receive more capital to expand, or invest into research and innovation. This can allow for output to increase, and with lower costs of production from innovation opportunities to hire more workers, thus reducing unemployment. This will lead to a spiral effect of furthermore spending and increase in aggregate demand, which will increase output in the economy and therefore economic growth.
However, if there is low consumer confidence on the economy, the marginal propensity to consume may remain low, which will lead to lack of investment and consumption, and instead for the money to be deposited or stored in banks. This therefore will not lead to the economic growth envisioned.
With the infinite amount of money the government is able to access without the constraints of tax, the government would be able to drastically increase public spending, which would allow for the increase of the provision of public services such as healthcare and education. Swedish economist Hans Rosling in his research showed that the income of the population only increases when the health of the population improves. This can be because not only would the health of the population improve productivity, it would also allow for experienced workers to be able to work for a longer duration, thus being able to gain more experience and improve the overall productivity of the workforce. With the rising level of wealth inequality in many countries, the increased public services would help provide higher life expectancy and reduce spending for poorer households on necessities such as healthcare and perhaps energy. This can reduce wealth inequality in the country and with poorer households having a higher marginal propensity to spend, overall aggregate demand in the economy would increase, leading to an increase in output and economic growth.
Moreover, the increased disposable income and availability of public services would also increase the standards of living for households, which could increase migration rates and therefore potentially introducing more skills into the workforce, thus increasing supply of labour and productivity, thereby reducing costs of production and therefore cost push inflation, which can improve international competitiveness and therefore the balance of trade.
The government spending, however, could also be poorly allocated. The government could spend it on inefficient and ineffective programs, such as the US government who spent 1.7 billion maintaining empty government buildings according to a report by CNBC. This will cause a waste of money that could be spent more productively, such as in training programs, while at the same time causing more demand pull inflation, while having limited effects in mitigating cost push inflation. This will cause the purchasing power of money to decrease, and therefore reduce living standards. The improvement in public services may not always cause increases in migration rates too, as the country may have restrictive migration policies or a bad reputation that may block potential migrants or make them reluctant to migrate to that country. The increasing inflation rates may also increase the cost of living, which will deter more potential migrants.
As the government is now reliant only on the central bank to provide government spending, it will not have to impose tax on individuals or firms, which will make the country highly attractive to any foreign firms wishing to avoid tax. The increased foreign investment will allow for large injections into the country’s economy, while the influx of foreign firms will also bring with them many skills and technologies that can benefit the domestic economy greatly, potentially increasing output and productivity. This will bring more consumer optimism into economic growth, and therefore improve the multiplier effect by increasing the economy’s marginal propensity to invest and consume.
However, the wealth of corporations may rapidly increase, without corporation tax anymore to reallocate their acquired resources to the disadvantaged. If the government decides to use any type of limit on their printing of money, the wealth inequality gap will increase in the sense that the rich will get to keep profits and their wealth without the limits of progressive taxes, while the poor will suffer from potentially increasing inflation which will continue to impact their living standards, and which will continue if inflation continues and resources are not reallocated by the government with tax. The government, however, can still choose to impose tax not for the use of income, but instead just for reallocation to alleviate inequality.
One of the most notable side effects of such a policy, however, would be inflation. The increasing injections with no more leakages by tax would cause the aggregate demand to skyrocket, thus causing rapid demand pull inflation. One of the examples would be the quantitative easing policies by the US Federal Reserve at 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was one of the main contributing factors to soaring inflation reaching 8.2% during 2022. Therefore, the purchasing power of money would decrease, leading to living standards decreasing for the population.
The inflation can be neglected if the wages rise faster than inflation, which was the case in Britain during the 1950s, which will allow for living standards to remain the same, if not increase. However, this can result in costs of production increasing, and therefore a lack of competitiveness for exports and potentially a balance of trade deficit. It can also cause structural unemployment in the export industry, which may increase crime rates and government spending on welfare, which can increase demand pull inflation due to the increasing supply of money.
