BPR Fall 2021 Issue 1 by Brown Political Review

FALL 2021

ISSUE 01

SPECIAL FEATURE

PROTECTION

The highlights of BPR's coverage of policy and political affairs, wherever you get your podcasts.

Issue 01, Fall 2021

Editors’ Note Protection manifests itself on micro and macro levels. We lather on sunscreen to protect ourselves from UV rays; we construct levees to protect our cities from the sea. Protection is not only about keeping the unknown distant, but also about keeping the familiar safe. It can be both active and reactive, defensive and offensive. By examining protection, we ask not just what we need to preserve, but how we might do so effectively. This past August, the botched widrawal of US troops from Afghanistan sparked debate over whether the longest war in US history—fought in the name of democracy and Western ideals—served any purpose at all. Across the world, humanitarian crises proliferate as global military spending reaches nearly two trillion dollars, begging the question: What, precisely, are we trying to protect? We often disagree on this question. Across the Southern United States, for example, the recent onslaught of restrictive reproductive rights legislation has increased conflict between those who aim to protect women’s bodily autonomy and those who aim to protect their interpretation of the right to life. West Virginia politicians are torn between protecting their constituents’ livelihoods in the coal industry and mitigating environmental damage. These disputes are not anomalies—in every sector, protection and politics go hand in hand. In this issue, our Special Feature authors offer innovative ideas for how to compensate when our governments and current laws fall short in protecting our environment, privacy, security, and health. Claire

The Protection Issue

Hodges advocates for the Rights of Nature legal doctrine, which gives climate activists legal standing to bring lawsuits on behalf of nature. Scott Petersen explains why the US government must incentivize companies to increase their cyberdefenses and take data breaches seriously. Zachary Harris makes the case for regulation rather than prohibition of whaling, arguing that the moratorium on whale hunting—a doctrine intended to protect wildlife— actually threatens international cooperation on environmental issues. Joseph Safer-Bakal explores how the US Marine Corps’s transition in force makeup from tanks to lighter artillery indicates its preparedness for a new era of wargaming in the Pacific. Finally, Steven Long condemns the Philippine government’s hands-off approach to its HIV/ AIDS epidemic, insisting that it must break with the Catholic Church and endorse barrier contraceptives. As we move through and into “unprecedented times,” many of us search for what we can preserve, what we can save, what we can protect. We hope that BPR’s readers emerge with a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of how protection can maintain and expand the best facets of our world.

— Hannah, Kate, Rachel

You have (1) new message!

From: Podcast Board BPRadio explores local, state, national, and international politics through audio stories. Each semester, the Podcast board creates episodes featuring interviews with professors, students, BPR staffers, university administrators, and community members. Previous seasons have covered ethics in computer science, human rights in Kashmir, and academic freedom at Brown. This fall, the board will be releasing episodes on a range of topics, including public trust in the media, the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports, and reproductive health care. Our Podcast associates will narrate these stories across space, aiming to see how each issue impacts Providence and the world beyond. In addition to their long-form pieces, the board will also be piloting a quick news team, incorporating breaking stories on what is happening around campus and BPR.

article.txt

Simon Giordano '22 from the Economy section demonstrates how market imperfections in education and health care in the United States have contributed to high rates of spending but poor outcomes.

scan.me

Media

Data

Creative

Interviews

Business

Editorial

Content

Podcast

You have (1) new message!

scan.me

From: Media Board This semester, BPR Media is producing two short-form video projects spotlighting student activists and the important work they are doing at Brown and in the greater Providence community. The first project centers on civic engagement fellows working through Brown Votes, a nonpartisan, student-led initiative designed to coordinate efforts to improve voter registration, voter participation, and civic engagement at Brown. The second project spotlights a Brown student's engagement with a petition being put forth by University club Every Vote Counts in partnership with the Formerly Incarcerated Union of Rhode Island. The petition advocates for full voting rights for those affected by incarceration.

Web

Executive

Copy Editorial

article.txt

Maru Atwood '24 from the World section examines how recent prodemocracy protests in Eswatini are threatening the longstanding monarchy and shaking the foundations of Swazi society.

article.txt scan.me

Subscribe to BPR! Sacha Sloan '23.5 from the US section argues that the stalling of legislation to hold police accountable for acts of violence, even in liberal states, shows that both Republicans and Democrats are maintaining police impunity.

scan.me

Issue 01, Fall 2021

The Protection Issue

EXECUTIVE BOARD

CONTENT BOARD

EDITORS IN CHIEF Kate Dario Hannah Severyns

SENIOR MANAGING WEB EDITORS Ellie Papapanou Tarana Sable

CHIEFS OF STAFF Eunice Chong Gabe Merkel

MANAGING WEB EDITOR Matt Walsh

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Meghan Murphy SENIOR MANAGING WEB EDITORS Ellie Papapanou Tarana Sable MANAGING WEB EDITOR Matt Walsh SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR Rachel Yan CHIEF COPY EDITORS Zeke Hertz Peter Zubiago INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Haley Joyce Sam Kolitch DATA DIRECTOR Erika Bussmann BUSINESS DIRECTORS Neel Dhavale Tyler Lu CREATIVE DIRECTORS Christine Wang Iris Xie

UNITED STATES SENIOR EDITOR Cartie Werthman UNITED STATES EDITORS Molly Cook Max Pushkin UNITED STATES STAFF WRITERS Sofia Barnett Natalia Ibarra Jeanine Kim Jillian Lederman Kara McAndrew Sarah McGrath Kevin Moclair Amiri Nash Sacha Sloan Peter Swope Jack Tajmajer Shane Tomaino ACTIVISM EDITORS Amanda Page Gabby Smith

CREATIVE ECONOMY SENIOR EDITOR Chaelin Jung ECONOMY EDITORS Milo Douglas Mathilda Silbiger ECONOMY STAFF WRITERS Ben Ackerman John Bellaire William Forys Simon Giordano Ethan Groboski Garrett Johnson Akhil Saxena Jesse Ward WORLD SENIOR EDITOR Daniel Halpert WORLD EDITORS Morgan McCordick Isabella Yepes WORLD STAFF WRITERS Maru Attwood Gabriel Blanc Erik Brown Laura David Nealie Deol Deepak Gupta Charlie Key Alex Lee Zoe Magley Isaac Slevin Ben Youngwood Sally Zhang Dino Zheng

MEDIA DIRECTORS Mina Kao Autumn-Jade Stoner PODCAST DIRECTORS Casey Chan Ellie Thomson LEAD WEB DEVELOPER Nick Young

EDITORIAL BOARD SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR Rachel Yan MANAGING EDITORS Carmen Bebbington Claire Hodges Sarah Roberts ASSOCIATE EDITORS Emma Blake Zander Blitzer Lauren Griffiths Justen Joffe Annabelle Liu Steven Long Alexandra Mork Cole Powell Joseph Safer-Bakal Ben Singer Nate Swidler Matt Walsh

COPY EDITORIAL BOARD

INTERVIEWS BOARD

CHIEF COPY EDITORS Zeke Hertz Peter Zubagio

INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Haley Joyce Sam Kolitch

COPY EDITORS Rachel Blumenstein Yevin Chung James Dallape Robert Daly Meehir Dixit Elizabeth Duchan Olivia Falkenrath Dante Flores-Demarchi Jacob Gelman Eric Guo Elias Kaul Jeanine Kim Connor Kraska William Lake Caleb Lazar Gene Lu Kevin Masse Jessa Mellea Anna Park Devan Paul Eleanor Peters Bianca Rosen Annabel Roth Namsai Sethpornpong Audrey Taylor Riley Thompson Christopher Wai Claire Zeller Jon Zhang

