BPR Spring 2024 Issue 1

Editors' Note

For as long as humans have basked in the taste of good food and luxuriated in the feel of fine clothing, we have been warned of the dangers of excess. Cicero wrote that Roman women bankrupted the state in the pursuit of exotic Eastern silk, Savonarola organized “bonfires of the vanities” to do away with cosmetics and mirrors, and our politicians have enacted a whole host of laws to enjoin us from what they see as greedy or licentious behavior. Even our myths frown on excessive self-absorption: Narcissus is a villain, or perhaps a fool, but never a hero.

Has social media created a generation so obsessed with the excesses of sex and beauty that it has time for little else? In “The Parasocial Network,” Ashton Higgins elaborates on a new class of relationship: one in which adoring fans swear undying—and unreciprocated—loyalty to online influencers. To Higgins, these relationships have much to do with the loneliness of Gen Z; if teenagers devote excessive attention to unrealistic digital archetypes, then they have little love left for their physical paramours.

In “Weighing the Options,” Isabel Greider takes on another threat to America’s youth: the medical establishment’s excessive focus on weight. Greider tackles the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP’s) new childhood obesity treatment guidelines, which recommend weight-loss surgeries for children as young as 13. Disregarding the scientifically thorny basis of their proposed treatments—not to mention the severe side effects that accompany them—the AAP prioritizes weight over health.

Excess can even entrap entities far larger than the AAP, as Gigi Alioto-Pier shows in “A New Line in the Sand.” We might think new cities are a thing of the past, but Saudi Arabia has decided

to construct one in an attempt to wean itself off its oil addiction. While exciting, the plan is murkier than it first appears: Swapping oil for a shiny tourist attraction is not a meaningful reduction in excess. With environmental wrongs and human rights abuses as the foundation of this project, Riyadh may suddenly find itself more vulnerable to international criticism.

Just as Saudi Arabia has failed to address its environmental excesses, the American flood insurance industry has yet to adapt to the sea change of climate change. With the risk of extreme flooding rising, private insurers levy excessive premiums or outright refuse to cover large swaths of the country, while the public sector throws money down the drain. In “Drowning in Risk,” Annabel Williams argues that, rather than naively expecting the private sector to change its avaricious ways, the US government must step in to future-proof the nation for climate change.

As American homeowners grapple with the rising water line, some college graduates are finding themselves financially and socially underwater. What happens when there are so many highly educated people that their supply outstrips demand for their labor? In “An Abandoned Aristocracy,” Bryce Vist argues that instability is sure to follow, as betrayed “excess elites” seek to avenge themselves. The only lasting solution, Vist posits, is to reduce the gap between haves and have-nots in American society.

Excess remains as pertinent a problem now as it was in Cicero’s day. Many people today would scoff at the moral panic over silk, but that does not mean we can be similarly flippant about the excesses that feed climate change or wealth inequality. We hope this issue will prompt you to reflect—as we have—on the boons and ills of excess and on its changing nature.

– Isabel & Bryce

EXECUTIVE BOARD

EDITORS IN CHIEF

Isabel Greider

Bryce Vist

CHIEFS OF STAFF

Gus LaFave

Alexander Lee

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICERS

Rohan Leveille

Annabel Williams

MANAGING EDITORS

Grace Chaikin

Harry Flores

Elliot Smith

CHIEF COPY EDITORS

Grace Leclerc

Miguel Valdovinos

INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS

Hiram Valladares Castro-Lopez

Yuliya Velhan

DATA DIRECTORS

Ryan Doherty

Asher Labovich

CREATIVE DIRECTORS

Christine Wang

Thomas Dimayuga

Haimeng Ge

MULTIMEDIA DIRECTORS

Matias Gersberg

Mitsuki Jiang

WEB DIRECTOR

Kevin Kim

DIVERSITY OFFICER

Jordan Lac

BOARD OF ADVISORS

Alexander Samaha

Alexandros Diplas

Allison Meakem

Hannah Severyns

Isabel Tejera

Tiffany Pai

Zander Blitzer

INTERVIEWS BOARD

INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS

Hiram Valladares Castro-Lopez

Yuliya Velhan

DEPUTY INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS

Alexander Delaney

Ben Ringel

Matteo Papadopoulos

Mira Mehta

INTERVIEWS ASSOCIATES

Alexandra Lehman

Ariella Reynolds

Avital Strauss

Benjamin Greenberg

Benjamin Stern

Charles Adams

Charles Wortman

Colten Edelman

Eiffel Sunga

Elijah Dahunsi

Ellia Sweeney

Emma Brankstein

Emma Stroupe

Gabi Yuan

Henry Robbins

Jie Yu Kuo

Justin Meszler

Kate Javerbaum

Lina Legesse

Matthew Kotcher

Michael Citarella

Michele Togbe

Miles Munkacy

Nash Riebe

Samuel Trachtenberg

Simon Wordofa

Taleen Sample

Theodore Fisher

William Vogel

Zoe Targoff

CREATIVE BOARD

CREATIVE DIRECTORS

Christine Wang Haimeng Ge

Thomas Dimayuga

DESIGN DIRECTORS

Hannah Jeong

Muhaddisa Ali

Patrick Farrell

GRAPHIC DESIGNERS

Claire Lin

Elliott Romano

Hyunmin Kim

Natalie Ho

ART DIRECTORS

Angela Xu

Gabrielle Harkless

Grace Liu

Lana Wang

Lucia Li

Jacob Gong

Jason Aragon

Maria Hahne

Ziwei Chen

CHIEF COPY EDITORS

Grace Leclerc

Miguel Valdovinos

MANAGING COPY EDITORS

Renee Kuo

Anum Azhar

Benjamin Levy

Darisel Velez

Davis Kelly

Desi Silverman-Joseph

Ellie Brault

Emily Colon

Harshil Garg

Maddy Brooks

Nicolas Clampitt

Sara Santacruz

William Yu

Yael Wellisch

MULTIMEDIA BOARD

EDITORIAL BOARD

MANAGING EDITORS

Grace Chaikin

Harry Flores

Elliot Smith

SENIOR EDITORS

Amina Fayaz

Ashton Higgins

Elsa Lehrer

Suzie Zhang

EDITORS

Aman Vora

Antara Singh-Ghai

Ariella Reynolds

Daphne Dluzniewski

Ela Snyder

Jodi Robinson

Kenneth Kalu

Rohan Pankaj

Sofie Zeruto

Sophie Forstner

Steve Robinson

William Loughridge

STAFF WRITERS

Ananya Narayanan

Andreas Rivera Young

Annika Reff

Brianna Paliz

Bruna Melo

Cecilia Hult

Chiupong Huang

Colten Edelman

Daniel Kyte-Zable

Daria Dmitrieva

Ellie Silverman

Evan Tao

Gigi Alioto-Pier

Ilektra Bampicha-Ninou

Jeremy Gold

Jordan Lac

Julianna Muzyczyszyn

Kayla Morrison

Keyes Sumner

McConnell Bristol

Mia Madden

Mitsuki Jiang

Morgan Dethlefsen

Nathan Haronian

Neve Diaz-Carr

Nicolaas Schmid

Nina Lidar

Noah Kim

Ophir Berrin

Phil Avilova

Ross Rutherford

Sonya Rashkovan

Tianran (Alice) Cheng

Michele Togbe

Leyad Zavriyev

Jack Stein

Erica Yun

Catharine Paik

COVER ARTIST

Maria Hahne

ILLUSTRATORS

Alexandra Zeigler

Amanda Li

Ariel Pan

Ashley Nguyen

Ayca Tuzer

Carmina Lopez

Eliza Goodwin

Emmie Wu

Greer Nakadegawa-Lee

Haley Sheridan

Hannah Rice

Hye Won (Hayley) Kim

Kaitlyn Stanton

Kex Huang

Kyla Dang

Larisa Kachko

Lily Engblom-Stryker

Miko Sellier

Peishan Yu

Tiffany Zhu

Rafael Mediodia

Ruobing Chang

Samantha Takeda

Sarah Mason

Sophia Spagna

Xinyi Liu

Xinyuan (Fiona) Song

Yan (Jessica) Jiang

Yuan Jiang

Jiang

DATA DIRECTORS

DATA ASSOCIATES

Aimee Zhang

Alex Freehoff

Alex Wick

Amanda Sun

Amine Chajar

Amy Qiao

Ariel Shifrin

Benjamin Buka

Casey Crockett

Chai Harsha

Gabi Yuan

Irene Zhao

Jed Morgan

Jennifer Shim

Jester Abella

Jo Gasior-Kavishe

Logan Rabe

Sita Pawar

Sofia Barnett

Tiffany Kuo

Titi Zhang

William Yu

DIVERSITY TEAM

DIVERSITY OFFICER

Jordan Lac

DIVERSITY ASSOCIATES

Alexander Delaney

Ilektra Bampicha-Ninou

Titi Zhang

Rohan Leveille

Annabel Williams

BUSINESS ASSOCIATES

Mariana Melzer

Gabi Yuan

Manav Musunuru

Mehari Milton

John Lee

Caroline Novatney

WEB BOARD

WEB DIRECTOR

Kevin Kim

WEB DEVELOPERS

Akshay Mehta

Alex Wick

Anh Nguyen

Armaan Patankar

Brooke Wangenheim

Devon Kear-Leng

Hao Wen

Narin Kim

Nicholas Kitahata

Shafiul Haque

William Yu

From: Data Board

In the run-up to the highly anticipated 2024 elections, the Data Board is helping BPR readers know what to expect. Having created a successful midterm election model in 2022, the Board has decided to take on a new beast: a model that will forecast the presidential, Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections. The Data Board is drawing on past elections, polls, and important economic indicators to accurately predict results across the country. The model will be up and running in May at 24cast.org.

Steve Robinson

In “How Oregon Delegitimized Drug Decriminalization,” Steve Robinson ’26 details Oregon’s recent decriminalization of illicit drug possession. While the law is based on success stories from other nations, the results in Oregon have been much worse than expected. Read his article to unravel why backlash against the policy might have more to do with its rollout than with drug decriminalization itself.

Aman Vora

From: Multimedia Board

Have you ever wondered how BPR articles come to be? The Multimedia Board is answering this question in its new series, “Beyond the Article.” Members of the Board interview staff writers about the inspiration for their articles, helping readers better understand the creative process. One episode, for example, spotlights Kenneth Kalu’s “Bricks, not Bullets,” which discusses the pernicious effects of private military companies in Africa. In the interview, Kalu dives deep into what it was like to write his first BPR article, the issues with security privatization generally, and more. Be on the lookout for this series on our website!

In West Africa, the fight for democracy has no end in sight. West Africans, having grown disillusioned with democratic ideals, have largely supported recent military coups in Niger, Guinea, Chad, Mali, and Burkina Faso. Read more about how Western nations should respond in “Democracies are Failing Democracy” by Aman Vora ’27 on the web!

Ophir Berrin ’27 explores the world of “ultras,” soccer fan groups that are both extremely passionate and, at times, extremely political. Far-right and far-left ultra groups may disagree about most issues, on and off the pitch, but Berrin argues that both sides share a common hatred for political oppression, which they often resist with rioting and violence. Read more in “The Greatest Rivalry in Sports: How Extreme Soccer Fans Combat the State” online!

Ophir Berrin

visual essay by Sophia Spagna ’24, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND by Phil Avilov

PUTIN ON A SHOW by Donald Winters

INTERVIEW WITH TOM NICHOLS by Ariella Reynolds

LOSING CHARGE by Noah Kim

INTERVIEW WITH ZACHARY PARKER by Hiram Valladares Castro-Lopez

PASTY POLITICS by Cecilia Hult

HELP WANTED by Nathan Haronian

WEIGHING THE OPTIONS by Isabel Greider

DROWNING IN RISK by Annabel Williams

AN ABANDONED ARISTOCRACY by Bryce Vist

THE PARASOCIAL NETWORK by Ashton Higgins

A

KEEP THE CASH FLOWING

by McConnell Bristol

DIVESTING FROM DESTRUCTION by

Evan Tao

INTERVIEW WITH GABE AMO by Alexander Delaney

THE TEXAN TRUMP by Keyes Sumner

INTERVIEW WITH TRACY DROZ TRAGOS by Cindy Li and Yuliya Velhan

WE WANT YOU, BUT YOU JUST CAN’T STAY by Ellie Silverman

A GREEN WAVE MEETS THE CRIMSON TIDE by Colten Edelman INTERVIEW WITH LOGAN POWELL by Avital Strauss

Out of OutSight,of Mind

How the EU outsources its environmental excesses

by Phil Avilov ’27, a Sculpture major at RISD and Staff Writer for BPR

Ashley Nguyen ’24, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

As hundreds of tractors blocked the roads to Paris this February, manure burned on the streets. Statues of commercial magnates in Brussels were torn down, and in Rome, a farmer effigy was hung near parliament. Farmers across the European Union are protesting the agricultural reforms included in the new EU environmental plan. The recent regulations demand

more sustainable farming practices, such as reducing pesticides and implementing crop rotation, but expect farmers to cope with the same demand for produce, effectively placing an involuntary yet uncompensated burden on farmers who are already struggling to navigate a dying industry. These policies, combined with the European Union-Mercosur agreement that encourages Europe to trade with Latin America, will lead to an increase in produce imports from countries that have less strict agricultural regulations. Farmers naturally fear that the influx of imported agricultural products will put them out of business.

Agriculture is far from the first sector to suffer from what has become an EU tradition— outsourcing the dirty work when it comes to environmental policy. In 2021 alone, EU countries exported 36 million tons of waste to landfills

illustration by

in Turkey and Malaysia. Despite their alleged environmental consciousness, the Scandinavian countries fall on par with the United States on the sustainable development index due to overconsumption and their constant need to import products from overseas.

A sustainable Europe cannot exist as long as other countries bear the brunt of its excesses. Thus, the European Union’s environmental laws must take a cross-border approach to be effective. Instead of focusing on reducing net waste exports, emissions, or consumption, the European Union has diverted its resources toward symbolic—but ultimately ineffective— environmental policies that continue to feed its material appetites.

The truth is that Europe produces an amount of waste that simply cannot fit on the continent. As a result, the European Union has made deals with Turkey, Malaysia, and other countries to export its trash. The policy has been justified by claims that most of the trash is metal waste, which recipients can supposedly recycle. In practice, only one-third of the European Union’s discarded metal materials are repurposed or recycled by receiving countries, with the rest ending up in landfills. Even though the European Union ostensibly set up protections that prohibit the shipments of hazardous and “destined for disposal” waste to non-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, the European Environment Agency glossary’s definition of what counts as “hazardous” presents an environmentally harmful— but economically useful—loophole. The agency defines them as wastes that are “toxic, explosive, corrosive, radioactive or other characteristics, cause danger, or are likely to cause danger to health or the environment.” These protections only cover untreated waste, whereas the toxic emissions that come from processing remain unclassified. Indeed, workers at Turkish plastic processing plants have reported respiratory issues from the fumes that come from recycling the European Union’s plastic waste. Those who live in towns near the factories have also reported poor health due to the atmospheric discharge.

the European Union's average. Scandinavian social structures may be worth emulating, but Scandinavian environmental policy is ineffective at its very root. It is hypocritical to showcase advancements in recycling while the number of things to recycle rises steadily.