The potentially large requirements from the government for spending can also result in a sizable increase in the supply of money from the central bank. The increasing supply of the currency would lead to lack of confidence in the international markets, which would lead to a decrease in demand. Both these factors would lead to a decrease in the value of the currency. If the central bank continues to increase the supply of the
currency without enough foreign currency to back it up, the value of the currency will continue to plummet, which can lead to the population turning to a foreign currency for stability. One example can be the post World War One Germany. Due to high government spending requirements, the government decided to print more money, ignoring the previous pledge for pegging the Reichsmark to the gold standard. This resulted in a fall in confidence for the Reichsmark and when the government continued to print money, it resulted in hyperinflation and made the currency virtually worthless, with most setting up US dollar accounts to maintain the value of their wealth. This will cause both domestic and foreign investors to doubt the stability of the economy and therefore cause lack of investment, leading to drops in the marginal propensity to invest. The economy will therefore likely suffer from a deficit in the balance of payments both due to the imports becoming expensive and the lack of foreign investment.
However, these effects can be neglected in some scenarios. One of them would be that the government can attempt to maintain the international value of the currency by fixing the exchange rate, but only if they have huge foreign currency reserves to maintain the credibility of the currency. Another scenario can be if the country has price elastic exports, in which the weaker currency will help increase competitiveness, although the costs of production during inflation and high import prices should also be considered.
Therefore, while the policy of the government relying solely on the central bank for spending has some solid arguments supporting it, mostly the argument of economic growth, there are a lot of imminent dangers, mostly the threat of uncontrolled printing which would lead to uncontrollable inflation and depreciation of the currency. There are certain ways which can allow this policy to be effective though. One can be to print only as much money as the increase in the value of output in the economy. This can allow for the supply of the currency to be controlled on the rate of economic growth, thus leading to foreign investors having confidence that the currency will be stable and assuring them that it will be safe to exchange to the domestic currency and invest in the economy. This policy can also help limit the rate of demand pull inflation by controlling the supply of money into the market.
Another policy can be to use government bonds and interest rates to control the supply of money inside the economy. When there is too much liquidity in the economy, the central bank can continue to use quantitative tightening policies such as selling government bonds to decrease liquidity, or discourage banks to give loans. This can reduce the supply of money in the economy and therefore potentially reduce demand pull inflation. The government can also impose competition policies such as forbidding firms from forming oligopolies or monopolies to increase competition and therefore forcing firms to find ways to reduce cost, leading to a reduction in cost push inflation, therefore resolving some of the side effects of this policy.
Tristan Cheng is a Upper Sixth pupil and 2023-24 Deputy Head of Dorms House.
Bibliography
Lee, Juhohn. “The Federal Government Wastes at Least $247 Billion in Taxpayer Money Each Year. Here’s How.” CNBC, 24 May 2023.
Werner, Richard. “Why Central Banks Are Too Powerful and Have Created Our Inflation Crisis – by the Banking Expert Who Pioneered Quantitative Easing.” The Conversation, 15 May 2023.
Geography
Photo by Joseph Berry (FY Dicker)
A guide to the Jungfraujoch
Joseph Berry - FY Dicker
The top of the Jungfrau is no place for fooling around. From the base of this marvelling mountain, it looks like a Himalayan peak that only expert explorers could face; perhaps requiring an oxygen tank to master. It’s little wonder that the Jungfraujoch is known as “The Top of Europe”.
From the base of the mountain, in the town of Interlaken, the dramatic peak of the Jungfrau looks inhospitable. However, over 600,000 tourists flock to this place every year.
But, why do people come here? Well, visitors will have the opportunity to see stunning alpine views and the Aletsch Glacier, 23km long and the largest in the Alps. It travels at a speed of 180 metres per year, or 49cm per day. The Jungfraujoch is located in the Jungfrau - Aletsch Protected Area, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. There is a difference between the Jungfrau and the Jungfraujoch - the Jungfrau is a mountain, whilst the Jungfraujoch is the ridge (saddle) which connects it to its neighbour, the Mönch. The reason this ridge is so famous is because of the buildings which sit on it. The Jungfrau, the Mönch and the Eiger are a recognisable group of mountains from far away.