DEPUTY INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Alex Fasseas Adriana Lorenzini Miles Munkacy Zachary Stern Sam Trachtenberg Alexandra Vitkin INTERVIEWS ASSOCIATES Lucy Anderson Justin Barlas Ahad Bashir Omri Bergner-Phillips Alisa Caira Louisa Cavicchi Elijah Dahunsi Maya Davis John Fullerton Emerson Goodrich James Hardy Alice Jo Izzy Lazenby Seungje Lee Alexandra Lehman Mira Mehta Alyssa Merritt Lauren Muhs Hai Ning Ng Maya Rackoff Gidget Rosen Noah Rosenfeld Sana Sinha Peter Swope Tucker Wilke Anik Willig

CREATIVE DIRECTORS Christine Wang Iris Xie ART DIRECTORS Georgina Bronheim Jesse Hogan Lucia Li Jocelyn Salim Nina Jun Yuchi GRAPHIC DESIGN DIRECTORS Daniel Navratil Hope Wisor GRAPHIC DESIGNERS Jiahua Chen Jingyu Feng Yu Jung Jung Amy Lim Alina Spatz Mehek Vohra

DATA BOARD DATA DIRECTOR Erika Bussmann DATA ASSOCIATES Ashley Cai Jake Garfinkle Raima Islam Nadeen Kablawi Zoey Katzive Nicole Lugo Aidan Ma Kevin Masse Arthi Ranganathan Francisca Saldivar

MEDIA BOARD MEDIA DIRECTORS Mina Kao Autumn-Jade Stoner MEDIA ASSOCIATES Christine Baek Dante Flores-Demarchi Mira Gupta Nadeen Kablawi Daniel Ma Alex Sarkissian Salonee Singh

TECH DEVELOPMENT BOARD LEAD WEB DEVELOPER Nick Young WEB DEVELOPERS Rosella Liu Sophia Liu Parker Simon

COVER ARTIST Kelly Wu CONTRIBUTING ILLUSTRATORS G Bronheim Naya Lee Chang Hannah Chang Maria Hahne Lucia Li Jiayin Liu Anahis Luna Rosalia Mejia Joshua Sun Christine Wang Iris Xie

PODCAST BOARD PODCAST DIRECTORS Casey Chan Ellie Thomson ASSISTANT PODCAST DIRECTOR Tevah Gevelber PODCAST ASSOCIATES Elise Curtin Elijah Dahunsi Stefanie Del Rosario Ethan Drake William Kattrup Kate Kuli Alexandra Ali Martinez Kara McAndrew Caroline Parente Alex Rubinstein Alex Sarkissian Michael Seoane Annika Sharp

BUSINESS BOARD BUSINESS DIRECTORS Neel Dhavale Tyler Lu ASSOCIATE BUSINESS DIRECTORS Steven Long Lucca Paris Riley Thompson BUSINESS ASSOCIATES Grace Chaikan Stefanie Del Rosario Peter Edelstein Jake Garfinkle Nadeen Kablawi Caroline Parente Chris Pool Arthi Ranganathan Gidget Rosen Alex Rubinstein Joseph Safer-Bakal

Brown Political Review

Table of Contents INTERVIEW WITH: STEPHEN KINZER

America, Iran, and the Prospects for Partnership by Sam Kolitch

United States

INTERVIEW WITH: SIMON BLACKBURN

Religion, Politics, and Truth by Alex Fasseas

Highway Robbery by Zander Blitzer

A Marxist Cheer for the Last Frontier by Asa Turok

Half In Half Out by Hannah Severyns

War of All Against All by Shane Tomaino

Government-Mandated Poverty by Mira Mehta

INTERVIEW WITH: DANIELLE OUTLAW

Ask the Chief: Philadelphia by Sam Trachtenberg and John Fullerton

INTERVIEW WITH: JAKE AUCHINCLOSS

Biden, COVID, and Congress in 2021 by Miles Munkacy

Issue 01, Fall 2021

The Protection Issue Special Feature: Protection

Trees Are People Too by Claire Hodges

Critical Cyber by Scott Petersen

INTERVIEW WITH: SHARON DOLOVICH

International Whalefare by Zachary Harris

Criminal Justice Reform Series [Part II] by Alexandra Vitkin

DisArmorMent by Joseph Safer-Bakal

Condomnation by Steven Long

The Forgotten Ones by Jillian Lederman

World

Relic or Relevant? by Christopher Wai

Untapped Potential by Carmen Bebbington

Despotic Development by Matt Walsh

INTERVIEW WITH: SHANNON MATTERN

Maintenance and Care During and Beyond the Pandemic by Alice Jo

Reserving Water for Reserves by Ben Singer

INTERVIEW WITH: SCHUYLER BAILAR

54 Trans Identity and the Politics of Sports by Zach Stern

UNITED STATES

Highway Robbery

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

by Zander Blitzer ’22.5, a History and Early Modern Studies concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR illustrations by Hannah Chang ’23

How reimagined New England highways perpetuate the displacement of marginalized communities Walking along the Providence River is a favorite pastime of many Brown University students. Gazing out from the Pedestrian Bridge, they can easily imagine that the city has always been like this. However, as recently as 15 years ago, the waterfront looked entirely different. Highway I-195, which connects I-95 to the city, used to loom over the river in the heart of the Jewelry District, making a walk by the water dark and unpleasant. This stretch of highway has since been relocated south of the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, opening up waterfront areas on both sides of the Providence River. While this change may appear to be entirely beneficial, it has some problematic implications as well. Communities that were ravaged to build these highways are not being prioritized in the redevelopment process, and the areas previously occupied by highways are being rapidly gentrified. The practice of moving a highway isn’t unique to Providence; in cities across New England, governments are choosing to relocate swaths of highways in order to reconnect neighborhoods and open up previously unusable land. While these projects can have positive impacts, it is essential to consider the ways in which their consequences have haunted displaced communities for decades. To understand the current landscape of highways in American cities, one must return to the era in which these roads were built. In 1956, President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act into law, authorizing $25 billion in federal funds to be dispersed for the construction of 41,000 miles of highway across the United States and ultimately creating the Interstate Highway System. Highways were built at an incredible pace, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast. Mostly unacknowledged in this story of American infrastructure