Why, then, are these countries considered “environmentally successful?” In part, it’s their focus on domestic improvement: For instance, in Norway, 82 percent of car sales in 2023 were electric vehicles. The batteries for those vehicles, however, are mostly shipped across the world from China. It follows that European countries outsource not only their waste but also the impacts of their consumption. Nordic Cooperation quoted Stockholm Environment Institute research assistant Katarina Axellson, who said, “The majority of Sweden’s consumption-based emissions occur outside of Sweden. Imports of food, building materials, and fossil fuels generate the largest emissions in other parts of the world.”

The European Union’s goals for the future follow the same trajectory. Princeton professor Tim Searchinger criticized Europe’s 2021 “Fit for 55” climate plan—which focuses on reducing carbon emissions in transportation—for treating land as disposable and ignoring the deforestation that industry changes would lead to in the Amazon. The passage of a 2022 amendment titled “the carbon border adjustment mechanism” does point in a positive direction insofar as it loosely prohibits the relocation of carbon-intensive industries to nations outside the European Union. However, it remains to be seen if the enforcement of these rules will be rigorous. Manufacturers may well find another loophole, as they did with the waste regulations.

Ultimately, crop rotation is not the farmers’ worst enemy, and ramping up pesticide use will not suddenly make them rest easy. The fear that the European Union will outsource agriculture, as it has other industries, comes from its history of excessive consumption. Regulations that fail to address Europe’s current material culture may get the farmers to stop protesting, but they will not lower carbon emissions.

‘‘A sustainable Europe cannot exist as long as other countries bear the brunt of its excesses.”

That plastic comes from manufactured products, which the European Union imports (and produces) in unnecessarily high amounts. Some regions are more impactful in that regard than others. Although they are consistently on top of the Environmental Performance Index, Scandinavian countries’ carbon emission index rankings fall between 136th and 159th worldwide, a figure reflective of their excessive imports. Since waste is proportional to consumption, many Scandinavian countries also produce a large quantity of waste. Finland, for example, generates 23 tons of waste per capita yearly, according to a 2020 study, which is 5 times

The European Union does get a lot of things right with its sustainability initiatives—nature conservation, energy policies, and transportation shifts, to name a few. However, Europe cannot remain a bastion of sustainable development while the rest of the world has to process the products of its overconsumption. Capitalism still drives the geopolitical networks of excess and bores its way into environmental legislation. The undoing of such networks is a much broader conversation, but when it comes to Europe, one thing is clear: A green future lies in international cooperation and gauging the needs of every country—not just the wealthy ones.

Putin on a Show

The Russian opposition and dissenting citizens employ memetic warfare as an effective form of covert, non-violent resistance

by Donald Winters ’27, a Political Science and Psychology concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR illustration by Carmina Lopez ’25, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

How often do you think about “girl dinner”? What about Handsome Squidward? Or the Duolingo green owl? Regardless of whether or not you recognize those specific references, if you have ever used the internet, it is a near certainty that you have encountered memes in one form or another. In 1999, Richard Dawkins defined these online creations, reflecting their most striking feature: Despite being a modern mode of communication, they are as persistent as any age-old storytelling tool, surviving through replication. They serve as “artifacts of remix culture,” resulting in an endless chain of layered irony that can communicate covert messages. Memes are a thread stitching together the fabric of the internet and its five billion users.

With governments increasingly employing soft power, memes have grown in importance as a political tool. Some claim that such an approach is logical because memes can serve as a subtle weapon in the great psychological battle for hearts and minds. Others go as far as to claim that memes had an impact on Donald Trump’s 2016 electoral victory or speculate that

Russian trolls actively employ them to polarize Americans. However, these viewpoints focus on a “top-down” approach to memes, presenting state agencies as masterminds of online humor who pull the puppet strings of loyal troll armies to pursue a specific state-led goal. Those goals often concern either international relations— like humiliating an opponent to gain an advantage in a conflict—or domestic gains—like using propaganda to subconsciously manipulate public opinion in favor of the people in power. This article seeks to avoid such a narrow perspective, instead highlighting the use of memes by the Russian opposition and government critics as a form of covert online resistance.

Russian citizens politicize memes from the bottom up—an influential strategy of guerilla protest—to speak out against their government. Covert online resistance, secured by the anonymity, rapid spread, and replicability of memes, provides a unique opportunity for both the organized Russian opposition and ordinary citizens holding anti-Kremlin views to express political opinions and attitudes that

“Covert online resistance, secured by the anonymity, rapid spread, and replicability of memes, provides a unique opportunity for both the organized Russian opposition and ordinary citizens holding anti-Kremlin views to express political opinions and attitudes that would otherwise have them jailed for years due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s harsh censorship of anti-war sentiments.”

would otherwise have them jailed for years due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s harsh censorship of anti-war sentiments.

Even mildly significant political events spur waves of meme content in Russian-speaking communities on X, Telegram, Reddit, and other platforms. Tucker Carlson’s February interview with Putin, for example, sparked substantial comic commentary from the opposition—the absurdity of the president’s half-hour, reality-detached “brief historical note” on the joint pasts of Russia and Ukraine evidently struck a chord with online users. In a spiraling “meme frenzy,” Russian internet users mocked Putin, deriding his history lesson and posing Carlson as a victim of this unnecessary discourse. This form of political expression exists solely within the online dimension and actively resists Russia’s otherwise alarming lack of free speech.

In response to the opposition, the Russian government used memes about the same interview to favorably present itself—a testament to the fact that the state feels threatened by dissenting memes. Kremlin-sponsored accounts on X and other platforms used memes to declare the conversation a victory for the president. These accounts—which have been agents of Kremlin misinformation operations in the past—capitalized on Russian nostalgia, superimposing an image of Karlsson, a beloved cartoon character used widely in Kremlin memes, over Carlson. Moreover, state-backed memes hailed Carlson for “educating the West” and deemed the interview a sign of international support for Putin’s regime.

In an attempt to preserve its legitimacy amid surges of criticism, the Russian government has employed memes defensively, using stereotypes and distorted facts to diminish the reputations of the government’s many opponents. The victims of Russian propaganda meme blasts have included Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration, NATO, and President Joe Biden, among others. The characteristically non-factual nature of memes allows the Kremlin to distort reality, augmenting opponents’ blunders while downplaying its own losses. Such a strategy aims to gain a soft-power advantage by appealing to Russia’s internet generation in a familiar language. Thus, although many view government-backed memes as the genesis of online political fights, these top-down memes are merely responses. Instead, memetic warfare from the general population brings political contestation to the digital battleground.

What makes political memes such an effective form of political expression, criticism, and resistance, especially in Russia? As Dr. Anastasia Denisova notes, “Resistance by the means of social network conversations can become the entry-level point of political engagement for users in oppressed countries.” The anonymity

“The anonymity of meme expression gives a voice to the otherwise voiceless.”

of meme expression gives a voice to the otherwise voiceless. While memes do not employ wellcrafted arguments, their entertaining format and potential for virality attract considerable attention to their political messages. Just as the Kremlin uses memes to subconsciously curry the favor of Russian citizens, when employed by the opposition, a meme’s layered irony can impact its audience’s attitudes toward the critiqued subject.

A meme’s sophisticated levels of irony and lore allow its creators to convey several messages at once, all while receiving cover from the durable armor of comedy: When faced with the consequences of expressing political beliefs, an online poster can simply step aside and claim that the meme serves no purpose except pure entertainment. This plausible deniability, coupled with the fact that memes are easy to produce and instantly shareable, allows creators to freely express their political beliefs in a large online arena of like-minded individuals. While the Kremlin uses the non-factual reputation of memes to disseminate falsehoods, the opposition wields it as a tool to safely express politically risky truths.

With the jaws of Russian censorship biting deep into the flesh of anti-war activism, memetic warfare provides a perfect weapon for a (relatively) safe form of guerilla resistance. In an authoritarian state, where the price of political expression is the safety of your loved ones and a jail sentence, people have to invent new ways

to protest. While political memes might look similar to more surface-level classics, they are not just pictures with funny captions: They convey Russians’ bitter attitudes toward the war in Ukraine and their government. The ability to exchange opinions in non-state channels makes memetic warfare one of the most effective non-violent forms of protest, rapidly spreading layered messages safe from the government’s draconian witch-hunt against dissenters.

With time, however, the Kremlin is likely to recognize the threat emanating from online meme communities and take measures to diminish posters’ anonymity. Last February, the Russian government filed an administrative charge against a woman who posted a crude meme mocking Putin’s subservient relationship to the United States. In it, Putin’s speech bubble declares, “We’ll suck it and spit it out, but the Americans won’t wash their [male genitals] clean of our saliva any time soon.” Having humiliated the Kremlin, she is liable to face a fine of up to 100,000 rubles (almost two times the average monthly salary in Russia). While this is just one example of a Russian facing political retribution for a transgressive meme, it is unlikely to be the last. As Russia rapidly descends toward totalitarianism, this last vestige of political protest might, too, fall to the wayside. For now, though, it remains an invaluable tool in the hands of Russian dissenters.

Right text: “Mister Putin, why did you attack Ukraine?”

Left text: “Carlson, my dear boy, did you know that in the year 862 Rurik...”

Interview by Ariella Reynolds ’27

Illustration by Lily Engblom-Stryker ’26

AN INTERVIEW WITH TOM NICHOLS

Tom Nichols is a leading political and cultural commentator on international security, Russia, threats to democracy, and nuclear policy. Nichols is a staff writer for The Atlantic and the author of the book The Death of Expertise. His ideas on why Americans have begun privileging lay opinion over expertise landed him the number 13 spot in Politico’s Top 50 “Ideas Blowing Up American Politics” nearly six years ago. Nichols also taught at the US Naval War College and Harvard Extension School, was a five-time Jeopardy! champion, and appeared in an episode of Succession

Ariella Reynolds: What motivated you to start writing for The Atlantic about some of the most pressing issues of our time? And why for The Atlantic in particular?

Tom Nichols: I didn’t envision my career as a writer, but I have been a dedicated Atlantic reader since I was in college. So, when they called me asking me to write a piece for them, I felt like I’d gotten an invitation to go dance on Broadway. At some point, I took over The Atlantic Daily. The next thing I knew, I was a staff writer. To answer your more substantive question, I think that the survival of democracy is the defining issue of the 21st century and I wouldn’t have said that 30 years ago. The Atlantic is a particularly wonderful venue for this because its motto is “of no party or clique.” It’s a nonpartisan magazine. We are defenders of the American idea, and that’s what I want to do. I am no longer registered with any political party. In fact, I wrote about leaving the Republican Party for The Atlantic six years ago. And I just think it’s the most important thing in the world to write about right now. I mean, American democracy is hanging by a thread, as it is in other countries around the world.

AR: It seems as if The Atlantic has become kind of this last mainstay of bipartisanship. How did we get to this state of political polarization?

TN: Some of it is physical sorting, meaning that we don’t live around each other anymore. We move to neighborhoods that are full of people like us. There’s also the problem of siloing the press and media. When I was a kid back in the

“And we did not have tailor-made 24-hour buffets of closed epistemic reassurance all day long. Fox News in particular is practically like a propaganda organization at this point.”

Jurassic Park era, we had three networks plus PBS. And we did not have tailor-made 24-hour buffets of closed epistemic reassurance all day long. Fox News in particular is practically like a propaganda organization at this point. Social media has also been a brutal influence on this.

AR: What can we do about these challenges?

TN: Young voters are obsessed with solving the big problems of the world, right? Well, you do that by voting at the local level, including voting for the school committee, city council, and state representatives. If more people showed up for primaries, city, and local elections, we’d see the country change over time.

AR: How do you think Trump’s presidency has contributed to polarization since the 2016 election?

TN: Trump has made politics about personal loyalty. In a narcissistic country, he’s the most narcissistic person there is. Narcissists have a hard time being part of a community and thinking in terms of civic involvement because they don’t care about anybody else. Trump has offered people a very clear choice: us or them. You’re either with me or you’re against me. You’re my enemy or you’re my friend.

AR: We see a splintering within the Republican Party about whether or not we should send aid to Ukraine and the same within the Democratic Party about aid to Israel. Do you believe this split is due to the complexity of these conflicts or an underlying fracturing of parties?

TN: I don’t think the Democratic Party is really struggling with aid to Israel. I think that the elected Democrats would pass an aid-to-Israel package in the next 10 minutes if they could. There is a small and vocal group of people that I think are irresponsible. But, by and large, the Democratic Party is not tearing itself apart over this, which is not to say there isn’t a lot of heartburn about what’s happening in the Middle East.

AR: Now, I know that you’re currently working on your next book, the 2024 update to The Death of Expertise. What does it cover that the original doesn’t?

TN: Well, when I wrote the original in 2017, people kept sending me email after email saying, “Oh my God, did you see this?” And “Your book was so prescient.” And “Have you done an update?” So it was just time. There’s a whole chapter on Covid-19. There are also a lot of new personalities. There are a couple of shoutouts to Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Joe Rogan, and a few other folks who really have continued to poison our public life with bad information.

AR: Is there anything that you regret saying in the first book, or any predictions that didn’t come true?

TN: I was too optimistic. I really thought that a national crisis like a pandemic would actually bring us back together rather than blow us apart. The things that I didn’t see coming in the book are partly why I wrote the next book, Our Own Worst Enemy. I was just trying to explain in that book: How is it that we have reached this peace, prosperity, high living standards, and yet people all around the world are gravitating toward charlatans, performance artists, and clowns like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump, and Jair Bolsonaro? How is it that somehow people are just so intently, politically suicidal? And that really came out of writing The Death of Expertise

AR: What else should we be on the lookout for from you?

TN: Well, I’ve already made my national TV debut, so I don’t think I’m going to get any more of those. And I’m still writing at The Atlantic. I’ll be just plugging away on The Atlantic Daily.

Edited for length and clarity.

Losing

Charge

The problems with falling behind China’s electric vehicle surge

by Noah Kim ’27, a Math-Computer Science concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

illustration by Haley Sheridan ’25, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

Automaking was once the crown jewel of the US economy. While East Asian companies started manufacturing cheaper products in the 1980s, a long history of Western dominance, technological edge, and protectionist policies limited Asian automaking expansion. China had failed to capture its domestic market, let alone anything international. Thus, having little to lose, it pursued a so-called “leapfrog” strategy, in which Chinese firms, instead of fighting existing behemoths in what could be a declining industry, decided to spend fortunes on research to create more sophisticated electric vehicles (EVs). China’s decision seems to be paying off in spades, as the country’s EV companies are poised to be everyone's stiffest industry competitors. This emergence comes at a time when EVs are emerging as the top candidate to become the primary vehicle market. In 2023, EU lawmakers announced a plan to outlaw the sale of traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars by 2035, with some member states like Norway committing to even faster timelines. This means that EVs will become the dominant force in the automobile market, with growth projected at nearly 18 percent annually until 2030.