To get to the summit, visitors will take three trains which ultimately transport them to Europe’s highest train station, situated 3,454m above sea level. When booking, explorers have the choice to go via the Eiger Express or the Rack Railway. They can choose either one for both the outbound and the return journey. The Eiger Express takes you on a gondola (cable car) past the world-famous North Face of the Eiger, whilst on the Rack Railway, you have the choice of going via the village of Grindelwald or the village of Lauterbrunnen.
Surrounding the station at the Jungfraujoch, visitors will find various viewing platforms, an ‘ice palace’, a series of tunnels made entirely from ice; and various gift shops, including the world’s highest Lindt shop, Swatch shop, Swiss Army Knife shop, and various other gift shops. In addition, you can find an Indian restaurant, Italian restaurant and Swiss restaurant, as well as two bars.
This building is built into the mountain, so one wall is a large glass window spanning the various floors. At one end, there is an opportunity to leave the building, and visitors are given the chance to walk around on the snow, being able to see nearby mountains and on clear days, the green fields below. The Jungfraujoch can guarantee snow 365 days of the year. There is a snow park here, where numerous winter sports are on offer.
On the other side of the main building, a pair of lifts allow travellers to opportunity visit the Sphinx Observatory, at a height of 3,571m, one of the highest astronomical observatories in the world, and the second-highest viewing deck in Switzerland (the highest being at the Matterhorn).
Mountaineers first conquered the Jungfraujoch in July 1862, when they trekked from Lauterbrunnen. The expedition included six Swiss Guides and six English Climbers, one of whom was the father of Virginia Woolf, a famous writer who lived near Lewes.
(to be continued next page)
The railway was first opened in 1912, and the Sphinx Observatory was first opened in 1937 and is the highest manmade structure in Europe.
The Sphinx Observatory is home to a weather observation station and terraces for scientific experiments. There are two domes one used for astronomy, that is equipped with a 76cm telescope, the high altitude of the observatory means there is very little light pollution. The other dome is used for meteorology.
In 1953, the future 125th Emperor of Japan, Akihito, visited the Jungfraujoch. He enjoyed his trip and has boosted the number of visitors to the observatory from Japan. Furthermore, the South Korean Drama Crash Landing on You was partly filmed here and in surrounding places at the bottom of the mountain, in and around Interlaken. This has caused the number of South Korean tourists to skyrocket.
The Jungfraujoch showcases the ingenuity of human engineering and highlights that even the most remote corners of the world can be conquered by humans. Only time will decide whether humans’ ability to conquer hostile environments is an advantage or a flaw. Do the scientific advancements that this place gives outweigh the destruction that was caused to make it?
Joseph Berry is a First Year student in Dicker House. He has a passion for Geography and his article on the Jungfraujoch in Switzerland is a good example of his interests - the unification of both human geography and physical geography.
Pictured above: The Sphinx Observatory at the Jungfraujoch. (Photo: Fuyu Yeo / Unsplash) Pictured below: the Jungfrau Railway mountain train ascends towards the Jungfraujoch. (Photo: Hem Poudyal / Unsplash)
Credits
Editors
Writers
Art and Graphics
Nina Hryniewicz-Sheppard
Eddie Rowley
Hau Tak Ng
Tristan Cheng
Hau Tak Ng (Religion & Philosophy, Politics)
Noor Rahman (Politics)
Ava Hooper (History)
Tom McNicholl (History)
Francis Gordon (History)
Charlie Bennett (Politics)
Ben Barlow (Politics)
Tristan Cheng (Business & Economics)
Joseph Berry (Geography)
Rui He (cover art and comic strip)
Lily Ferguson (cover art and comic strip)
Hau Tak Ng (formatting, typesetting, photo captioning / cutlining)
Joseph Berry (photography)
Nina Hrywienicz-Sheppard (photography)
Teacher Advisors
Mr L Davies
Mr J Whitaker
Special Thanks
Joseph Leonard (L6th Knights)
Tommy Paynter (L6th Deis)
All typography set in Freight Sans Pro and Freight Text Pro
SHAPE Magazine promotional poster set in Garamond Premier Pro (modified)
SHAPE subjects teach us to create, analyse, interpret and communicate with rigour, clarity, empathy and energy.