triumph, however, are the neighborhoods that were bulldozed to make room for these new high-speed connectors. In the name of urban renewal and ridding cities of urban blight, highways were routed directly through multi-ethnic neighborhoods that were deemed undesirable. Entire communities were forcibly displaced so that freeways, designed to enable wealthy suburbanites to speed into city centers, could be built. The select neighborhoods that managed to escape such destruction were cut off from the rest of the city, making them less safe and less connected. Today, some city officials are seeking to correct past wrongs by moving or removing highways that once destroyed entire communities. In New Haven, Connecticut, a project called Downtown Crossing is getting rid of a highway spur that displaced almost 900 households and 350 businesses. In an effort to amend previous harms to local residents and the local economy, this project will reconnect two neighborhoods, upgrade pedestrian and bicycle lanes, create new public plazas, reclaim 10 acres of undeveloped land, and improve the city’s stormwater management systems. Across the country, cities such as Rochester, New York; Flint, Michigan; and New Orleans, Louisiana are reimagining their highways to create more walkable neighborhoods, reduce air and noise pollution, and reclaim developable land. These projects have been rather successful with their goals. Still, the utilization of recovered land has disappointed many residents who would prefer to see community spaces prioritized over luxury buildings. This is a textbook example of gentrification, with land previously occupied by diverse communities being sold to developers who are building expensive apartments and office spaces to attract wealthier residents. While it is commendable that cities are trying to make up for past mistakes, they must be careful not to create new problems that further damage the character and culture of the city. The abundance of land made available by highway removal has led to a scramble in property buying and a construction boom for primarily high-end developers. Of course, this varies by city, with some municipalities prioritizing public amenities such as parks and bike lanes. Nonetheless, the benefits seem to be accruing mostly for the wealthy and powerful. In Providence, much of the reclaimed land has been purchased by universities, including Brown, or developed into luxury apartments, hotels, and office buildings. This practice makes sense, as universities are often looking to expand their THE PROTECTION ISSUE

UNITED STATES

“Communities that were ravaged to build these highways are not being prioritized in the redevelopment process, and the areas previously occupied by highways are being rapidly gentrified.”

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

campuses and developers are looking for lucrative, safe investment opportunities. Cities tend to be interested in generating new jobs, expanding their tax base, and becoming more attractive places to live and work. Yet given the disproportionate impact that the initial construction of these highways had on lower-income, primarily non-white communities, city officials should seek to include those individuals in their revitalization effort. There are several solutions that would more fully address the harm that highway construction has done to marginalized communities. One such solution would be to build more affordable public housing. The neighborhoods bulldozed by highway construction were often vibrant communities with distinct cultures. Their destruction brought about an abrupt end to these cultural ecosystems, but building housing that would be within the price range of former residents would begin to repair the damage. Another option for city officials to consider would be to prioritize community spaces such as parks, gardens, museums, and other public amenities. Unfortunately, they have not done so thus far. While New Haven’s Downtown Crossing has indicated its commitment to prioritizing rebuilding communities damaged by highway construction, including commissioning a public art installation on Union Avenue, far more can be done to include the voices of former residents in promoting sustainable, community-based development. Highway building and removal is cyclical. Even as some cities move or remove their highways with a mixed focus on giving back to the communities that were most harmed, other cities continue to widen and build highways in areas that are disproportionately occupied by people of color. In North Charleston, South Carolina, a new $3 billion highway project will sweep aside dozens of homes occupied primarily by Black and brown individuals. This disheartening but unsurprising development epitomizes the importance of this issue: Highways that destroy communities are not just a thing of the past. As land reclamation efforts seek to repair damage, those who have been most affected must be centered in redevelopment efforts. Highways have revolutionized the American experience, but they have also destroyed communities and livelihoods. As Brown students continue to occupy areas that are part of this history, such as the Jewelry District in Providence, we must critically examine who previously utilized these spaces and question how they are being redeveloped in the present, for better and for worse.

A MARXIST CHEER FOR THE LAST FRONTIER

illustrations by Christine Wang ’24

The Last Frontier has given us gas, gold, and glory. It’s time for us to borrow some economic policy, too.

Alaska, a state most Americans know best for its iconography of Denali and a grizzly bear snatching a salmon between its teeth, is an American outlier in many regards. The state's political leanings are no exception—Alaska has the largest number of Independents in the Union, a symptom of its citizens’ distrust of the nation’s political institutions. Even though Alaska’s populace overwhelmingly identifies as Independent, much of its polity subscribes to the Republican ideology of small government on all but one issue: Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), a state program that pays out oil revenue to Alaskan citizens annually. While the popularity and success of this quasi-socialist program in a solid red state could flummox many a great political mind, the state’s policy exemplifies why a national implementation of Universal Basic Income (UBI) is more popular and attainable than one may think. The fuel for Alaska’s PFD is oil—a lot of oil. Thanks to the 1968 discovery of Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in North America, the state has sold billions of barrels of oil, amassing over $180 billion in revenue. After hitting nature’s jackpot, Republican Governor Jay Hammond decided the state’s newfound wealth was better in the pockets of its citizens than those of its government, creating the first iteration of the

PFD. The rules are simple: Every man, woman, and child living in the state is eligible for the dividend, which is allotted by dividing the fund’s net income after administrative costs by the number of eligible recipients. When one thinks of traditional Republican ideals, they think of self-reliance, small government, and the oft uttered phrase, “pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” For decades, Republicans have railed against cash payments to American citizens. In 1980, then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan promised to rid the country of supposed ‘welfare queens’ who were buying coupes de villes and getting pedicures on the taxpayer’s dime. Alaskan Senator Dan Sullivan frequently denounces the ‘socialist’ Democrats’ spending agenda, especially direct payment programs such as the child tax credit. Yet, Republican state representatives in Alaska are in a constant mode of one-upmanship, with each politician fighting to spend more of the state’s budget on dividend payments for its citizens. So, what’s the story? In its youth, the PFD was unpopular at the statehouse due to fears that citizens would use their cut of the crude revenue on unnecessary goods that wouldn’t benefit the economy. But as the fund grew, skepticism dwindled, and Republican politicians arrived at a “Eureka!”

by Asa Turok ’24, a Political Science concentrator

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

UNITED STATES

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

“Economic inequality and the pandemic have left millions of Americans broken down on the side of the road. Let's pull over.”

moment: People love free money. Governor Sarah Palin, the same Tea Party Republican who once suggested the United States should eliminate the federal income tax, imposed new taxes on oil companies, winning Alaskans a record high $3,269 dividend as a result. As someone who helped popularize the slogan, “Drill, baby, drill!” in her vice-presidential run, the irony of Palin's policies shows the sheer political power of the PFD. The PFD has become popular to a point of no return. In 2014, Governor Bill Walker ran as a conservative Independent promising, like every other politician in the state, a higher PFD. But soon after winning the Governor’s seat, Alaska entered a deep recession and Walker, looking for budgetary fat to cut, founded the PFD. In a historic move, the Governor slimmed Alaskans’ checks to half of the expected amount to help balance the state’s budget. When faced with a financial crisis, surely his conservative voting base would understand the necessity of these reductions in spending, right? Wrong. The public was so incensed at Walker's decision to reduce the size of the checks that he decided not to seek reelection for his second term. Walker’s replacement, conservative Republican Mike Dunleavy, campaigned in 2018 on larger PFD payments and has since proposed almost $5,000 checks through other budget cuts. Clearly, politicians who are worried about a dip in the polls have nothing to fear from UBI. The dividend’s popularity is easy to understand in the context of its notable impact on the people of Alaska. Research from the Economic Policy Institute shows that income for the poorest fifth of Alaskans in the last decade has increased 28 percent, 2.5 times more growth than the national average. $2,000 can make all the difference for Alaskans on the verge of poverty. Rural Alaskans use the dividend to survive, buying fuel to heat their homes for the cruel winter ahead. In the case of Native Alaskans, a study conducted by the University of Alaska-Anchorage estimates that without the yearly dividend payments, over 10,000 more Natives would live below the federal poverty line. In 2020, Andrew Yang ran for the Democratic presidential nomination on what he called the “Freedom Dividend,” a monthly $1,000 check sent out to every American adult. By touting the concept of UBI, Yang’s unlikely campaign raised $16.5 million in a single fundraising quarter in 2019. Unsurprisingly, Republicans challenged the efficacy of UBI, arguing that the checks would reduce incentive to work. Yang cited Alaska’s PFD to prove them wrong. Researchers at the Roosevelt Institute tested his claim and found that there has been no change in the percentage of Alaskans in the workforce since the creation of the PFD in 1980. Before