The changing auto industry landscape will not only affect what types of cars are produced but also where they are coming from: Western dominance of the car market is on its way out. While many people have started associating the EV industry with Tesla, an EV blitz out of China led by automaker BYD may soon put Tesla on the back foot. Elon Musk has even said that, without trade barriers, “[The Chinese] will pretty much

demolish most other car companies in the world. They’re extremely good.” Indeed, BYD surpassed Tesla sales in the fourth quarter of 2023. If the United States wants to regain its footing in the competition, it must take creative, proactive measures.

In response to an increasing trade imbalance, the Biden administration is considering raising tariffs on Chinese-made EVs. While Musk and other automakers may be begging for these trade barriers, tariffs would simply make Chinese EVs more expensive. US policymakers might be able to whittle down the 20 to 30 percent price advantage, but such efforts fall short of a long-term solution to Chinese preeminence. BYD is already planning to circumvent the antiChina trade policy by increasing overseas production in Mexico. Applying steep tariffs could

trigger harsh economic and political retaliation from Beijing in the form of counter-tariffs, bans, and regulatory pressure affecting the entire US economy. If experience dictates anything, the trade war that ensues could lead to a net negative outcome for the United States, including considerably reduced future access to one of the biggest markets in the world—damning for American producers and consumers alike. If the United States simply blocks Chinese EVs without a suitable and accessible domestic alternative, American hopes for an EV-green transition could easily fall to ruin.

While BYD faces headwinds in the US market for economic and political reasons, the company has expanded rapidly throughout Southeast Asia and Latin America; Biden might

win the domestic battle, but he is losing the war for global automobile hegemony. China already dominates nearly 75 percent of Thailand’s EV market, the second largest in South Asia. BYD has also invested in EV manufacturing and infrastructure in Brazil, one of the largest markets in South America. Europe is well within Chinese automakers’ sights, meaning it is likely a matter of time before the United States sees cheap Chinese EVs shipped into its borders.

China’s clear dominance in the extraction and processing of rare earth metals, which are necessary for crucial EV components, means its companies are not limited by the same material constraints as American producers, which import most supplies. Most Western car companies face major shortages, prompting Tesla’s costly plan to innovate its way out of using all rare earth metals. China’s supply chain resiliency also benefits from lithium-ion batteries, the core of an EV: These batteries, manufactured primarily within China’s borders, are heavily dependent on Chinese-controlled markets and technology.

Direct political support from the Chinese Communist Party prevents the tailwind behind EVs from sputtering. Beijing has implemented preferred selection for highly coveted license plates for EV owners, mandatory EV quotas and credits, and direct industrial policies like subsidies and tax breaks. China has also set anti-ICE goals, committing to no sales after 2035. Using consumer and corporate incentives, the Chinese leadership has irreversibly increased its foothold in the EV market.

While the United States can’t be China, China’s success in EVs can give Washington insights into how to adapt to a changing market. To effectively counter a Chinese EV flood, the United States needs competitive alternatives. While the overall situation is pressing, it also presents a unique opportunity to rally American

political forces: Climate-conscious individuals— together with China hawks and Midwestern industrialists—should advocate a combination of industrial policy and social incentives. This would simultaneously push back against growing trade deficits and bolster support for green legislation. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act supports this approach, with its considerable incentives for onshoring and maintenance of high duties on Chinese cars.

Yet, the ultimate problem with EVs is that, for ordinary US consumers, they are simply inconvenient. The lack of fast and accessible charging seems to be a considerable hurdle when the payoff is decreasing one’s perceptually nebulous “carbon footprint.” The solution once again lies within the Chinese playbook. In addition to having the robust charging infrastructure that the United States lacks, China’s social incentives, like the distribution of driver’s licenses, make EVs a more convenient and attractive option than a traditional car. For the US government, in addition to economic incentives making EVs more affordable and an industrial policy driving Western innovation, a similar “soft factor” policy is necessary to dislodge the powerful inertia of ICE’s presence within American society. A combination of small things like preferential parking, toll exemptions, EV-only lanes, or other benefits that encourage the use of electric cars could go a long way in converting new buyers toward EVs.

A green and economically independent future necessitates that EVs be integrated into the national infrastructure. Out of concern for geopolitical and climate interests, it is necessary to cultivate demand for EVs by swiftly transitioning American ICE production to EV manufacturing. Instead of provoking a direct confrontation with China, US lawmakers should cultivate a homegrown approach to contain and diminish China’s growing influence on the global auto market.

“While Musk and other automakers may be begging for these trade barriers, tariffs would simply make Chinese EVs more expensive. US policymakers might be able to whittle down the 20 to 30 percent price advantage, but such efforts fall short of a long-term solution to Chinese preeminence.”

AN INTERVIEW WITH ZACHARY PARKER

DC Ward 5 Councilmember Zachary Parker is an educator and public servant. Parker grew up on the South Side of Chicago. He received his BS in Communication Science and Disorders from Northwestern University and his MA in Policy and Leadership from Columbia University. In 2018, Parker was elected by Ward 5 neighbors to serve as their representative on the DC State Board of Education. He was unanimously selected by his colleagues to serve as the President of the State Board in 2021. In 2022, Parker won the election to represent Ward 5 on the DC Council, earning him the distinction of being the first Black, openly gay council member to serve.

Hiram Valladares Castro-Lopez: So first off, for our readers who are totally unfamiliar with DC and its political system, could you give a brief overview of how the government is structured and your role in it?

Zachary Parker: The District is a city operating as a county and a state. We are 700,000-plus residents who do not have representatives in the Senate. We do have a non-voting congressional member. We have the Council of the District of Columbia, which is a 13-member body: one member for each of the eight wards, four at-large members, and one elected chairman. I represent Ward 5 on the DC Council. It’s important to distinguish the DC Council from the DC City Council, as it’s often purported, because our body is more akin to a state legislature. We also have our Mayor, who operates as the executive. We have our courts made up of judges who are, along with a US attorney, federally appointed. There are three branches of government; we have two of them that are elected by the people, the Mayor and the Council. Then we have our courts, which are a mix of locally elected (our attorney general) and federally appointed (our US attorney and judges).

HVCL: Give me your elevator pitch for why DC should become a state.

ZP: DC should become a state for many reasons, but I would say one of the most important is that we pay more taxes per capita than many other states. We have 700,000 residents who are duly represented citizens of this country, yet we don’t have full representation in Congress hence the popular slogan “taxation without

representation.” A second reason is that we once had representation in Congress, so there is a precedent. So the precedent plus the amount of taxes that we pay, and as citizens of this country we call the United States of America, we too are owed representation and voting rights.

HVCL: Why is DC statehood an issue of racial justice?

ZP: For a long time, DC, often referred to as Chocolate City, was a jurisdiction that was majority Black. Many say, I believe rightly, that the reasons for DC being stripped of its voting representation were directly connected to those who lived predominantly in the District: Black and Brown folks. To this day, African Americans and minorities across the board make up the majority of the 700,000-plus residents of the District of Columbia. So, to deny people of color voting representation in Congress is a matter of racial justice. I would also say that when you look at the consequences of a lack of statehood, whether it be funding for our schools, access to medical care, or certain guaranteed rights that other jurisdictions take for granted, it becomes clear again that it is a matter of racial justice.

HVCL: Has Congress interfered excessively in internal district policy?

ZP: Most recently, given that Congress is led by Republicans, there have been concerns on the part of my colleagues about advancing certain legislation, whether it be about abortion or gun regulations, out of fear that congressional Republicans will lean in. For instance, there is common sense abortion access legislation that

has not moved forward, although it is still very much legal to get an abortion in the District. We understand that we have a Congress that wants to beat up on the District. There’s also a rider that has existed for many years that precludes the District from selling, managing, and profiting from legal marijuana sales. That’s just another example of how congressional interference reaps devastating effects on the day-to-day lives of District residents.

HVCL: What can students, particularly those outside of the District or those who haven’t even visited the District, do to raise awareness for the struggle toward DC Statehood?

ZP: One way is to educate others around you about the importance of DC statehood. I think that January 6, when the Mayor of the District of Columbia didn’t have the authority to call up the National Guard to protect the city, even while the Capitol was being overrun, was a great example of the importance of DC statehood. The second is to engage in the fight, whether it be by volunteering, making calls, or advocating for other representatives in Congress to take this matter seriously. The third is to make sure we elect representatives that support DC statehood. Even in Iowa or California, we should be asking our elected representatives: How do you feel about DC statehood? While that may not be a top-ofthe-ticket issue for a lot of voters, it could yield a lot of insight into the future of how we cross the finish line.

Interview by Hiram Valladares Castro-Lopez ’26

Illustration by Lily Engblom-Stryker ’26

Pasty Politics

Why devolution can’t save the Union

by Cecilia Hult ’26, an English and Political Science concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

illustration by Qingyang (Tiffany) Zhu ’25, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

In 1998 and 1999, the United Kingdom established the Northern Irish Assembly and the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, respectively, delegating certain powers to these newly formed regional governments in a process known as devolution. This system was designed to localize politics in regions with strong nationalist sentiment in order to produce legislation better suited to local needs and appease citizens who felt culturally and geographically disconnected from the Westminster Parliament. But if the purpose of devolution was to address a unique, historically cultivated identity concentrated in a specific region, why establish a Welsh Parliament but not a parliament in Cornwall? Both are deeply shaped by their Celtic histories, and both have languages protected by a European Charter. Indeed, the question of how to address culturally distinct regions like Cornwall has troubled British politics for the past 25 years.

When, in February 2022, the UK government published a white paper entitled “Levelling Up the United Kingdom,” it seemingly answered this question with the open-ended promise of devolution for “every part of England that wants” it. For Cornish nationalists, who have agitated for devolution for decades, this promise was long overdue. But the paper’s faults lie in what remains unaddressed. Its proposals labor under the presumption that the United Kingdom’s democratic deficit will now be corrected without a constitutional crisis and that regional assemblies will combat growing political malaise without any resultant tensions between devolved and Westminster members of Parliament. Even more essentially, there is no mention of the possibility of devolution within the nations of Scotland,

Wales, or Northern Ireland. So while the history of Cornwall’s devolution movement exemplifies the persistence of fragmented regional identities within the Union, perhaps it is now time for action beyond the sporadic creation of new assemblies. It is time to rethink the structure of the United Kingdom’s Parliament in Westminster itself.

Cornwall’s current devolutionist party, Mebyon Kernow (“The Party for Cornwall” in English), was founded in 1951. In 2014, the UK government recognized the Cornish as a national minority under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. But the precedent for Cornwall’s autonomy existed as early as the 11th century. In the centuries following its 1066 absorption into England, Cornwall retained a significant degree of self-rule. Because of the growth of the Cornish tin industry, the region was granted a Stannary Charter in 1305, which established a separate parliament and courts to legislate and settle legal disputes in the Cornish Stannaries—areas of Cornwall where tin was mined. These structures remained in place for hundreds of years: The Cornish Stannary Parliament met until 1753, and the Stannary Court lasted until 1896. As a result, modern-day Cornwall cannot be seen simply as another English region—it has its own language, people, and history.

Westminster is often out of touch with Cornwall’s cultural identity. In 2012, legislation implementing a “Cornish pasty tax” (an increase of the value-added tax on hot pastries) was met with such public outcry that the government was forced to U-turn on the policy. George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, remarked during the controversy that he could not remember the last time he had a pasty, a reflection of a cultural and class disconnect between the UK government and Cornwall. Osborne was the heir to a familial baronet title, whereas the pasty was an inexpensive meal

“If devolution was rooted in the acknowledgement of a historically cultivated identity concentrated in a specific region, why establish a Welsh Parliament but not a parliament in Cornwall?”

popularized as a staple for Cornish miners and their families.

Giving Cornwall the “proper devolution enjoyed by [their] fellow Celtic nations in Wales and Scotland,” as Mebyon Kernow leader Dick Cole advocates, would undoubtedly undermine Westminster’s sovereignty and further fragment the United Kingdom’s national identity. But the movement for Cornish devolution is a symptom of these issues with Britain’s political structure, not their cause. To locate sovereignty in Westminster at all—when only 14 percent of the United Kingdom’s population lives in London, and polls indicate a general disillusionment with the national government—perpetuates the centuries of exploitation inflicted upon regional minorities in the Union. And the UK government still retains the dominant hand in matters of devolution, watering down devolution deals with local governments and preventing the cracks in the UK political system from becoming too wide. It conditioned further Cornish devolution on a locally unpopular structural change of the Cornwall Council to a mayoral system, for instance, forcing Cornwall to accept fewer devolved powers than initially assumed as a result. Indeed, Cornwall’s newest deal, finalized in November 2023 after over a year of debate, is littered with vague pledges of cooperation between the government and the Cornwall Council, but Westminster has yet to confer virtually any tangible powers to Cornwall.

The devolution movement initiated by Prime Minister Tony Blair at the end of the 20th century formally acknowledged the existence of regional divisions in the United Kingdom. It is time to consider stronger policy changes: Appointments to the House of Lords, for instance, which occur on the advice of the prime minister and have historically been used for political reasons, could become a means of giving underrepresented regions a voice instead of just acting as an extension of Britain’s culture of cronyism. We cannot now ignore further divisions just to protect an outdated conception of British cohesion.

Help Wanted

by Nathan Haronian ’25, an Applied Math and International and Public Affairs concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

illustrations by Alexandra Zeigler ’24, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

Japan will have to surmount severe demographic challenges to successfully remilitarize

In November 2022, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced that Japan would increase its defense budget to 2 percent of its GDP, making it the world’s third-largest military spender by April 2027. Japan appears to be well on track: From its new aircraft development partnerships with the United Kingdom and Italy to its commitment to increasing its defense spending by over 16 percent in 2024, Japan is ramping up military investments rapidly.

To be clear, Japan does not have an official military. After World War II, US-occupied Japan created a new constitution barring any post-war government from maintaining a true military. Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution not only prohibits the “maintenance of land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential,” but also specifically prohibits the country from using any force to settle international disputes. With this restrictive Constitution, a legacy overshadowed by the collective memory of nuclear attacks, and the Japanese government’s inability to own up to its imperial past, Japanese citizens came to view war with apathy and condemnation. Only after the Korean War did the international community allow for the development of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (SDF), which, as the name implies, must only be maintained and developed

for self-defense purposes. In reality, however, the bulk of Japan’s security strategy rests on the United States. Japan sits under the US “nuclear umbrella” and, as of September 2022, is home to the largest installation of US troops and military bases worldwide. But in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and increasing tensions with China and North Korea, Japan is reluctant to place all of its bets on the United States. Surrounded by growing security risks, Japan sees a clear imperative to pursue remilitarization. But with a population divided along political and generational lines, Japan is finding cracks in its new armor—cracks that it must shore up with new approaches to military recruitment.