the Covid-19 pandemic, Yang’s campaign was largely dismissed by mainstream media outlets as a fringe movement. But the American people have now witnessed the successful rollout of two direct payments without the economic fallout that Republicans fearfully described. In a recent Doxo poll, 95 percent of respondents said the Covid-19 stimulus checks helped improve their finances over the last year, with 37 percent indicating that the checks helped “a great deal.” Americans are more open to the concept of UBI than ever before, with nine US cities from Compton, California to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania launching some rendition of a direct payment program in 2021. This leads us to the penultimate question—how are we going to pay for this? Not every state can be home to the nation's largest oil field. But when Jay Hammond created the PFD, he did it because he thought the state was obligated to use the land's resources for the “maximum benefit of its people.” Right now, America’s resources are being used for the maximum benefit of its corporations. It is time to collect some of Amazon’s $1.7 trillion net worth as payment for its thousands of delivery trucks causing traffic, pollution, and damage to public roads. Let’s institute a carbon tax on the nation's biggest corporations, many of whom make up the 100 companies responsible for 71 percent of the world's carbon emissions. These corporations would simply be paying US citizens a form of reparations for their monopolistic use of the country's finite resources. If Republicans in Juneau, Alaska can fight over who can get their constituents more government assistance, then politicians in Washington can, too. I once asked an Alaskan what he thought the biggest difference was between Alaska and the other 49 states: “Most places when you crash your car people will just drive past. In Alaska, you always stop when someone’s on the side of the road, ‘cause you know it could be you tomorrow, and a car crash in -20 degree weather is a life or death situation.” The answer surprised me given the state's proud association with rugged individualism, but nature’s brutality in Alaska has forced a sense of community on its people—a unity reflected in the PFD. Economic inequality and the pandemic have left millions of Americans broken down on the side of the road. Let's pull over.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

Interview with Stephen Kinzer

interview by Sam Kolitch ’23 illustration by Rosalia Mejia ’23

Stephen Kinzer is an award-winning author and journalist who spent more than twenty years working for The New York Times, primarily as a foreign correspondent. From 1983 to 1989, he was The Times Bureau Chief in Nicaragua; from 1990 to 1996, he was posted in Germany as the Bureau Chief in Bonn, West Germany; and from 1996 to 2000, he was chief of the newly created bureau in Istanbul, Turkey, where he hosted the country’s first radio show dedicated to blues music. Kinzer has also authored ten books, including many bestsellers, and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

Sam Kolitch What is the root cause of the US-Iran misunderstanding?

Stephen Kinzer For most Americans and for our foreign policy establishment, USIran relations begin and end with the hostage crisis. There’s a tremendous residue of frustration and anger in the American foreign policy elite stemming from that episode. Americans sense that Iran got away with something and was never punished or made to pay for it, which is immensely frustrating for Americans. For Iranians, however, the hostage crisis was a minor bump in the road. It was unfortunate, but it didn’t seem nearly as important as the series of giant events that occurred before and after it in Iranian history, like the Islamic Revolution or the Iran-Iraq war. For Iranians, the huge moment in US-Iran relations had come earlier, in 1953. That was when the CIA worked with the British Secret Service to overthrow the first and last democratic government Iran has ever had. The coup, which we carried out with the British, didn’t just result in the overthrow of a particular individual, Mohammed Mossadegh. It ended the prospect of democracy in Iran. It paved the way for twenty-five years of royal dictatorship followed by forty years of Islamic fundamentalist rule.

The government in Iran today is nothing like the burgeoning democracy that was stymied by the 1953 coup. What are the defining characteristics of the current Iranian government?

On one hand, there is a functioning government that is run by elected officials. Mayors are elected, the Parliament is elected, and the President is elected. But those democratic institutions have very limited power. The clerics have established a “council of guardians” that reviews everything from the laws that are passed by Parliament to the candidates who want to run for public office. A dictate from the clerics at the top can wipe away all the outcomes of the democratic processes, which is very frustrating for people who want to see change in Iran. On the other hand, Iranian politics are much more complex than they appear. The Iranian government is not a one-man dictatorship by any means. There’s a constant political tug-of-war, not only between progressives and conservatives, but also between those members of the political establishment who believe theocratic rule should stay as it is and those who would like much more personal freedom—even within the framework of the Islamic Republic.

You noted that Iran is not entirely a one-man dictatorship. Yet Ayatollah Khamenei reportedly oversees a financial empire worth an estimated $95 billion. He also reportedly plans to transfer this empire, along with political control of Iran, to one of his sons.

First of all, I’ve gotten to the point where I’m very skeptical of anything I read about Iran in the mainstream press. There are very few reporters in Iran. Therefore, a lot of these stories are written by reporters based outside the country, and they’re written to fulfill certain paradigms that already exist in the minds of reporters and editors. But would I still say the leaders of the Islamic Republic are corrupt? Absolutely. Corruption is a huge problem in Iran and everybody in Iran is aware of it. But let me repeat to you something that I heard from a guy I met on one of my visits to Iran. He said, “You Americans are so different from us. You expect good

Adam Jones/Flickr

leadership from a political leader, and if you don’t get it, you’re angry. If you’re not happy, you protest. We are not like that. We have never had good leadership, with the possible exception of a few years in the 1950s. We have bad leaders now; they’re corrupt and inefficient. But we don’t protest that. There’s only one thing that we ask [of our government]: Leave us alone. You can be corrupt and be inefficient—that’s not going to change. But let us live our own lives while you live your lives.” I think this explains a great deal of frustration that many Iranians feel today. They feel the government is intruding into their private, intimate spheres and telling them how to live their lives. This intrusion causes more frustration than the realization of the flaws of their leaders.

Despite the Iranian government’s anti-democratic structure, the human rights abuses it perpetrates, and its sponsorship of terrorism, Iranian and American interests have at times overlapped, notably in the fight against al-Qaeda and the so-called Islamic State. Why have the United States and Iran not been able to cooperate more—on both terror and non-terror matters?

When you begin to suggest that Iran and the United States should think about ways to work together, you are branded as what John McCain wonderfully called a “wacko bird.” There is a strong consensus in Washington that Iran is the font of all evil. One of the most bizarre aspects of this dysfunctional relationship is that Iran and the United States have many long-term strategic interests in common. Bear in mind that the ideology that drives both al-Qaeda and ISIS has as its central precept the determination to kill all Shia Muslims. Most of the people in Iran are Shia. So al-Qaeda and ISIS want to kill the vast majority of the Iranian population. That certainly gives Iran a reason to want to fight those groups. I would say that we have more strategic interests in common with Iran than we do with many of our so-called friends in the Middle East. The fact that we would maintain relationships with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, [two Sunni-majority countries which happen to be] the principal sponsors of radical extremism in that part of the world, while remaining intensely hostile to Iran, which feels most threatened by ISIS and al-Qaeda, shows you how crazy this relationship has become.

In reneging on the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Trump administration imposed approximately 1,600 sanctions on Iran. Do sanctions ever produce the intended regime change?

One thing that scholars have universally concluded is that it is a false idea that sanctions will make people suffer so much that they’ll overthrow their government. Our sanctions are actually a principal moneymaker for the most repressive organization in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards, which runs the sanctions-busting regime. They are running speed boats every day across the Gulf from Dubai. I’ve been in a bazaar in Isfahan and had vendors tell me, “If you want an Apple Watch, I can get it to you by tomorrow.” There’s nothing you can’t get there. Now, sanctions do have the effect of impoverishing a population, but I believe they have more impact in turning populations against the sanctioning power than against their own government. And sanctions are always described as targeted—“they’re not supposed to hurt ordinary people.” Exactly the opposite is true. I was in Iraq when it was under Saddam Hussein and being miserably starved by sanctions. I was in a hospital watching sick babies and a doctor told me, “If you come back tomorrow, half the babies in this room will be dead.” If I were across the border in Jordan, I could go into a pharmacy, and I could buy a drug for ten cents that would keep any one of those babies alive. But I couldn’t get those drugs because of sanctions. So experiences like this have made me realize that sanctions have a devastating effect on ordinary people, and they enrich the people that we’re trying to undermine. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Susan Walsh/AP

“One thing that scholars have universally concluded is that it is a false idea that sanctions will make people suffer so much that they’ll overthrow their government.” 15

UNITED STATES

by Shane Tomaino ’22, a Philosophy concentrator and Staff Writer for BPR. illustrations by Jiayin Lu ’22

Social contract theory generally refers to the tacit agreement between citizens and their government to achieve collective security: Citizens consent to cooperate with laws in exchange for protection, and the government, in turn, offers that security. The social contract runs the gamut from community-level policies like obeying crosswalks to broader programs like taxation and welfare. Despite being a cornerstone of American governance, this tradition is far from monolithic, and, like any contract, it risks being broken. Thomas Hobbes’s 1651 book “Leviathan” first introduced social contract theory, arguing that both the individual and society are best served when some liberties are exchanged for collective security. Hobbes charged that, without some sense of interdependence and duty to one another, life would be “poor, nasty, brutish and short” amidst an interminable “war of all against all.” At a time when wearing a mask and receiving a vaccine are badges of adherence to that contract—sacrificing some degree of liberty to protect the community—we can see how Hobbes’s seemingly cynical forecast becomes reality. Indeed, the pandemic has both stoked the flames of societal conflict and shed light on

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

War of All Against All How Covid-19 has eroded our social contract

the disconnect between self-interest and common interest. For proof, look no further than the controversy surrounding mask mandates in schools. Social contract theory’s implications are far from philosophical: Jefferson’s famous promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is a paradigm of contractual thinking. According to the Founders, the reason we have government is to conserve and cultivate life, and we all share the burden of making good on that promise. Thus, individuals must sacrifice some of their freedoms and put aside selfish desires in the interest of the greater good. Just as we go through the trouble of using crosswalks to avoid accidents, the same logic applies to abiding by mask and vaccine mandates during a pandemic. Like any social contract, all US laws—including those written in the Constitution—gain power and force from their ubiquity: A flimsy contract observed only by some violates the terms of consent of each. Someone who spreads Covid-19 because they refuse to wear a mask infringes upon the rights of the exposed. Those who argue that returning to a maskless society should be a priority regardless of the pandemic similarly contravene the social contract. In fact, any suggestion that economic recovery should be prioritized over lives seems entirely at odds with our founding principles. Many in the United States have advocated for the swift end to pandemic mitigation strategies—including sheltering in place, mandating masks, and requiring vaccines—in the interest of economic recovery. These voices charge that reopening the economy is more important than community health, despite the risk to human life. These freedom fighters want a ‘return to normal’ that is not at all normal in the context of social contract theory and is, ironically, antithetical to the freedoms of others. In Loui-

siana, for example, just three months after Governor John Bel Edwards lifted the state’s mask mandate to appease business interests, he was forced to reinstate it due to a rapid rise in Covid19 cases and hospitalizations. Even before the pandemic, the US has struggled to reconcile equal rights with economic interests. Just as Jefferson gave force to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, he simultaneously chose to abandon those promises as they applied to the economic engine of slavery. Throughout the pandemic, social contract violations have again been sponsored from the top down, exposing America as a nation that puts businesses and economic prosperity above human welfare. It is as if the virus is an x-ray, helping us to see deep fractures in the fragile social contract that binds society. Covid-19 has produced an incomparable human tragedy, but it has also created a generational opportunity to revitalize and strengthen the social contract. It is critical not to set a precedent that abandons that contract, which heightens the risk of death and illness for many and bolsters the business interests of few. Consumer demand dictates which businesses come and go, but the same cannot be said for human

life. Our policies should invariably be aimed at lowering the risk of death and illness, and our economy should align with and strengthen the social contract. The federal government should set the foundation for standards upon which state and local governments, the private sector, and community members may build. If our first principle of governance is to preserve life, then in the context of public health crises, the social contract must remain robust, unblighted, and binding for all. There simply is no compromise, lest we remain on track to fulfill Hobbes’s grim prophecy.

“Indeed, the pandemic has both stoked the flames of societal conflict and shed light on the disconnect between self-interest and common interest.” THE PROTECTION ISSUE

Interview with Simon Blackburn interview by Alex Fasseas '23 illustration by Rosalia Mejia ’23 Simon Blackburn is one of the world’s leading academic philosophers. Over the course of his career, Mr. Blackburn has taught at Oxford University, the University of Cambridge, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has published countless books and essays on topics ranging from the philosophy of language to the nature of truth to atheism. Additionally, Professor Blackburn is known for his numerous appearances in British media—such as on the BBC’s The Moral Maze—along with his efforts to make philosophy accessible to the broader public. He is currently the Bertrand Russell Professor emeritus at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of Trinity College, and a Visiting Professor at both UNC-Chapel Hill and the New College of the Humanities in London.

Alex Fasseas You coined the phrase “respect creep” as a criticism of religious tolerance. Is respect for one’s religious or political beliefs a moral necessity on the part of the non-believer?

Simon Blackburn The word “respect” is very elastic. Respect, as I see it, falls on a spectrum which ranges from simple toleration all the way up to sharing someone’s beliefs. So I don’t “respect” your Catholicism to the extent that my respect is predicated on my willingness to become a Catholic. And I think that a lot of the aggression and hot air surrounding current political discussions—such as the cancelling of speakers—betrays the danger of respect creep. We’ve conflated disagreement with disrespect. So if I disagree with your views, I simultaneously disrespect your views. And that’s, of course, a very unfortunate decline in the liberal ethos of free speech, and it’s one that the universities especially have to resist. But I think its genesis does lie in respect creep. That is, in the days when free speech was paramount, I could respect your views sufficiently just by letting you express them. I didn’t have to read them or listen to them, and I didn’t try to shut you up. Now, however, the “woke” generation demands that unless I actively share your views, I am to be regarded as beyond the pale. It’s a very disturbing progression, and I think it’s a great shame.