Remilitarization is the result of years of debate and slow change. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the leader of Japan’s effectively oneparty system, has long pushed for conservative and nationalistic reforms, with militarization being the most controversial of them. In 2014, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe circumvented constitutional processes to issue an official reinterpretation of Article 9, allowing the SDF to aid allied armies in conflicts abroad. This move was controversial enough to set off a chain of pacifist protests throughout the country and led the LDP to abandon a proposal to remove much of the pacifist language from Article 9. Now, with increased threats from China, Russia, and North Korea, the LDP has the opportunity to allocate 2 percent of the world’s fourth-largest GDP to the purchase and production of naval ships, air-defense systems, cybersecurity capabilities, and fighter jets. But for all the rhetoric and money propping up this new and improved SDF, the Japanese government still has a major deficit in its most important military resource: people.

Japan’s population has been declining since 2008, and today, the nation claims the title of having the oldest population in the world. Between 1994 and 2021, Japan’s population of 18- to 26-year-olds—the SDF’s primary

“The SDF’s current recruitment challenge runs deeper than a lack of young people and an imbalanced job market.”

demographic—dropped by roughly seven million and is expected to drop by another three million by 2040. Japanese youth appear reluctant to join the fight: Although the SDF has a positive reputation among young people, it has not met recruitment targets since 2013, with fewer than 4,000 people signing up in 2022. A recent survey showed that while Japanese Gen Z’ers believe an armed conflict is impending, they would rather protest (36 percent) or flee (21 percent) than fight (5 percent). Those who do not believe a conflict is coming simply believe that Japan is either too committed to pacifism or that the SDF will not have enough troops to get involved in a conflict.

And it turns out that Japanese Gen Z’ers are almost as unwilling to vote as they are to join the military, with only about a third showing up in the 2022 general election. Far better represented in the active electorate is the older population, which is more in favor of revising Article 9 to strengthen the SDF’s defense posture. So, while the LDP and conservative defense buildup programs do not resonate with younger people, these younger people have neither the representative power nor the political will to change much. A “silver democracy” of conservative middle-aged and elderly politicians may want to build a large military, but without an entrenched base of younger supporters that they can recruit, remilitarization efforts may be a nonstarter.

So how is the LDP addressing this issue? One tactic is to look beyond Japan’s youth and engage a more easily persuadable demographic. Advertising campaigns that target middle-aged and elderly service members are becoming increasingly common. Supporting these campaigns are changes to the Reserve Officer Corps System and the SDF active duty criteria that increase eligibility for older citizens and raise the retirement age for officers. The SDF also sees potential in the recruitment of more female officers: In 2018, only about 6.5 percent of

uniformed officers were female. Unfortunately, several high-profile sexual harassment and assault cases and widely reported abuses of power reveal a systematically abusive culture that deters female recruitment. As part of the official defense buildup plan, the SDF has restructured living arrangements, reporting guidelines, and other organizational aspects of life in the SDF to encourage more female recruits.

Another option is to recruit immigrants, potentially giving them a path to naturalization by participating in the SDF. This seems unlikely in the near future, however, as the Japanese government has yet to pursue policies that embrace long-term, legitimate immigration. Furthermore, Japan’s famous work culture, which places high value on lifetime employment in prestigious companies, could be upset by a job market made more competitive by immigration. Because of the demographic imbalance, Japan’s current unemployment rate is around 2.5 percent. Immigration could make landing prestigious private-sector careers more difficult and make the SDF an increasingly attractive option.

The SDF’s current recruitment challenge runs deeper than a lack of young people and an imbalanced job market. Taking a step back, one can see a deeper disconnect between an aging, conservative government and a pacifistic youth population that did not ask to build up a military that they are not interested in serving in. As tensions in the Pacific rise, it is likely that Japan will remain what is essentially a US protectorate. Substantial changes in automation, immigration policy, wages, and culture may help revive the SDF as it struggles to expand. Nevertheless, given the LDP’s aging, conservative culture, these major reforms are unlikely to be implemented under the current system. Real change will come when the youth of the country take their future into their own hands. Whether that future will see a resurgence of militarism or steadfast pacifism remains to be seen.

by Isabel Greider

Ashton Higgins

Alito-Pier

The medical establishment places excessive emphasis on weight as the heart of health

by Isabel Greider ’25, a History and Education Studies concentrator and Editor in Chief for BPR

Weighing Options the Weighing Options the

Last winter, two men awaiting sentencing at Rikers Island—a jail complex infamous for neglecting to provide critical medical care to its inmates— underwent elective weight-loss surgeries. Luis Perez and David Mustiga had both been recruited by Bellevue, a New York public hospital, a few months prior. Perez, who received the surgery first, told Mustiga that it was more excruciating than being hit by a car, but Mustiga’s surgeon cautioned him that this would be his last chance to get the procedure.

illustration by Emmie Wu ’24, an Illustration and Jewelry + Metalsmithing major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

Both men’s health deteriorated over the next year. Mustiga, having lost more than 100 pounds, developed anemia and experienced rapid hair loss. Perez couldn’t eat without vomiting and was left with a yellow complexion. Neither was able to keep up with the surgery’s intensive recovery guidelines, which recommended attending Zumba classes and drinking mass quantities of Crystal Light—lifestyle changes difficult to accommodate even outside of a prison cell.

In the same month Mustiga and Perez underwent their procedures, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) changed its childhood obesity treatment guidelines for the first time in 15 years. In addition to recommending weight-loss drugs for 12-year-olds, the AAP endorsed the use of weight-loss operations, or bariatric surgeries, to treat children as young as 13. Alarmingly, only thin evidence addresses the long-term safety of adolescent bariatric surgery, and health professionals have pointed to the procedure’s risks for any patient. The AAP’s new guidelines are just one example of the medical establishment’s excessive emphasis on weight loss as the nucleus of well-being—often at the grave expense of other health outcomes.

To be sure, higher weights are associated with several comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Prevention of these conditions is allegedly the driving force of the campaign against obesity. Counterintuitively, then, the AAP excluded studies specifically targeting comorbidities from its literature review—the basis of its treatment guidelines—explaining that it “did not attempt to address treatment strategies for comorbidities… The primary intended outcome [of the studies] had to be obesity, broadly defined, and not an obesity comorbidity.” Rather than confronting obesity’s actual health risks, weight loss is the AAP’s one-size-fits-all solution.

The AAP’s solitary focus on weight is made more problematic by its use of the body mass index (BMI) as the primary determinant of which children need treatment. The history of the metric is laden with racism, fatphobia, sexism, and conflicts of interest, not to mention minimal scientific rigor. Ancel Keys, the physiologist who developed BMI in the

1970s, called obesity “ethically repugnant” and “disgusting.” It was born from a study of men exclusively from European countries and the United States. Now, we know that people of Asian descent tend to be at a higher risk for comorbidities at relatively low BMIs, and people of Polynesian descent generally have more lean mass than others, even when classified as obese. BMI is influenced by myriad factors, including genetics, unique to each individual. The AAP recognizes these complex factors, yet puzzlingly treats BMI as an across-the-board measure of both size and health.

BMI cutoffs, which form the foundation of our understanding of obesity, are backed by tenuous evidence at best. Katherine Flegal, an epidemiologist who researches weight and mortality, explained, “These are arbitrary numbers” likely selected because of “digit preference” for multiples of five. As recently as 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) refrained from using BMI to classify obesity, stating, “There is no agreement about cut-off points for the percentage of body fat that constitutes obesity.” Just two years later, the International Obesity Task Force—later revealed to be funded by weight-loss drug companies— offered the WHO a hefty grant in exchange for the opportunity to consult on the now-widespread cutoffs: A BMI of 25 to 29.9 designates an individual as overweight, and a BMI of 30-plus classifies them as obese. When

surgery enables weight loss and reduces comorbidity prevalence. The same body of literature that promotes the procedure, however, either glosses over its long-term impacts or fails to properly study them—especially in adolescents. By recommending bariatric surgery to children with scant evidence of its long-term safety, the AAP risks displaying the same negligence as the surgeons who operated on Perez and Mustiga.

People who undergo bariatric surgeries face a host of mental and physical side effects. We know the operation makes adults more likely to die by suicide and develop alcohol-use disorder. Up to 21 percent of patients become unable to properly absorb protein, producing symptoms like Perez’s non-stop vomiting. Patients also lose between 8 and 13 percent of their bone mass, making them 2.4 times more likely to endure a fracture in the 15 years post-surgery.

Less information is available on bariatric surgery’s health implications for adolescents, but the data we do have are distressing. Though reoperation rates are low for adults, one study found that almost 10 percent of teen patients who receive gastric bypasses—which the AAP recommends for 13-year-olds—require reoperations or develop life-threatening conditions. And that’s for a cohort with a mean age of 17. Adolescents are also more likely than adults to become nutrient-deficient post-surgery.

“BMI is influenced by myriad factors, including genetics, unique to each individual. The AAP recognizes these complex factors, yet puzzlingly treats BMI as an acrossthe-board measure of both size and health.”

the pharmaceutical-bankrolled WHO guidelines went public in 1998, 29 million Americans became “overweight” overnight, and weight-loss drugs like Redux and Xenical (Ozempic’s predecessors) were born with silver spoons in their mouths.

The fragile credibility of BMI makes the AAP’s excessive recommendations all the more troubling. Bariatric surgery is the most controversial of the crop. Although performing weight-loss operations on adolescents is not new, endorsement of the practice by the leading authority on pediatric healthcare will no doubt increase the procedure’s prevalence.

In some ways, the AAP’s recommendation makes sense: Bariatric

The AAP’s literature review—reputedly made up of “large” studies showing that adolescent bariatric surgery is “safe and effective”—does not exclude these troubling results. One repeatedly cited study had a sample size of 81 teenagers, a quarter of whom underwent additional abdominal surgeries for dangerously rapid weight loss or other complications. A whopping 72 percent became deficient in nutrients. Other AAP-backed studies had short durations, shrouding their participants’ long-term health outcomes.

The AAP, and the medical establishment as a whole, should shape their recommendations with positive health outcomes, not weight loss, as the primary goal. The Health at Every Size approach proposes that physicians exhibit weight neutrality and emphasize improving health markers. A recent meta-analysis found that, as compared to traditional weight-loss interventions, weight-neutral approaches improved eating disorder symptoms while evincing identical impacts on blood pressure, lipid and glucose levels, and even weight. The AAP’s new guidelines ignore the very real possibility of improving people’s health without relying on scientifically thorny measures like BMI.

A weight-neutral approach would help doctors disentangle medical advice from their unconscious weight-related biases. Medical settings are onerous for larger-bodied people, over half of whom report hearing inappropriate comments from physicians. These experiences are not just uncomfortable: Weight stigma is linked with diabetes risk and obesity itself. The AAP gives only piecemeal nods to this discrimination, like recommending that physicians say “child with obesity” rather than “obese child”—a practice called “person-first language,” which many larger-bodied people argue makes fatness seem taboo. Rather than making pacifying appeals to semantics, the AAP should genuinely change the way it thinks about weight. For the sake of the 13-year-olds in its guidelines, this work must start now.

Drowning inRisk

How poorly thought out flood policy has left vulnerable US homeowners high and dry

by Annabel Williams ’26, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and Chief Operating Officer for BPR

A small house in Spring, Texas, worth $42,000, flooded 19 times due to heavy rain. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) covered repairs for each of those floods, costing a whopping $912,732—over 20 times the value of the house itself.

About three-fourths of Americans living in high-risk areas have purchased flood insurance policies, the majority of which are provided by the government. However, the NFIP does not necessarily provide cheaper or better policies; the government dominates insurance claims below its $250,000 coverage cap due to a noncompete clause restraining private insurers. In response, a coalition of diverse stakeholders has called on the government to increase competition in the flood insurance market.

As climate change aggravates natural disasters, rates of repeated home floods are rising. Thirty houses in the United States have flooded at least 30 times, and 214,000 homes had flooded repeatedly in 2018—an increase of 64,000 since 2009. Motivated more by their bottom lines than by helping American homeowners, private flood insurance companies would refuse to cover high-risk areas, even if granted a larger corner of the market. Increasing competition is, therefore, only a partial solution to the flood insurance crisis. The NFIP must instead raise its coverage cap and resolve its current inefficiencies to ensure that Americans can survive the sea change of climate change.

The World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report ranks “extreme weather events” as the top international risk within the next 10 years. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calculated that the cost of climate-related disasters last year totaled an astounding $165 billion. Without necessary investments in climate change mitigation, these costs will be much higher in the future.

Private companies are ill-equipped to handle rising risk levels, burdening households with spiking rate premiums or refusing to insure certain areas entirely. Homeowners insurance companies—which are distinct from flood insurers—provide a useful example of this phenomenon. For instance, several homeowners insurance companies have simply stopped offering new policies in Florida out of trepidation for rising sea levels. Other companies have tried skirting financial risk by raising their premium rates in proportion to hurricane and other natural

disaster risks. In January, the North Carolina Rate Bureau asked the state’s Department of Insurance to approve enormous rate increases, averaging 42 percent statewide and going up to an excessive 99 percent in coastal counties. If private companies were to gain greater access to the flood insurance market, the same would likely happen. And, because a $500 flood insurance premium rate hike can reduce a home’s market value by $10,000, excess flood risk eats away at equity. Homeowners in high-risk areas might lose private coverage entirely.

While introducing private competition into the flood insurance market would not be a calamity, it would not be a cure-all, either. The solution, requiring long-term foresight, rests in the public sector. Now more than ever, the American insurance system needs to be restructured, and a larger federal disaster response and prevention approach must be implemented. Together, these two policy changes are critical to our nation’s success in mitigating the impacts of natural disasters and rising sea levels.

The NFIP’s repeated home rebuilds, like those in Spring, Texas, are just one example of the inefficiencies plaguing the program. It is therefore unsurprising that the NFIP is $21 billion in debt to the Department of the Treasury. The program allocates too many resources to rebuilding property when it should be incentivizing homeowners in flood-prone areas to preemptively relocate. Alarmingly, only $1.72 of every $100 that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) spends goes to relocation efforts, according to the National Resource Defence Council. In Rhode Island, FEMA granted $5.5 billion in total aid over 30 years with the hope of relocating homeowners, but the majority of that funding was diverted for repeated rebuilds.