PNGWING.com

“We’ve conflated disagreement with disrespect. So if I disagree with your views, I simultaneously disrespect your views.” Is it easier to lose faith as a devout theist, or to find it as a staunch atheist? What sort of conceptual change does such a dramatic transition require?

I wouldn’t like to quantify it. I mean, there are lots of stories of deathbed conversions in which the person who’s been an infidel all their lives suddenly sees the light, but these are stories told by the Church or by Church spokesmen. There is, of course, one famous case of someone who thought the reverse, that is, when Jesus was on the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” I myself doubt that a lot of people actually believe in God, although they say and think they do. Many of them like the words, music, rituals, and dances, which is fine. But to describe it as a belief… I’d want to interrogate that a bit. After all, if you really believe everything that Christianity tells you about the afterlife, then you’d be happy when your child dies, whereas in fact, people are devastated when their children die; they mourn, they feel grief. So it’s not obvious that this is a real belief that has the same effect as a belief that your child has immigrated somewhere really nice, which would make you rather chuffed.

Pixabay

In recent years, secularists such as Sam Harris have put forth their own meta-ethical theories centered around “the science of morality.” Do you find any of these arguments to be particularly convincing?

The idea that morality can be founded on science is, I think, deeply flawed. It’s perfectly true that morality should take account of the way of the world. So if science tells us something about the way the world works, then a good moral code— which will inevitably give instructions for living in said world—better take account of that fact. So, for example, if science tells us that there’s going to be catastrophic global warming which will undoubtedly fall on our descendants, then I think that’s a fact we should take into account when we ponder how to live. So science has its role in that it gives us information about the environment and enables us to predict the future somewhat better. But by itself, it doesn’t tell us what our duties or rights are, or what counts as a virtuous or improper life. Of course there have been many previous attempts to think that science tells us something very specific and special about morality. Utilitarians like Bentham and Mill thought of themselves as being scientific in a way that other conceptions of morality weren’t. In the 19th century, there was a nasty aberration where people thought that the moral to be drawn from Darwin’s theory of evolution was survival of the fittest. So biology has a very checkered record of getting involved in questions of human nature and morality.

In “Perpetual Peace,” Kant argues that “all politics must bend its knee before right.” Do you agree with Kant that the moral supersedes the political?

The difficulty with Kant’s remark lies in the word “must.” If politics must obey the sovereignty of the good, why must it? Machiavelli thought that in practical terms, politics can’t obey the sovereignty of the good because the politician who does so will always be overcome by politicians who don’t. So as a matter of practical necessity, I don’t think Kant could be right. But suppose he says, “No, my must is a moral must.” Well, then there’s a danger that we’ve just got a tautology—that you ought to do what you ought to do. And where does that get us? So I think that I’d be suspicious of Kant’s remark. It’s presented as obvious, but it’s only obvious in the sense in which it’s a tautology. And if it’s presented as a piece of practical wisdom, then I think the exigencies of politics suggest that it’s not very good advice.

Many people believe that we are now living in a “post-truth” era. You’ve described the political buzzword as “fake news.” Why is that? Are we “post-” something else?

I don’t like the phrase “post-truth” because we’ve been very happy with truth and falsity for most of our existence. We’re very good at interpreting the world around us, and we’re relatively good at calling out people who get it wrong. What I think people are more worried about is indirect sources of information, where we can’t immediately see for ourselves whether something’s true or false, where we have to rely on other people’s testimony, particularly in the domain of politics. So fake news is just part of the human world, and you have to be on your guard against it. Again, for the vast majority of daily interactions, you can rely on people quite well. If I were to ask someone in the street for the time, and they told me that it was 3:30 pm, then I can expect it to be 3:30 pm. And 99 percent of the time I’d be right. So we rely on each other’s testimony quite naturally when other people have no motive for deceiving us. Now politics is almost essentially an area where people have a motive for deceiving us because it is a domain where individuals can have drastically differing views; the answer is never as simple as “3:30 pm.” And politicians have always been untrustworthy; Machiavelli in “The Prince” talks about how the prince—that is, the government—has to be prepared to deceive people, and that princes or governments that aren’t prepared to deceive people do not survive the rat races of politics. Ultimately, I think what you’ve got in a post-truth world is not the disappearance of the notion of truth, but rather the diminution of trust. And in order to improve on that, we have to do something about social media, and we have to improve our children’s education, so they get a little practice in distinguishing who’s trustworthy from who’s not.

Pixabay

“If politics must obey the sovereignty of the good, why must it? Machiavelli thought that in practical terms, politics can’t obey the sovereignty of the good because the politician who does so will always be overcome by politicians who don’t.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

UNITED STATES

Half In Half Out by Hannah Severyns ’23, an English concentrator and Editor in Chief of BPR illustration by Maria Hahne ’24

In August 2020, Daniel Martin exited through the front doors of the Cordova Center, a residential reentry center (RRC) in Anchorage, Alaska, after announcing his intention to leave. Less than a day later, he was charged with felony escape and branded a “walkaway.” That month alone, seven other residents “walked away” from Anchorage RRCs and, like Martin, were charged with escape. Although residents can technically leave the facilities, the harsh legal penalties for doing so demonstrate that RRCs—a type of halfway house—offer freedom in name only. Indeed, unlocked doors mean little if walking through them is a crime, as is the case for the majority of RRCs in the United States. Halfway houses broadly refer to transitional residential spaces designed to help individuals readapt to life outside prison. Yet there is a significant difference between voluntary halfway houses and government-contracted RRCs that are mandated as a condition of parole or as part of a post-release plan. Mandatory RRCs operate under systems of surveillance and forced confinement, making them extensions of the carceral state. They are also understudied and poorly regulated, subject to fewer standards and less oversight than even most prisons. If RRCs are to ever serve their intended purpose of reducing recidivism and supporting formerly incarcerated people’s reentry into their commu20

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

Why an effective reentry model must sever its ties with the carceral state

nities, the government must not only require increased transparency and higher standards of living within RRCs, but also entirely abolish their features of surveillance and required residency. RRCs came about in response to the United States’s booming prison population in the 1970s, as demands for alternatives to incarceration, increased community treatment options, and prison abolition rose with incarceration rates. Noting the success of the halfway houses that were first opened in the 1950s by Episcopal, Catholic, and Quaker groups, American policymakers poured millions into developing government-funded RRCs. Between 1960 and the early 1970s, the number of RRCs rose from approximately a dozen to over 2,000, with enough capacity to house nearly 65,000 residents. On the surface, the expansion of RRCs seemed to be a victory for activists, who had pressed for decades for the government to fund community-based anti-recidivism programs and prison alternatives. But RRCs, according to ACLU Research Fellow Cyrus J. O’Brien, only looked “like opposites to prison” from the outside. In reality, they continued to surveil and control residents, expanding “the reach of the carceral state” rather than reeling it in. Today, RRCs continue to involuntarily confine thousands of residents. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, the federal government alone currently maintains 154 contracts with RRCs, which collectively house nearly 10,000 people daily. In these spaces, every individual is subject to surveillance and supervision: Their personal property is commonly searched and their day-to-day movements—even to and from work, required programs, and recreation—must be approved and monitored by facility staff. Outside of population estimates and surveillance policies, however, information on RRCs is hard to find. This is partly because many RRCs are privatized, and the entities that fund them do not publish data on their residents or facilities. Even for government-operated facilities, the federal government has not published concrete data on RRCs in nearly a decade: The last Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities was released in 2012. Few states release policies related to RRCs at all, and the ones that do publish guidelines tend to do so with little detail. Minnesota, for example, only

“Lack of oversight on even these minimal standards has left RRCs vastly unregulated and unsafe.”

“But with governments dumping funds into harmful RRCs instead of programs like these, successful reentry efforts simply cannot keep up with the demand they receive.”

requires that buildings be “clean and in good repair” and bathrooms be “adequate and conveniently located” to meet administrative requirements. Lack of oversight on even these minimal standards has left RRCs vastly unregulated and unsafe. The New York Times and The Marshall Project have both published reports citing drug use, violence, and staff misconduct in many facilities, conditions that are bound to hinder successful community reentry. Circumstances only worsened with the Covid-19 pandemic: RRCs are both high-density and semi-fluid to the outside world, causing uncontrolled disease spread among residents. Residents suffering in these woefully inadequate living conditions rarely even reap their

alleged benefits. A 2013 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections study found that 65.7 percent of people paroled to Pennsylvania RRCs recidivated within three years, compared to 61.2 percent of people paroled directly to home. Studies from across the country show that this pattern is occurring in other states as well, demonstrating that RRCs are systemically failing to achieve their basic purpose of reducing reincarceration and helping residents readjust to life outside of prison. The horrific conditions and outcomes of RRCs, coupled with their carceral nature, beg the question of why halfway houses exist at all. Yet, while mandated RRCs have failed miserably, voluntary halfway houses, like those run by A New Way of Life Reentry Project (ANWOL), demonstrate that successful residential anti-recidivism efforts are possible. Started by formerly incarcerated activist Susan Burton, ANWOL reimagines reentry: It provides voluntary housing and support that prioritizes “successful community reentry, family reunification, and individual healing,” while simultaneously working to systemically overhaul the criminal legal system. Since its inception in 1998, ANWOL has served over 1,200 women and children by providing leadership training, educational and career opportunities, and legal and financial support to its residents—all at less than half of the cost of incarceration. This has created an environment in which an average of 8 out of 10 women meet the benchmarks necessary for successful rehabilitation. And in 2020, zero women served by ANWOL were reincarcerated, with all

of them meeting the terms of their probation or parole. Other programs focused on voluntary treatment and community-based support have found similar success. Community Bridges, Inc. operates under a mission to maintain “the dignity of human life.” By providing its residents with individualized treatment programs that can include anything from financial management to counseling and health care, it saw an 85 percent success rate in preventing recidivism for its first 49 clients. Similarly, Angela House, which provides transitional housing and support for formerly incarcerated women in Houston, reports that 87 percent of women who spend at least four months in their program “successfully transition into society after incarceration.” But with governments dumping funds into harmful RRCs instead of programs like these, successful reentry efforts simply cannot keep up with the demand they receive. In 2019, Angela House reported that it could serve only 12 to 14 women at a time, despite receiving more than 300 applications each year. To address the atrocious rates of recidivism in the United States, investing in voluntary, community-based programs is necessary. This does not simply mean regulating existing RRCs to improve their material conditions; it means both providing support to the millions of people already impacted by the criminal justice system, and operating within an abolitionist framework that dismantles carceral structures of mandated residency and surveillance entirely.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

Interview with Danielle Outlaw interview by Sam Trachtenberg ’24 and John Fullerton ’24 illustration by Rosalia Mejia ’23

Danielle Outlaw is the first Black woman to serve as the Police Commissioner for the Philadelphia Police Department. She was born in Oakland and served for 20 years in the Oakland Police Department. In 2017, she was appointed as the first Black female chief of police in the Portland Police Department. Outlaw has an undergraduate degree in sociology from the University of San Francisco and an MBA from Pepperdine University.

Sam Trachtenberg & John Fullerton How have you approached policing in 2021?

Danielle Outlaw My approach is being strategic and formulating good policies, practices, and procedures that can be used for the next 50 to 100 years. We need to begin making smarter decisions with the fewer resources we have. Gone are the days where we can just go flood a neighborhood with cops, stop everyone that passes by, and say “this is how we handle crime.” We can’t do that anymore. As policing becomes more professional, there is a public acknowledgment that we are part of the community. We get our authority—our legitimacy—from the community that we serve.

How wary are you of how you’re perceived both within law enforcement and in the community when implementing progressive changes or speaking out against racial discrimination?

I make my decisions based on who I am, my lived experiences, and what I want to see for my young adult sons. There are going to be times when I speak out in support of the police department or my officers and what we do, and the community’s not going to like that. It doesn’t mean I’m turning my back on my community. It doesn’t mean that I’m turning my back on who I am, but I have to make some tough choices in this role. I’m not the police commissioner for only the Black community. I’m not the police commissioner for only single mothers. I have to advocate on behalf of everyone. So that can cloud perceptions of what my role is and, quite frankly, what people think of me. We, as police chiefs, are meant to be apolitical. Period.

Are we asking too much of police officers by having them respond to every type of call?

How do the recent calls to defund the police play into these problems?

Yes. We have to be more intentional about identifying alternative strategies to policing, because it’s not working, period. When we talk about re-imagining public safety, you may be surprised that a lot of my colleagues will tell you we don’t want to respond to a lot of the things that currently we have to respond to. We need to be thinking of those alternative strategies, like calling the social service providers or working with your legislators to find ways to eradicate that issue without just bringing in the heavy to say, “Okay, I’m moving you by force.” But before you pull us from it, we have to make sure there’s an alternative strategy in place to make sure that the actual issue, that root problem, is being addressed.

Chris Henry/Unsplash

Reasonable demands have been made for the proliferation of body cameras, tasers, and implicit bias training. But, guess what, folks? That all costs money. People want divestment, but at the same time, they ask us to step up and do more. It doesn’t work that way. We have to phase in reform with appropriate resource allocation.

“We get our authority—our legitimacy— from the community that we serve.” 22

Dick Elbers/Wikimedia Commons

How do you teach your officers about the history of race and policing in your community in Philadelphia?

We take our recruits on a walking tour to some of our hardest-hit areas to show why tensions exist and why we have to move forward with reforms. I think it’s very, very important our leadership makes it clear that discrimination plays a big role in our nation’s history. These problems are generational, and they are being passed on to our children. If law enforcement officers aren’t being educated on the history of their Black communities and why community members feel the way they do about police, there’s going to be constant tension. We rolled out implicit bias training in October of last year, shortly after I got here. We talk about the history of policing and people’s personal biases. The instructor presents it in a very non-offensive way, but you can see so many light bulbs flick on, and people can have their learning moment without being put on blast or made to feel embarrassed.

We read that you deeply admire Rosa Parks. How do you weigh admiring someone for civil disobedience while arresting people for similar behavior during the protests over the last year?

I want to make it very clear: there’s a very strong distinction between civil disobedience and tearing s--- up, burning buildings down, and acts of violence. It’s one thing to be disobedient by going out to protest and to demonstrate. If you broke the law because you marched or protested without a permit, we won’t bother you. We’ll even facilitate and go alongside you to make sure you don’t get hit by cars. There’s a big difference between peaceful demonstrations and throwing Molotov cocktails and hitting cops with cars. Rosa Parks sat and refused to give up her seat even though, by law, African-Americans were supposed to give up their seats because we were deemed inferior. I’m using my words here, but that’s just a dumb law.