It is time for the NFIP and FEMA alike to be organizationally proactive. The NFIP’s current preventative measures, though insufficiently implemented, have been successful: Constructing flood maps and building floodplain mitigation projects save the program $1.6 billion annually in potential losses. Over the next 50 years, FEMA hopes to grow significantly, claiming that it will “quadruple the amount invested in mitigation.”

Throwing money down the drain by repairing the damage caused by a Texas basement’s annual floods—with the water reaching higher each time—is simply not the solution. But neither is leaving Americans high and dry without any insurance or plan to prepare for the burgeoning natural disasters threatening their homes. Climate change’s effects on the housing market represent not merely a pressing risk but, more importantly, an opportunity to take massive federal steps toward acclimating to the new environmental reality.

illustration by Peishan Yu ’24, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

Aristocracy

A dearth of jilted elite aspirants threatens to exacerbate social fissures

by Bryce Vist ’25, an Economics and International and Public Affairs concentrator and Editor in Chief for BPR

Abandoned Aristocracy An

Why are you going to college?

Ask a panel of 18-year-olds that question, and you’re likely to get a wide variety of responses. Some might cite earnings data and describe the returns to various degrees. Others may lean on the fond memories of their parents, their desire to learn more about a particular field, or their urge to partake in a college lifestyle. These answers leave out perhaps the most important reason that young Americans seek advanced academic degrees: They offer a ticket to our society’s elite.

The yawning gap between the college-educated and those without a bachelor’s degree is one of the defining fault lines of American life. The non-college-educated earn less, live shorter lives, and are less likely to raise children in two-parent households. An increasing share of jobs require a college degree—not because the work is specialized, but because a BA (or BS) is a signaling mechanism that an employer can use as a proxy for a whole host of underlying character traits about a prospective employee. If an applicant has the wits and work ethic to complete a four-year degree, the thinking goes, they are likely to meet some baseline of competence and productivity. Those without a degree, on the other hand, have uncertain qualifications and are likely to be left out in the cold.

That the American public has responded to this set of incentives is not seriously in question. Since 1970, the percentage of college-educated Americans has increased from 11 percent to 38 percent. The quantity of master’s degrees granted in the year 2020 was 258 percent higher than in 1970, and the quantity of PhDs was 193 percent higher. In some specialized post-graduate professions, the jumps have been even sharper. By almost all metrics, the number of Americans receiving a higher education has grown at an amazingly fast rate.

But if college is the gateway to joining the American elite, what happens if the number of newly minted college grads overwhelms society’s needs for the highly educated? In other words, what happens if young people spend time, effort, and money to achieve advanced degrees, only to be told that society has no plans to reward them for it?

Political scientist Peter Turchin coined the term “elite overproduction” to refer to a scenario in which a society produces more elites than spots for those elites. If the marginal benefit to being an elite is very high, then competition for elite spots can become very vicious. The “elite aspirants” left looking in from the outside feel understandably betrayed by society—and in seeking redress for their grievances, they may attempt

illustration by Samantha Takeda ’27, a prospective Painting major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

to tear down the existing order at its roots and replace it with one that rewards them.

According to Turchin, elite overproduction frequently presages societal collapse, from Ancient Rome to Czarist Russia. In the modern-day United States, the perils of elite overproduction are most clearly seen in the plight of a particular sort of university graduate—the highly-educated humanities major.

Since 1987, the quantity of humanities doctorates has climbed steadily. The picture is a little less clear for humanities master’s students, but “the number of master’s degrees conferred in 2015 was still higher than in every year from 1987 to 2007.” Has the academic job market welcomed this flourishing supply of highly educated humanities students? Not even slightly. The number of job postings for humanities academics has declined monotonically since 2008. Among those who can get jobs, nearly two-thirds work either part-time or without the possibility of achieving tenure.

Students have noticed. Many humanities professors now lament that demand for humanities courses has bottomed out—the brightest pupils have fled to greener pastures. With a glut in supply and a hole in demand, an entire generation of humanities MAs and PhDs has effectively found itself unemployable on favorable terms.

As predicted by Turchin’s theory, many disaffected elite aspirants have turned toward the politics of radicalism, looking to reform society from the ground up. The two defining protest movements of the post2008 world, 2011’s Occupy Wall Street and 2020’s Black Lives Matter, were disproportionately well-educated. Insofar as highly educated people tend to lean politically left, it should also not come as a surprise that they have steered institutions of the left toward their own ends. The Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that states in its mission statement that it desires to unite “the multiracial working class… in solidarity,” has demanded the total cancelation of all student debt—a policy that would function as a massive redistribution of wealth from the non-college-educated to their degree-holding peers. Not coincidentally, three-fourths of the organization’s membership holds at least a bachelor’s degree.

With respect to preventing future recurrences of elite overproduction, market forces can work in tandem with policy reforms to channel aspirants to areas of need while simultaneously making a college degree less necessary for a good standard of living. Most clearly, students are already shifting from oversupplied areas to undersupplied ones: The number of degrees awarded in Computer Science more than doubled from 2011 to 2021, while degrees in fields like English Literature and History decreased by a third.

On the policy side, federal and state governments should discard college degree requirements for many entry-level government positions in

At bottom, solving the problem of elite overproduction means building a society in which being an elite is only one path to prosperity.

favor of aptitude tests, as Pennsylvania has already done. Private employers should also be encouraged to test the knowledge and work ethic of applicants directly rather than outsourcing the work to universities via credential. These changes should both reduce the future quantity of jilted elites and give the non-college-educated a better chance to climb the career ladder. But they would provide cold comfort to elite aspirants who have already spent time and money receiving their degrees. What can be done to assuage them?

Turchin suggests reducing the payoff to being an elite, relative to not being one—in other words, reducing inequality. In particular, policies that redistribute wealth from rich to poor, such as a steeper progressive tax and a corresponding rise in social programs, should narrow the gap between elite and non-elite. A resurgence in the strength of private-sector labor unions, which are currently at a historically low ebb, represents another way to bridge the chasm. If non-elites can thrive, then the sting of settling for something less prestigious than a professorship should be less painful in material terms, if not in spiritual ones. At bottom, solving the problem of elite overproduction means building a society in which being an elite is only one path to prosperity.

The loneliness pandemic has led Gen Z to seek imagined intimacy through influencers

by Ashton Higgins ’26, a Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and Anthropology concentrator and Senior Editor for BPR

The Parasocial Network The

Kids have always wanted to grow up faster and seem older sooner, and in today’s world, that means emulating influencers. This is why we see 10-year-olds storming Sephora storefronts around the United States in search of Drunk Elephant skincare and Summer Fridays lip gloss and then posting “haul” or “get ready with me” videos. There is no reason why tweens should be wearing crop tops to elementary school or carrying pencil cases filled with Glossier products—yet the over-sexualization that fundamentally underpins Gen Z’s collective aesthetic has influenced younger children to adopt distinctly adult clothing styles. In an attempt to fit in with their online idols, younger kids imitate what they think most defines their generation’s lifestyle: excessive attention to beauty and sexual appeal.

Despite looking oversexualized, Gen Z is actually more isolated and celibate than any prior generation. One survey found that young people today are twice as likely to report feeling lonely as seniors over 65. The pandemic is partly to blame. Just like the isolation brought on by Covid19 caused a developmental slump for young children, it precluded young adults in high school and college from going out to bars and parties or meeting romantic partners on their campuses. They did not learn how to date or even casually hook up. This has resulted in a decline in the number of teens reporting that they have ever had sex—from over 50 percent in previous decades to a mere 30 percent in 2021. Evidently, Gen Z has a sex problem. While the internet should theoretically connect us across space and time, in Gen Z’s case, the pandemic-driven obsession with influencers isolates more than it unites.

illustrations by Sophia Spagna ’26, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

Social media sites like Instagram, TikTok, and OnlyFans differ from traditional porn sites by offering direct user-to-creator engagement. When pandemic loneliness hit, people turned to the “influencer” rather than the adult film star to fulfill their need for intimacy. While porn can only offer depictions of sex, influencers tend to have a combination of personality, style, skill, and otherworldly attractiveness: They appeal to nearly all of Gen Z, a generation desperate for connection. In psychology, this is called a “parasocial relationship”—where one person develops a meaningful emotional connection with someone who is “completely unaware of the other’s existence.”

Influencers may not know their fans, but they know what makes money; generating parasocial relationships is their entire business strategy. Social media monetization is engagement-based: The more

interactions each post gets, the more the creator earns. An uptick in an influencer’s follower count means the same for their bank account, so influencers tailor their content to seem vulnerable, casual, and relatable. By offering users a glimpse into their “real lives,” designed to give strangers the false sense that they are good friends or romantic partners, influencers are able to increase their fandoms. Because people missed the dopamine rush of seeing attractive strangers out in public mid-pandemic, content that was not explicitly sexual but vaguely suggestive—like a shirtless room tour, sensual dance while lip-syncing, or sexy outfit reveal—got strong engagement. Influencers experienced a 67 percent increase in likes and, notably, a 51 percent increase in comments after the pandemic. As influencers wove sex into their posts and personas, users became hooked.

While Covid-19 initially drove these relationships, dependence on influencers has continued to spiral even after pre-pandemic sites of romance reopened. Maybe the pandemic lasted too long, and everyone developed new habits and superficially “deep” connections. Or maybe the ease and allure of social media meant the rise of influencers was inevitable. Either way, 320 million new users joined social media in 2023 alone—and since businesses are still struggling to gain followings of their own, individual influencers reap the rewards of most of this traffic.

Although young people can go out, they are still duped by influencers that embody an inaccessible image of romance, making in-person suitors appear disappointing. Not only are unrealistically good-looking people like Vinnie Hacker quite rare in the real world, but a connection with them is even more elusive. And even then, real people are not constantly available like someone’s Instagram profile is. Real relationships take work. Logging onto social media and being inundated by influencers dancing shirtless to suggestive music and showing off sexy designer clothing seems to be the most accessible, easy, and instantly rewarding option for Gen Z.

Like Gen Z, every generation comes to develop certain lifestyle ideals and thus defines itself with specific aesthetics. For example, the Greatest Generation, born between 1900 and 1925, endured the heavily gendered division of labor post-World War II and started families as the ‘Man the Hunter’ trope rose to popularity. Therefore, the Greatest Generation and

“Influencers may not know their fans, but they know what makes money; generating parasocial relationships is their entire business strategy.”

their Baby Boomer children defined their lifestyles through the aesthetic of a man-and-woman nuclear family—which, for most, was pretty easy to attain. Millennials began to break down this archetype, with women joining the workforce and marriage rates decreasing. For the most part, though, they did not deviate significantly from the old norm. Gen Z, on the other hand, is defining its relationships and sex through the maximalist images of opulent wealth and beauty perpetuated by influencers. Massive spikes in anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and a slew of other mental health concerns are well-known consequences of these unattainable, influencer-driven beauty standards. When we let the appearances of influencers become the desired aesthetics of our entire generation, we let social media corrupt us.

Our whole lives are being consumed by perfection and hypersexualization—the goal is to be as hot and desirable as influencers are. In 2023, a whopping 57 percent of Gen Z reported wanting to become an influencer. Many young people have a troubling approach to day-to-day

life: Every event is an occasion, and everyone “needs” to look good all the time. Our digital profiles are becoming increasingly central to how we see ourselves—who we are as people is no longer confined to the physical world and real-life interactions.

The growing prevalence of nano-influencers— people with between 1,000 and 10,000 followers—has both made it easier to interact with influencers and lowered the perceived barrier to entry of becoming one. Given the underlying sexual element of many influencers’ success, Gen Z’s attempts to become internet-famous necessitate self-definition through sensuality. This is damning for proper and mature development. Although hypersexuality is marketed as liberating, in reality, it often leaves people incredibly disempowered, as “sex appeal” is entirely rooted in the opinion of others.

The harms of this aesthetic are pervasive beyond Gen Z. Most kids in Generation Alpha are getting smartphones around age 10, exposing them to the Gen-Z-controlled world of social media at a much earlier stage of development. These kids spend hours on their screens, and it is inevitable that they, too, idolize older teenagers and young adults posting eye-catching content online.

However, the answer is not to ban TikTok or demean young people for being too slutty, narcissistic, or suggestive, as many older politicians are currently doing. (It is worth noting that it is not rare for the same politicians to get caught in their own sex scandals.) We cannot force a generation that has grown up with total digital freedom into the now archaic aesthetics of older generations. The internet is not going anywhere, and its existence alone should not be a justification for wreaking havoc on society’s youth.

Parents need to stop giving iPads and smartphones to toddlers, and social media companies need to be held accountable for the content they propagate and profit off of at the expense of our generation’s romantic and emotional future; repealing laws that make these platforms immune to liability for their content would be a good start. And, it is time for Gen Z to stand up for itself and unplug from the influencer hellhole, lest we let ourselves be consumed by a lifestyle and aesthetic that will never satisfy us.

“Logging onto social media and being inundated by influencers dancing shirtless to suggestive music and showing off sexy designer clothing seems to be the most accessible, easy, and instantly rewarding option for Gen Z.”

the Sand  

Saudi Arabia’s new megacity has more to do with geopolitical maneuvering than reducing excess

by Gigi Alioto-Pier ’25, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

A Line in the Sand New  

When asked about the United Arab Emirates’ economic trajectory, Dubai founder Sheikh Rashid Al Maktoum responded, “My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel.” The Sheikh’s generational tale reflects a growing concern in oil-rich countries—that the global demand for petroleum will soon dwindle. As the world’s largest petrostate, Saudi Arabia is in a particularly precarious position: Its economic and geopolitical leverage hinges on Western oil and natural gas consumption.

With the projected decline in global oil use threatening its influence, the Saudi government is seeking alternative methods to bolster its economy. It has settled on championing massive tourism projects that aim to attract both foreign visitors and international investors. The most notable example is the $500 billion smart city in Neom dubbed “The Line,” a 170-kilometer-long urban space with futuristic trappings like artificial intelligence surveillance and three distinct “layers” for pedestrians, infrastructure, and transportation. But in the absence of American oil dependence, Saudi Arabia’s industries will no longer be shielded from the backlash against their human rights violations and environmental crimes. While an increase in tourism may make up for some of the country’s economic shortfalls, the country and its excessive megaprojects will be unprecedentedly vulnerable to international scrutiny.

For nearly a century, the United States, reliant on Saudi oil, has largely ignored the Kingdom’s human rights abuses and environmental wrongs. As Ellen Wald, a historian of Western interference in the Middle East, noted, “The Saudi government has routinely violated human rights—barring Jews, prohibiting free religious practice of Christians, permitting slavery, subjugating women, prosecuting journalists, arresting clerics and princes, and locking up feminists for ‘treason’—with minimal pushback from the United States.” Despite not viewing Saudi Arabia as an ally per se, the US government recognizes that Riyadh is a transactional partner to work with for massive economic and geopolitical benefit. An agreement signed in 1945 cemented this symbiotic relationship. Over the course of an hours-long meeting, then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt struck a deal with Saudi King Ibn Saud: Saudi Arabia would supply the United States with oil, and in exchange, Washington would provide the Kingdom with arms and security.

Since then, the United States, committed to its oil interests, has come to Saudi Arabia’s defense numerous times, both militarily and on the international stage. That defense is conditional, however. In 2019, for example, the United States failed to sufficiently respond to an Iranian missile and drone strike on Saudi oil fields. Why? Because doing so would have threatened the global petroleum market. When protecting the Kingdom threatens American oil, Washington has historically refrained from intervening.

illustration by Yushan (Sabrina) Jiang ’25, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

“ Their current behavior— emphasizing excess at whatever human rights and environmental costs—will not be able to subsist without oil as a key bargaining chip.”

President Joe Biden’s pledge to reduce US reliance on oil—along with the West weaning itself off of fossil fuels more broadly—spells trouble for Saudi Arabia. What will happen if the Kingdom continues to violate international norms, this time by investing in newfangled tourism projects like The Line?

On February 6, the Neom project opened an office in New York City, a sign of its hope to garner American investment. Referring to this new venture, Neom CEO Nadhmi Al-Nasr stated, “Neom has already established many investments and partnerships with U.S. entities, and through this office, we intend to build our relationships among key industry verticals and business sectors.” The Line is not just relying on the United States and other Western investment outlets to subsidize its $500 billion construction cost: Once built, it will depend on Western tourists to stay economically afloat. To attract such investment and tourism streams, the Kingdom will have to adhere to American rules more strictly.

Economic dependency thus runs the other way in the tourism industry—Saudi Arabia will rely on Western support to sustain its attempts

at developing this new economic sector. Consequently, with the fall of the oil shield, Saudi Arabia will be forced to appease the Western-led international system, as public criticism could negatively impact both tourism and foreign investment. By betting its future on a tourism economy, Saudi Arabia is forsaking the immunity it once enjoyed.

And yet, The Line remains an environmental and human rights nightmare, incapable of insulating itself from the scrutiny the oil industry avoided. As Philip Oldfield, Professor of Architecture at the University of New South Wales, argued in an interview for this article, “Creating any new city for nine million people would likely have an enormous impact on the environment. If we were to rebuild London or New York right now, it would involve millions of tonnes of concrete, steel, aluminum, and subsequently, greenhouse gasses.”

From a human rights perspective, the project is not much better. In fact, last May, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement criticizing Riyadh for the mass displacement of people indigenous to the area around the construction site. The statement also condemned the Saudi decision to give death sentences to three men who allegedly protested their forced relocation. Saudi Special Forces reportedly killed another protestor in his own home. Saudi Arabia has thus far failed to adapt to its new, less-advantageous political position.

For now, US reliance on oil remains intact—Saudi Arabia still exports almost $300 billion worth of petroleum each year. However, the diminished relevance of the oil-for-protection quid pro quo will disincentivize the United States from shielding Saudi Arabia from normative criticism. In fact, as a global hegemon that rhetorically centers the international system around freedom and human rights, the United States actually has an incentive to criticize Saudi behavior and punish the government more openly.

As global dependence on oil decreases, it is only a matter of time before Saudi Arabia will need to comply with the global norms it has often shirked in the past. The Saudis must develop a political savvy that prioritizes restraint over abuse and incorporates the expectations of the international system. Their current behavior—emphasizing excess at whatever human rights and environmental costs—will not be able to subsist without oil as a key bargaining chip.

Keep the Cash Flowing

How big fiscal saved the US economy from a lost decade

by McConnell Bristol ’26, a Political Science and Economics concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

by Kyla Dang ’24, an Industrial Design major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

In the spring of 2020, following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, US policymakers were confronted with an economic challenge unlike anything they had ever seen. Unemployment spiked to 14.8 percent, its highest level since the Great Depression. GDP declined at an annualized rate of 19.2 percent—the steepest economic contraction on record. More than six million Americans filed jobless claims within one week, shattering the previous record of 695,000 set in 1982. The crisis was progressing at an unprecedented speed and scale.

Legislators met this historic challenge with an equally historic response, crossing party lines to implement the most expansive fiscal stimulus

the nation had ever seen. Three years later, their bet appears to have paid off: US GDP has recovered to its pre-pandemic trend, unemployment rates have reached new record lows, and inflation-adjusted wages are up across the income spectrum, with the lowest earners seeing the largest gains. Americans have this bold fiscal stimulus to thank for the economy’s fastest, strongest, and most equitable recovery ever. The success of Congress’ post-pandemic relief policy should produce a reckoning among economists and policymakers about the risks and rewards of large fiscal programs, informing the way government responds to recessions of all kinds into the future.

illustration

“The success of Congress’ postpandemic relief policy should produce a reckoning among economists and policymakers about the risks and rewards of large fiscal programs, informing the way government responds to recessions of all kinds into the future.”

When the Covid-19 lockdowns were put into place in early 2020, the economic impact was instantaneous. Businesses shuttered, workers lost their jobs, and spending and investment swiftly dried up across the country. As money stopped flowing through the economy, policymakers saw dangers ahead: The dropoff in spending might have compounding effects, as depressed demand could cause more businesses to fail and more jobs to be lost, resulting in even less spending as consumers and businesses alike tighten their belts. The needed response was clear—an injection of liquidity into both the demand and supply sides of the economy through significant fiscal stimulus, supplementing lost incomes to keep money flowing and preventing the contraction from becoming a full-on recession.

The federal Covid-19 economic response did just that, amounting to a combined $5 trillion in stimulus spread across the CARES Act, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the American Rescue Plan. Funds flowed to individuals, businesses, and state and local governments through a variety of relief programs, tax credits, and direct payments. And it worked: Researchers from Moody’s Analytics found that without relief measures, real GDP would have fallen by 11 percent, more than three times its actual decline, and the economy would have suffered what analysts called a “double-dip” recession—a second,

more drawn-out depression following the initial contraction.

That said, despite all of its benefits, the stimulus came with an undeniable cost: The biggest single-year rise in prices since the 1980s. Though much of 2022’s inflation has been attributed to geopolitical shocks and slack from the global economy’s reopening, economists at the Federal Reserve have estimated that almost one-third of the excess 7 percent inflation was a result of the stimulus. In other words, inflation would have peaked closer to 6.5 percent without the generous relief—lower than the realized 9 percent, but still significant nonetheless.

So, was the relief worth it? The evidence suggests it was. History shows that a smaller stimulus would likely have drawn out the recovery. After the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, when policymakers implemented a far more limited stimulus package, it took more than six years for the unemployment rate to recover to its pre-crisis level. After Covid-19, it took less than two, despite reaching a far higher peak—14.8 percent, compared to 10 percent at the height of the 2008 recession. Of course, no two downturns are the same, and these two crises have undeniable differences: The 2008 recession reflected systemic weaknesses in the financial sector and household balance sheets, while the Covid-19 shock was a uniform collapse in economic activity. But despite different causes, the resulting economic problem—inadequate demand—was the same in both cases. The recovery after Covid-19 was so much faster precisely because this problem was addressed by sufficient fiscal stimulus, allowing demand to recover in a fraction of the time.

Comparing the US recovery since 2020 to that of other developed economies further vindicates the American strategy. The US response was one of the most generous in the world, and as a result, the US economy has fared far better than any other developed peer: US GDP growth is the highest of any G7 country, and inflation has subsided faster in the United States than in any other major advanced economy. In the United Kingdom, where the government response did not exceed $500 billion, the economy has since tipped back into recession, confirming fears that spending too little may cause malaise.

The stimulus enacted in 2020 marked a seismic shift in the federal government’s role in the economy during downturns, and the result has been the most resilient recovery in modern US history. The Covid-19 response further indicates that neglecting to spend enough, rather than spending too much, may be the bigger danger in economic policymaking. This is a lesson with the potential to change the way the United States responds to recessions for decades, fundamentally altering the government’s relationship with the economy for the better.

Divesting from Destruction

The Slavery and Justice report left a legacy of political responsibility for systemic injustice that Brown must now live up to

by Evan Tao ’27, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

illustration

Ayca Tuzer ’24, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

Recently, I took a morning walk by the Quiet Green, where a great ball and chain lie as a physical representation of Brown University’s complicity in the transatlantic slave trade. I still vividly remember my first-year discussion of the Slavery and Justice Report. For me, it was particularly illuminating. As a lifelong Northerner, I was as guilty as anyone in assuming that the culpability for slavery fell squarely on the Southern states. “The North’s economy was industrial, and the South’s economy was agricultural,” according to my high school history teachers. The historical reality is that the Northern economy was also entrenched in slavery—maybe not by growing cotton, but by financing slave voyages. My Yankee ancestors, like Brown University, were certainly complicit in this great structural injustice. As the Slavery and Justice Report explains:

Determining what percentage of the money that founded Brown is traceable to slavery is impossible… slavery was not a distinct enterprise but rather an institution that permeated every aspect of social and economic life in Rhode Island, the Americas, and indeed the Atlantic world.

When an entire economic system creates injustice, who is responsible for amending it?

As I am writing this article from the reclaimed Leung Family Gallery on February 7, 19 of my classmates are on a hunger strike to pressure the Brown administration to divest from the Israeli occupation of Gaza. While I am

by

not directly comparing the occupation of Gaza to the transatlantic slave trade—a comparison that would be insensitive and counterproductive—there exists a distinct historical parallel between Brown’s financial ties to each of these crimes. As with the slave trade, we must understand that the occupation of Gaza is a systemic injustice that Brown bears a shared responsibility to ameliorate rather than an unfortunate externality outside of our control.

In a 2019 Brown Daily Herald op-ed, members of the University’s Investment Office argued against the possibility of divestment from the Israeli occupation. They explained that Brown invests most of its money in external portfolios shared by many other clients, that “neither Brown nor the other investors have the ability to dictate specific requirements about the contents of the portfolios based on our own preferences or interests,” and that many peer institutions invest their money similarly.

This does not render divestment impossible. As student activists have pointed out, given that the University has effectively divested from other culpable sectors in the past (for example, the tobacco industry), it can certainly divest from the Israeli occupation if it so chooses. This could be accomplished, just as in previous divestments, by adjusting the University’s “investment philosophy statement”—a set of expectations for external fund managers.

In her essay “Political Responsibility and Structural Injustice,” contemporary political theorist Iris Marion Young describes a framework for deciding responsibility for action in the face of broad injustices like these. Political responsibility is distinct from the legal conception of liability, where one actor is ruled at fault and all others are acquitted. Rather, political responsibility for structural injustice falls on everyone who participates in producing and perpetuating the systems in question, regardless of knowledge or intent: “We who are part of these processes should be held responsible for the structural injustice, as members of the collective that produces it, even though we cannot trace the outcome we regret to our own particular actions in a direct causal chain.”

In this case, who counts as “members of the collective?” To varying extents, all of us. The American Friends Service Committee keeps a list of companies “involved in specific human rights violations as part of the Israeli occupation,” including not only arms manufacturers like Textron and Raytheon but also electronics companies like Motorola and General Electric. It is likely that most of us have financially supported companies on the list, whether by buying their products or by investing in them through our banks’ mutual funds.

“The Slavery and Justice report left a noble legacy that Brown must now live up to. We must unflinchingly examine our financial connections to a terrible systemic injustice and refuse to allow its layers of complexity to default us to inaction.”

This conception of political responsibility holds useful insights for us as members of the Brown community. The administration asserted that the role of the University is not to “take sides” or use the endowment to make political statements, but divestment from war-profiteering companies is not about taking sides or making statements: It is about fulfilling a political responsibility. The injustice’s complexity does not exempt us from responsibility.

Viewing the injustice in Palestine as structural and wrought by many actors reveals that the standard of proof set for the divestment proposal is unreasonable. The administration said that it could not implement the proposal as written because it failed to “articulate how financial divestment from the companies, however defined, would address social harm.” Divestment would certainly address social harm, but it would be nearly impossible to measure.

Far from sinking our money directly into bulldozers that tear down homes in Gaza, Brown’s culpability in funding war is indirect, unquantifiable, and shared with many other peer institutions. Because Brown’s investment portfolio is confidential, it would be impossible to quantify concrete deltas without being accused of being overly vague or uncertain. In fact, it is tantamount to asking a historian to calculate what exact percentage of Brown’s funding came from the slave trade. In the language of the Slavery and Justice Report, war profiteering is not a distinct enterprise but rather an institution that permeates political and economic life in the United States.

Collective responsibility demands collective action. For the activists: We must hold the University accountable for its duties rather than pointing fingers at its past wrongs. Young makes it clear that political responsibility entails little blame or shame. It aims “less to reckon debts than to bring about results, and thus depends on the actions of everyone who is in a position to contribute to the results.” From this perspective, those who are victims of a systemic injustice also bear special political responsibility for amending it because their voices are integral to a fair solution. Also bearing special responsibility are actors in positions of power over structural processes (the Brown University administration) and those in positions of privilege to influence them (us, the students). Rather than chanting “Brown has blood on its hands” or “shame,” let our public rhetoric emphasize our University’s role and responsibility to divest, demonstrate how it would be possible, and call on other universities to follow us. As with the Slavery and Justice Report, the conversation should center on reparations, not recriminations—it should be forward-facing rather than backward-looking.

Brown’s Slavery and Justice Report opened the floodgates for other institutions to study their historic ties to the slave trade. Unfortunately, the discourse and action at Brown pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Gaza have remained insular despite the structural nature of the issue in question. Coordination with peer universities would serve the interests of both the advocates and the University: A united intercollegiate activist movement gets more attention, is more

effective, and is seen as more legitimate. For the Corporation, a joint divestment undertaken with other universities spreads thin any consequences of political backlash by the news media or financial loss from pro-Israel donors.

The Slavery and Justice Report left a noble legacy that Brown must now live up to. We must unflinchingly examine our financial connections to a terrible systemic injustice and refuse to allow its layers of complexity to default us to inaction. We must fight the “inevitable tendencies to deny, extenuate, and forget.” Only then can healing begin.

AN INTERVIEW WITH GABE AMO

Gabe Amo is the Democratic Congressman for Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District. Congressman Amo worked in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs under the Obama and Biden administrations. There, he was a liaison to governors and other elected officials nationwide. Congressman Amo also worked as a special assistant to President Biden and was an aide to then-Governor Gina Raimondo between his stints at the White House. Congressman Amo was sworn into office after winning a 2023 special election and is currently serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alexander Delaney: Congratulations on your historic win in your election to Congress. You won a crowded Democratic primary and a general election, and in doing so have become Rhode Island’s first-ever Black representative. What were the primary concerns of voters across the 1st District, and why do you think your message resonated so well?

Gabe Amo: Well, for one, I’m grateful for this opportunity to serve. I’ve grown up in Rhode Island for most of my life, and I did not necessarily know that I’d have the opportunity to serve, but I’m honored at the privilege. I think ultimately what resonated with Rhode Islanders was a desire for functional government. When I say that, I mean that we have an extremist Republican majority in the House of Representatives, we have the threats of Donald Trump and going backward instead of forward in our country, we were just on the brink of a shutdown, and Republicans were barely able to determine a House speaker. Then you sort of lose confidence.

The Republican MAGAnomics is against things like investing in our country and rebuilding infrastructure, but also the kitchen table issues like paying for prescription drugs. Right now, because of the work of the Biden-Harris administration and the functional Democratic majority in the last Congress, we have insulin down to $35 a month, making life-saving medication more accessible. Functional government resonated.

AD: The US Census Bureau’s 2022 Small Business Rankings ranks Rhode Island seventh

in the nation with 91.2 percent of establishments in Rhode Island having less than 20 workers. You, alongside the rest of the Rhode Island congressional delegation, announced last month a $773,000 investment in growing small businesses here in Rhode Island. How do you think this investment will help change the current decline of small businesses, and what else needs to be done to help resolve this issue?

GA: I’m the son of a small business owner, so I have a strong personal connection to making sure that small businesses thrive. Obviously, the Covid-19 pandemic created a real existential challenge to so many small businesses. These Covid-19 grant programs are here to address two fundamental challenges that we often experience with small businesses: one, access to capital, and two, the technical capacity to manage the challenges that a small business faces. As you look at the changes in our economy, we see new small businesses arising. People are willing to take more risks, but ultimately we have to stay at it because small businesses employ many people and are a great way to grow the economy from the bottom up. I often talk about the “blue economy” because of the unique nature of our proximity to marine industries of all types. I also talk about the composites industry or quality of life businesses, like our hospitality industry, which includes our restaurants and the many things baked into our tourism economy.

AD: You have served previously in both President Joe Biden’s and former President Barack Obama’s administrations in addition

to working on numerous political campaigns yourself. With your previous experience, how do you see the 2024 presidential race playing out, and what would you say to Democrats worried about the threat of a second Trump presidency?

GA: I hope the threat and that fear is motivational enough because we can’t sit still. The way that we defeat Donald Trump is ultimately going to be at the ballot box. What I do know is how essential it is to finish the incomplete work of the Biden-Harris administration on so many things that I care about. There are real big challenges and things to address for the American people, and I believe President Biden will do that based on his historic first two years: the first major infrastructure package since the Eisenhower administration, the first real national commitment to fighting climate change, recovering us from the Covid-19 pandemic, and the resulting economic collapse that would have ensued. I can go on and on. There are real accomplishments. The work is in translating that into how people’s lives will be better because of these things. I speak from optimism and not fear, and I hope that I can bring others along as well.

Interview by Alexander Delaney ’26

Illustration by Lily Engblom-Stryker ’26

The Texan Trump

Ken Paxton’s impunity presents a threat to democacy

by Keyes Sumner ’27, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s career has been mired in controversy. He is the subject of an ongoing Department of Justice investigation, the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the State Bar of Texas, and was impeached by the GOPcontrolled Texas state House last May, all on separate charges. However, Paxton has thus far avoided any legal consequences. As a result, he continues to occupy one of the most influential government positions in Texas, responsible for representing the state’s legal interests, launching and supporting criminal investigations, and overseeing state voting laws and election results. Paxton represents a new trend within the Republican Party, which has facilitated the rise of increasingly anti-democratic and morally dubious figures in Texas and throughout the nation. This new establishment is driven by an ideology aptly called Trumpism, which moves away from conservatism in favor of potentially authoritarian right-wing populism stemming directly from former President Donald Trump. Paxton’s controversies are a microcosm of the problems the United States has been grappling with since 2020 and show how Trumpism has taken root in Texas, exempting powerful political figures from legal repercussions and posing a direct threat to national democracy.

Paxton has a prolific and well-documented history of corruption. Shortly after being sworn in as Attorney General in 2015, he was indicted for securities fraud. The case is now in limbo in the county court system, where Paxton’s lawyers

“Last May, the committee recommended impeachment, and the GOP-controlled House obliged with an overwhelming 121-23 margin, resulting in Paxton’s suspension as Attorney General.”

are trying to move it to a more amenable judge’s jurisdiction. Five years later, four Paxton staffers alerted federal investigators of potential bribery. According to the whistleblowers, Austin real estate mogul Nate Paul remodeled Paxton’s house before giving a job to Paxton’s alleged mistress. In exchange, Paxton carried out a number of favors on Paul’s behalf, including using state resources to investigate Paul’s business adversaries. Upon learning of the identities of the four whistleblowers, Paxton fired each one, prompting the group to sue Paxton for professional retaliation. Paxton then attempted to settle the lawsuit for 3.3 million dollars, intending to have taxpayers foot the entire bill.

The Texas House General Investigating Committee then launched its own inquiry into the issue, and the bipartisan committee accused Paxton of committing three felony offenses, all involving the misuse of public money, expertise, and information for Paul’s benefit. Last May, the committee recommended impeachment, and the GOP-controlled House obliged with an overwhelming 121-23 margin, resulting in Paxton’s suspension as Attorney General. In September, the vote passed to the state Senate—the only body with the power to convict the Attorney General and remove him from office. However, in the intervening months, Senate Republicans, led by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, fiercely attacked the way the House carried out the impeachment proceedings. In the Senate, all but two Republicans voted to acquit, and Paxton was

illustration by Yuan Jiang ’25, an Illustration and Printmaking major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

promptly reinstated as Attorney General. All the while, Paxton continues to use state resources and campaign funds to bankroll his expensive legal battles.

While Paxton has ignited a political firestorm in Texas, he has had a similarly destructive influence on national electoral politics. As a major Trump ally, Paxton unsuccessfully attempted to overturn 2020 election results in four states by filing a petition to the Supreme Court. Just before January 6, 2021, when insurrectionists invaded the nation’s Capitol building, Paxton posted a tweet with the hashtag “#StopTheSteal” on social media. He continues to maintain that President Joe Biden won the election unfairly, hypocritically calling for Biden to be “held accountable.” As a result of these actions, the State Bar of Texas is in the process of suing him for professional misconduct, alleging a fabrication of evidence that warrants the removal of his law license.

The House’s overwhelming verdict in May seemed to show that Texas Republicans as a whole were ready to remove Paxton. The investigative committee, which included both GOP and Democratic leaders, was convinced by findings of corruption, and it appeared that Paxton would finally face legal consequences. The members of the Texas Senate are not necessarily further right or more aligned with Paxton than those in the House, making the drastic disparity in party consensus between the two chambers puzzling.

Ahead of the Senate impeachment, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who presided over the trial, received a $3 million donation from a pro-Paxton PAC, Defend Texas Liberty. Notably, one of the leaders of the PAC promised political retribution to any senator who voted against Paxton. Following this donation, Patrick denounced the House impeachment hearings, claiming that they were carried out quickly and carelessly. Paxton and Patrick have particularly targeted House Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) and, along with Trump, have endorsed his primary challenger. Patrick has also endorsed the challengers of other House Republicans who supported Paxton’s impeachment, acting in line with the PAC’s promise of political revenge.

Paxton and Patrick have managed to stay relatively popular with voters by characterizing the variety of proceedings against Paxton as leftist witch hunts. When GOP Speaker Phelan continued to speak out against Paxton following the Senate trial, he was labeled as a sellout or fake conservative. The rhetoric is virtually identical to that surrounding Trump opponents, as Republican leaders who speak out against the former president are labeled “RINOs,” or Republicans In Name Only, and ongoing trials are dismissed as politically motivated. The continued power of a Trump endorsement means

“The triumph of Trumpism in Texas means that Paxton, who brazenly used state resources for his own corrupt benefit, remains in Austin overseeing Texas state election laws. If the trend continues nationwide, a figure with the same malicious disregard for the law and Constitution could occupy the Oval Office.”

that in both the Texas and national Republican parties, the majority of representatives get in line. Republican politicians fail to confront corruption head-on out of fear that their conservative credentials will be questioned. The same phenomenon is clearly evident in electoral politics. Ken Paxton’s willingness to contest national elections is evidence that Trumpism paints the simple act of accepting election results as not hard-line enough. It is unfair for Texans, as the new Republican Party establishment prevents fraudsters from being held accountable and may use political influence to counteract democratic decisions.

Paxton seems to exist above the law. Beyond mere unfairness, his evasion of punishment means that he continues to exercise the substantial power vested in the Attorney General’s office. As he proudly threatens political accountability and refuses to accept election results, non-Republican Texas voters feel as if the system is irrevocably stacked against them. On a national level, Paxton-style disregard for the law could mean increased willingness to use political influence to change electoral outcomes in swing states. The triumph of Trumpism in Texas means that Paxton, who brazenly used state resources for his own corrupt benefit, remains in Austin overseeing Texas state election laws. If the trend continues nationwide, a figure with the same malicious disregard for the law and Constitution could occupy the Oval Office.

AN INTERVIEW WITH TRACY DROZ TRAGOS

Tracy Droz Tragos is a 2021 Sundance Screenwriting and Directing Fellow. Tragos was winner of the Sundance Film Festival’s 2014 Grand Jury Prize for her moving documentary Rich Hill, which explores the stories of three adolescent boys coming of age in small-town Missouri.

Rich Hill’s other honors include Best Generation Next at the Documentary Edge Film Festival. Tragos is also the director of the PLAN C documentary, which tells the story of a network of activists and medical professionals who are working to spread access to safe and effective abortion pills, alongside the stories of those who have used them.

Cindy Li: For those who might not have seen the film, how would you describe the documentary PLAN C ?

Tracy Droz Tragos: PLAN C is a documentary four years in the making, where I follow a group of people who are working to expand access to and information about abortion medication, both before the fall of Roe v. Wade and now.

Yuliya Velhan: What are some things that inspired you to pursue this film and maybe some ways that it might have intersected with your previous work?

TDT: I was inspired to make this film because of the time I spent making Abortion: Stories Women Tell, where I was embedded in a clinic just over Missouri state lines

Interview by Cindy Li ’26 and Yuliya Velhan ’25

Illustration by Lily Engblom-Stryker ’26

in Illinois, and I witnessed story after story of folks who were trying to access care, who were dealing with the new 72-hour waiting period in Missouri, driving hundreds of miles to get to the clinic, and then being faced with a bunch of protesters who were often pretty angry, telling them that they were going to hell. I’ve just heard again and again the stories of why folks needed care, the obstacles they faced, and then the trauma of being in a clinic that was super friendly and gave them the care that they needed, but they had just passed a bunch of people that passed further judgment on them.

When Brett Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2018, I still had that experience swimming in my head and that had changed me. And I wanted to understand what folks are doing to prepare for Roe being overturned. That’s when I met Francine Coeytaux and the folks involved in Plan C and the movements in and around Plan C, and I was blown away. So it was a paradigm shift for me to understand and realize that the pills that people were going into a clinic to get could be procured safely in the privacy of their homes without having to drive hundreds of miles without having to pass a gauntlet of people telling them they were going to hell with privacy and dignity and also medical safety. And I thought, “Oh my, this is the idea whose time has come, and why don’t more people know about this?”

YV: What would you say were some of the main challenges outlined in the documentary about accessing abortion pills from home?

TDT: There’s so much more understanding from when I started making the film to where we are now, now that telemedicine is a real option. It’s not like the second tier. It can be just as safe medically and used with a doctor’s supervision or nurse practitioner’s supervision so that it doesn’t have to be seen as bad medicine. Because at the beginning, it was. How in the world would someone know how pregnant they were? We couldn’t trust them to know how far along they were. They needed an ultrasound. They needed to come to a doctor’s office and needed to have all this medical involvement. And now there’s so much understanding that we can trust people to know how far along they are. We can trust folks to do what they were already doing, which is self-managing their abortions by taking these pills and passing a pregnancy at home. And if they need a consultation with a doctor, they can have it. Over time, after Covid-19, more people understood that telemedicine was viable option.

YV: A lot of people featured in the film chose to be anonymous. How did this need for privacy shape some of your filmmaking choices? How do you continue to protect those people’s privacy?

TDT: It did become a creative choice to blur faces as we did, to disguise voices as we did. We have taken great care with the footage so that it can’t get reconstructed in some way or subpoenaed. We only show parts of the body that can’t be reconstructed. We’ve also disguised locations so that the exterior of buildings is not the actual exterior of that building. There was some concern that an elevator that we had originally might be identified because it was a very specific elevator. So we swapped that out and we made it

“I witnessed story after story of folks who were trying to access care, driving hundreds of miles to get to the clinic, and then being faced with a bunch of protesters who were often pretty angry, telling them that they were going to hell.”

a different building that folks were entering. We’ve taken great care, probably more than people would realize.

CL: How do you think the film impacted the discussion around the abortion pill since the movie came out, and how do you think people’s perception of it has changed?

TDT: Unfortunately, we continue to be up against a lot of censorship. We try to let folks know that there’s a screening, and the folks in the film try to let folks know that there’s a resource for buying abortion pills online. And often, Meta will reject those ads or reject those efforts because the word abortion is used. And so one has to put a zero for the “O” in abortion or spell abortion with an “SH.” I mean, it’s a crazy time. Yet, you have states like Texas that give government funding to the fake abortion clinics where they have no one with a medical degree on staff whose sole purpose is to delay people and spread misinformation. And those folks have funding. So instead of protesting clinics, they’re now spreading misinformation on the internet. And so I would say we’re trying to counteract that. We’re trying to get the word out about the film. We’re trying to spread the word that these pills exist and that online provisioning is safe.

One of the directors of photography that I was working with said, “This is a public health issue. They should have ads on the buses.” Now, he happened to be Canadian, and he was like, “Well, in Canada, we would put the ads on the bus stations and it’s a public health thing.” And yet in the United States, you can’t do that. You’re not seeing that. There’s so much political resistance to what is really a public health emergency right now, especially in some communities across this country.

We Want You, But You Just Can’t Stay

Last year, the number of international students attending American universities stood at just over one million—a staggering figure reflective of the country’s draw as an education hub. Through tuition, transportation, and other spending, this group brought a whopping $40 billion to the economy. If given the chance, many of these students would stay in the country indefinitely, magnifying the monetary fruits of their presence by joining the workforce long-term.

Unfortunately, they can’t. Only 11 percent of international students who receive bachelor’s degrees stay in the United States post-graduation. With these valuable assets to the workforce leaving in droves, the United States fails to reap the full economic benefits of its universities. Yet the exodus of international students is a problem of the country’s own making: The outflow is caused by a bogged-down visa process and exacerbated by prevalent but imprudent domestic concerns. To address this problem, the United States should implement a specialized, streamlined visa track for international graduates of American universities, setting up the talent pool and the economy for sustained growth.

Obtaining authorization to work as an international student in the United States can be daunting and fraught with challenges and uncertainties. One avenue is Optional Practical Training (OPT), which allows students to work during and after college. However, students must be mindful of using their OPT time wisely. Any time spent working before graduating is deducted from the post-graduation period—disadvantaging students for whom it is a financial necessity to remain employed throughout college. Even with OPT in tow, international students are only afforded between one and three

How the US should streamline its visa policy for international students to sustain economic growth

by Ellie Silverman ’25, a History concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR illustrations by Xinyuan (Fiona) Song ’25 an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

years to obtain an employer-sponsored visa before their time in the United States runs out. These employer-sponsored visas provide international students with the opportunity to work in the United States after graduating— though only for a fleeting period. Among these, the H-1B visa—randomly issued to skilled workers with at least a bachelor’s degree—is the most popular. Yet only 85,000 H-1B visas are issued each year, and they have a maximum duration of six years. Alternatively, the O-1 visa, colloquially termed the “genius visa,” is gaining popularity

among those with extraordinary abilities in various fields. However, since it requires a demonstration of sustained international or national acclaim, the O-1 visa is not accessible to the vast majority of prospective applicants. Visas offering permanent residency in the United States, like those of the EB class, have even higher standards. This labyrinthine system is antiquated and in desperate need of reform. Despite the growing number of applicants for the sought-after H-1B visa, Congress has not raised the cap on recipients in 30 years. Such stringency prompts a brain

“Dismayed by this lack of progress, educated hopefuls have turned to other Western nations with simpler visa processes—a fact these countries take advantage of.”

system. However, the changes mainly sought to prevent multiple employers from submitting petitions for the same person. Another recent DHS reform provides a digital option for visa applicants—accompanied by massive filing fee increases for companies wishing to sponsor international students. Existing visa reforms thus lack any real utility for international students seeking to stay in the United States.

Talent visa at US universities to recruit skilled workers. By targeting highly educated post-grads regardless of their employment status, other countries enjoy the benefits of US investments in higher education.

Instead of allowing misguided anti-immigrant sentiments to obscure the need for reforms, the United States should take a leaf from other nations’ books. Raising the H-1B visa cap would allow the outdated lottery system to keep up with the growing number of skilled international graduates. In addition to increasing visa ceilings, the United States should create a pathway to residency similar to Canada’s express visa program. This would allow the United States to retain skilled workers in fields experiencing labor shortages, such as computer science, and increase human capital in the workforce.

drain of valuable college graduates. This not only harms the future of the US economy but also wastes resources: Although international students pay full tuition at public universities, tax dollars are nonetheless spent on their education. When international students graduate and leave the country shortly thereafter, taxpayers accrue no benefit from that expense.

Efforts to improve the American visa process have thus far been grossly inadequate. In February 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enacted reforms aimed at increasing the efficiency of the H-1B visa application

Political contestations have restricted the possibility of reforming the visa system more substantively. Anti-immigration sentiments in the United States continue to exacerbate the difficulties of getting a visa. During his four years in the Oval Office, former President Donald Trump fanned the flames of conservative factions concerned with national security and protecting American jobs—in addition to employing xenophobic rhetoric, he implemented restrictive policies like the Muslim travel ban and the crackdown on asylum seekers. Moreover, between 2016 and 2020, the United States drastically reduced the number of green cards issued from 309,000 to a meager 29,000. Despite campaigning on a platform of reform, President Joe Biden has been slow to make changes to immigration policies as an unfortunate result of the situation at the US-Mexico border. The record-high influx of asylum seekers from the south has heightened domestic fears about mass immigration, pushing the Biden administration to further restrict immigration policy.

Dismayed by this lack of progress, educated hopefuls have turned to other Western nations with simpler visa processes—a fact these countries take advantage of. Canada explicitly advertises its Express Entry program to people who have grown tired of the complicated American system. Likewise, Australia promotes its Global

Politicians who advocate for recognizing the contributions of immigrants to society should point to the challenges faced by international students as evidence of the pressing need for visa reform. If conservatives in Congress are unwilling to raise the H-1B visa cap and provide streamlined alternatives for social reasons, perhaps they need to be confronted with the economic reality: Countries like Canada and Australia are outperforming the United States at recruiting skilled workers by offering simpler visa options. It is time for the United States to put its taxpayer dollars to good use and get its competitive edge back in attracting and retaining global talent.

A Green Wave Meets the Crimson Tide

Mississippi and Alabama buck partisan politics to find an unlikely ally in the Biden administration

by Colten Edelman ’27, a Political Science and Visual Arts concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR

illustration by Xinyi Liu ’24, an Illustration major at RISD and Illustrator for BPR

Even as the national Republican Party nurtures a strong sect of climate denialists, Republicandominated Southeastern states have been quietly courting the electric vehicle (EV) market. It is a daunting task considering increased polarization around climate change, but state parties have found ways to thread the bipartisan line and deliver for their states’ economies. Brian Kemp, the Republican Governor of Georgia, has said, “I’m fulfilling my promise of creating good-paying jobs for our state…You’re gonna have a lot of Republicans driving [Ford’s electric pickup].”

These red states are not only taking the lead on traditionally “blue” policies but also using legislation championed by the Biden administration to do it. Mississippi and Alabama—two of the most conservative states in the Union—are among the many states using federal legislation to deliver on economic promises. Mississippi is creating jobs by taking advantage of $216 billion in corporate tax subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Localities in Alabama are improving public transportation to increase the workforce participation rate through some of the $196 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. Now, this does not mean these states will be

voting for Biden this November. Still, this development represents both an interesting exception to stolid partisan politics and a potentially bipartisan shift on EVs and clean energy going forward.

In his reelection speech, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves promised to tackle “brain drain,” stating, “For too many decades our most valuable export has not been our cotton, or even our culture, but our children.” From 2020 to 2022, Mississippi and Louisiana were the only Southern states to see a net population loss. Many movers left for better opportunities in neighboring states, which is why Reeves was focusing on job growth by making Mississippi “masters of all energy.” This sentiment directly contradicts his own reelection campaign last year, which was openly critical of green investment, decrying his opponent’s donors as “solar panel buddies…that have tried to run the oil business out of America.” He may have needed to say that to win the Mississippi gubernatorial race, but his actions in office have spoken louder than his words.

Reeves, assisted by US Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), has overseen the largest workforce investments in Mississippi history thanks to the IRA. The IRA includes tax incentives at every step of the manufacturing and sale of EVs, creating an “American manufacturing renaissance.” It also provides major incentives for clean energy production, having created over 100,000 clean energy jobs in its first six months. Reeves, with Republican supermajorities in the state legislature, has pushed through millions of state

“Defying climate denialism, Mississippi and Alabama are joining the economic boom of the Battery Belt.”

dollars to further incentivize businesses to take advantage of the IRA. In Marshall County, for instance, four companies are investing $1.9 billion in an EV battery plant. In Lowndes County, Steel Dynamics is investing $2.5 billion in an aluminum mill (EVs require 40 percent more aluminum than other vehicles) and a biocarbon facility to reduce emissions. In Madison County, Amazon is investing $10 billion in new data centers powered by new solar farms.

Initially skeptical of clean energy’s prospects, Reeves appears to have embraced its good-paying jobs—workers in the clean energy industry can expect to make about $20,000 more than the state average. It is not just Reeves: The Mississippi legislature voted almost unanimously across party lines for the state money to bring these businesses in. The clear movement of the executive and legislative branches to take advantage of federal funds will be felt in Mississippi for generations. With the help of the Biden administration, Reeves is putting the state on a path to lead the EV and clean energy transition, attract future investment, and retain talented workers. With some luck, Mississippi may

become as attractive as its twin flame, Alabama. Alabama has, as Governor Kay Ivey quips, “a good problem to have.” Job growth in the Cotton State has been so great that positions are going unfilled. With one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation, almost everyone looking for work can find it. Many jobs are being created through the EV industry and, by proxy, the IRA. The nation’s first graphite processing plant, which will produce a form of graphite essential to EV batteries, broke ground southeast of Birmingham in April 2022. From there, the graphite will be sent to a new battery factory in Montgomery and eventually to a recycling facility in Tuscaloosa. Despite this growth, many Alabamians are not looking for work. The workforce participation rate, one of the lowest in the nation (10 percent below the national average), remains a real problem. Federal legislation can also aid in mitigating this issue—but in Alabama, cities, not the state, are taking the lead to find solutions.

Alabama Lieutenant Governor Will Ainsworth’s “Alabama Workforce Development Plan” cites transportation as a key barrier to

“For Mississippi and Alabama, at a time of hyper-partisanship and polarization, a localized break from national politics is opening up the space for meaningful political progress.”

workforce participation—“15% of participants have lost or quit a job due to transportation issues.” Despite state recognition, 82 Alabama organizations that asked Governor Ivey to prioritize transportation were ignored. As one of only three states that do not fund public transportation, the $154 million that Alabama has received from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill has meant that much more. In Birmingham, a $12 million grant allowed the city to repair, expand, and lower the emissions of its bus fleet. In Huntsville, a $20 million grant is being used to expand bicycling and walking pathways. In Alabama’s case, inaction on the part of the state government has pushed localities to achieve solutions.

Defying climate denialism, Mississippi and Alabama are joining the economic boom of the Battery Belt. Green subsidies (that their congressional representatives often voted against) are blurring partisan lines and empowering the Southern economy. Though it is unclear how long this modern “Era of Good Feelings” around green investment lasts, anything is possible. The new industries will dramatically change these states; we may not recognize them in a decade or two. Mississippi and Alabama found an unlikely ally in the Biden administration, and both states’ economies are looking brighter as a result. For Mississippi and Alabama, at a time of hyper-partisanship and polarization, a localized break from national politics is opening up the space for meaningful political progress.

AN INTERVIEW WITH LOGAN POWELL

Logan Powell is the Associate Provost for Enrollment and Dean of Undergraduate Admission at Brown University. He is responsible for the recruitment and selection of all undergraduates seeking entrance to Brown. Prior to joining Brown, Powell worked as the Director of Admissions at Princeton University. Previously, he served as Senior Associate Dean of Admissions at Bowdoin College and Senior Admissions Officer at Harvard University. He earned an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management, an EdM from Harvard University, and an BA from Bowdoin College.

Avital Strauss: With prominent discussion about whether a university degree is worth it, what do you think is the primary goal of a university? In making admissions decisions, do you prioritize collecting the best and brightest students and providing them with skills for the workforce or providing an education that inspires society-changing consequences?

Logan Powell: I think different colleges prepare students for different sorts of life missions. In some cases, it’s very practical training, and in some cases, it’s more general preparation for a life of productivity involving a broader set of learned experiences. At Brown, we do a number of things. I think it’s our goal to prepare students for postgraduate

Interview by Avital Strauss ’27

Illustration by Lily Engblom-Stryker ’26

study, to prepare students for careers, and to bring together a wide array of students to learn from each other and prepare themselves for what the larger world throws at them. Having that exposure to different ideas and learning to engage with difficult topics in a civil way is a meaningful element of the Brown experience.

AS: Building on that, how do you define diversity?

LP: As broadly as we possibly can. Historically, and still today for many individuals, diversity was in reference only to racial diversity. When I use the word diversity, it’s much more broadly defined. It means racial diversity, but it also means geographic and socioeconomic diversity. We want students from every conceivable walk of life, with the central thread being that all are academically excellent and prepared to join this community and share their knowledge while learning from others. You can think about it also in terms of the lived experiences students have had outside of geographic, political, or racial categorizations. For example, part of diversity at Brown means the inclusion of student veterans and first-generation students and having a diversity of intellectual perspectives and a diversity of interest in extracurricular activities.

AS: What did you believe was the purpose of affirmative action, and how do you believe you can still accomplish some of those goals without violating the Supreme Court decision?

LP: The articulated purpose behind affirmative action and racial diversity was that it served a compelling state interest and that diversity in classrooms helped prepare all students in that classroom for life after graduation from college. Now that affirmative action has been overturned, we must find the least intrusive, non-formulaic alternatives. That’s a principle we’ve always adhered to at Brown, but it was reaffirmed by the court. The decision overturning affirmative action said that you cannot use race for race’s sake. However, race as linked to a student’s experiences can be considered. So, we’re navigating how to take those experiences that may be linked to race while not using race in and of itself. And, how do we do that across the entire applicant pool? We still value diversity of all kinds, so now the way we must do it will be in compliance with the law, which means looking for where a student talks about their race vis-a-vis discrimination, inspiration, leadership, commitment, and joy.

AS: Though much public debate centers around legacy admissions, many researchers and outspoken leaders express concern that only eliminating legacy admissions without initiating other changes will not sufficiently alleviate socioeconomic disparities in the application process. What other reforms must be made to ensure that low-income students of all races have equal opportunities and that socioeconomic diversity is regarded as an important factor in the admissions process?

LP: I rarely delve into my personal background, but, here, I think it’s important because I grew up in a low-income household. I grew up in a trailer park, living on government assistance and food stamps. I was able to attend college because of institutional financial aid and because I was a

“We want students from every conceivable walk of life, with the central thread being that all are academically excellent and prepared to join this community and share their knowledge while learning from others.”

Pell Grant recipient. So, I was part of that family. I was that kid who needed fee waivers to apply to colleges and who couldn’t afford to travel to see college campuses after being admitted. That was really formative to me and my understanding of what we as an institution can do to ensure that appropriate access and opportunity exist at Brown. We’ve done an array of things here, including but not limited to automatic application fee waivers for students who belong to a community-based organization or college access group and automatic fee waivers for students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. In my first year here, we doubled the funding available to cover travel fees to bring to campus students from low-income families who are admitted and might not otherwise see Brown. We’re growing the Pelleligible population and expanding the need-blind admissions process to include international students, and we eliminated all packaged loans from financial aid awards.

AS: In a given year, 20 percent of adolescents and young adults experience mental health struggles. A major contribution to these mental health challenges is the stress of college admissions. How do these mental health considerations fit in with Brown’s philosophy of pushing students to be creative thinkers and risk-takers? What is Brown doing to reduce the stress associated with applying to colleges?

LP: We’ve made policy changes in signing onto the Making Caring Common Compact, which indicates there is no set number of extracurricular activities students need to participate in or a set GPA they need to earn to be considered for admission. We admit students from all backgrounds, and they’re not perfect. Importantly, if Brown is potentially the right place for you, that’s wonderful and exciting. But, please know, our process is highly selective, and our decision isn’t a reflection of you, your potential, or your worth. One of the most important messages we can send is that we still think incredibly highly of students who aren’t offered admission. And, I think this stress is tied to social media. Students now live their lives in more public ways than ever before. That creates a great deal of pressure, including pressure for likes, subscriptions, thumbs-ups, and creating an image of oneself that’s hard to maintain. That pressure can be tied to college admissions. Students should think carefully about their social media presence and what story they want to tell.