Do you enforce any of these so-called “dumb laws”?

Those of us in law enforcement who are bold enough to do it are taking a hard look at some of the laws we have been asked to enforce. These laws are creating disparate impacts in communities of color because of how they’re enforced. So while I might not be able to change a law, I can look at how we enforce it in order to reduce the disparities. Law enforcement has always been given discretion on how to enforce the law. Depending on who’s in charge, laws can be used to further the institutional racism that we know exists. I use common sense to recognize when we’re perpetuating the problems that we’re trying to get away from. That’s what I do, and I think that’s what a lot of my colleagues are doing as well. Every police department in this country, regardless of size, has values up on the wall: honor, integrity, service. How do we continue doing things that don’t align with our values? How do we hire people that don’t align with our values? We don’t, and we shouldn’t.

What should we, as members of the community, be asking ourselves when it comes to policing?

Ask what we, the community, can do to best support law enforcement. Don’t teach your kids to flip us off when we drive by. Don’t instill fear in a three-year-old because now you’re teaching them to fear cops instead of seeing them as somebody they can go to when they’re in need of help. People sure don’t have a problem with saying, “We don’t know our cops, we feel distant, and we want more representation in the police department of people that look like us and come from our neighborhoods.” I think there are a lot of people out there that want to be supportive but don’t know how. I want the community to recognize that being supportive of police and holding us accountable aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s okay to do both because we’re human beings. People need to see us as human beings.

How do you want to be remembered as Philadelphia Police Commissioner?

Fair, authentic, and open. I’m very intentional. If I open my mouth to say something, please believe I put some thought behind it, regardless of the setting. What I say or do is because I believe it’s the right thing to do. I don’t lose sleep at night because of the decisions I’ve made. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

UNITED STATES

by Mira Mehta ’25, an Economics and International and Public Affairs concentrator and an Interviews Associate for BPR

GovernmentMandated Poverty

illustration by Lucia Li ’24

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

How US policies are structured to keep people with disabilities in perpetual poverty

“If we were able to keep our income, we’d have been married a long time ago.” Sherri Daniel, who has spinal stenosis and achondroplasia, a form of short-limbed dwarfism, currently receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI), while her fiancé, who has cerebral palsy, receives Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). If they were to marry, however, government restrictions would cut off most of Daniel’s SSI, forcing the couple to choose between marriage and poverty. This situation is all too familiar for people with disabilities in the United States. According to a 2017 report from the National Council on Disability, despite accounting for about 12 percent of the working age population, people with disabilities make up more than 50 percent of those living in long-term poverty in the United States. This disparity is deeply concerning and indicative of larger systemic problems that make it difficult for people with disabilities to escape poverty. The first step to achieving economic justice and equality for this group is understanding how these problems manifest within American policies like subminimum wage, SSI, and SSDI, all of which are fundamentally structured to be hostile toward people with disabilities. Employment discrimination poses a significant economic barrier to individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) makes a weak attempt to ensure employment equity, stating that employers may not discriminate against a qualified candidate based on their disability and must provide them with reasonable accommodations if hired. Yet, there is a way around even this bare minimum requirement. Employers may deny people with disabilities a job or necessary accommodations if they feel that it causes them “undue hardship,” a vague term that can be applied even to minor inconveniences. This loophole helps explain why the unemployment rate in 2020 was 12.6 percent for people with disabilities, as compared to 7.9 percent for people without disabilities. Another policy obstacle confronts people with disabilities who are able to find jobs despite the discrimination in the process: the subminimum wage. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows employers to request a certificate from the Department of Labor that lets them pay lower wages to anyone “whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by a physical or mental disability.”

“The subminimum wage fundamentally abandons the principles of a minimum wage and reinforces the ableist assumption that the value of a person with a disability’s work is inherently less than that of a person without a disability.”

The Fair Labor Standards Act has had dire consequences for the approximately 100,000 to 420,000 workers with disabilities who are currently making subminimum wage—estimates of the average subminimum wage range from $2.15 to $3.34 an hour. Although the original law’s intent was for workers to eventually reach “full productivity” and then receive at least a minimum wage, this goal is rarely realized. Ross Ryan, who has an intellectual disability, spent 22 years working at a sheltered workshop that was supposed to provide training and serve as a transitional job for people with disabilities to enter or return to the mainstream workforce. Working for a subminimum wage, Ryan was never able to become financially independent, and thus felt “trapped in a sheltered workshop for most of [his] adult life.” The subminimum wage fundamentally abandons the principles of a minimum wage and reinforces the ableist assumption that the value of a person with a disability’s work is inherently less than that of a person without a disability. It is illegal to pay an unproductive worker without a disability a subminimum wage, yet people with disabilities are often subject to wage constraints even when productivity is down for reasons outside of their control.

Ironically, the minimum wage is not intended to be a measure of productivity at all but a guarantee that all working people can afford to support themselves and their families. This is a right not afforded to people with disabilities. Critics argue that the subminimum wage should not be a concern, since people with disabilities are supposed to receive financial support from the government through SSI, which provides both a stipend and Medicaid eligibility to its recipients. But to be eligible for SSI, a person cannot have more than $2,000 in resources. SSI defines resources as any liquid asset, excluding necessary assets like homes or a single vehicle from this resource calculation. Still, the $2,000 resource ceiling is preposterous, as it becomes nearly impossible to save up enough money for an exempted asset while staying within the ceiling's limit. Moreover, SSI support is rarely enough to allow for a high quality of life. In December 2020, the average SSI payment was only $580 per month, equating to an average annual payment of only $6,960. The average cost of living in the United States (only including food, electricity, and rent) is $28,586—meaning that SSI is nowhere near enough to cover basic needs. Those who live with someone who supports them, whether they are family, friends, or a spouse, receive even further reduced SSI payments and risk completely losing their benefits. Furthermore, with the resource limit for a couple set at $3,000, disabled couples often cannot marry without either sacrificing financial assets or giving up SSI benefits entirely.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

UNITED STATES

SSDI is a program without resource limits that may offer some hope for people who worked for several years before they became disabled and can no longer do the same work as a result of their disability. However, the requirements for SSDI are extremely restrictive: Recipients must have earned a significant amount of Social Security work credits prior to becoming disabled, and they must have a disability that prevents them from doing any work. These strict requirements mean that very few applicants actually qualify for SSDI. For those looking to receive SSI or SSDI, it is imperative that the system is reformed so that people with disabilities can more easily obtain and retain benefits.

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

American institutions and policies are clearly structured in a way that maintains economic inequality for people with disabilities, and it is due time for a change. The country must remove these obstacles and treat people with disabilities with basic dignity and respect. In order to create a more equitable society, we must critically examine the way all of our systems impact people with disabilities. Countless changes, including the elimination of the subminimum wage and the SSI resource limit, are needed to ensure that people with disabilities have the support they need to not only survive but also to thrive.

Interview with

Jake Auchincloss interview by Miles Munkacy ’24 illustration by Rosalia Mejia ’23

Jake Auchincloss is a freshman congressman representing Massachusetts’s 4th Congressional District. He currently sits on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Prior to becoming a congressman, Auchincloss was on the Newton City Council and was a member of the United States Marine Corps, in which he is currently a major in the Individual Ready Reserve. Miles Munkacy Through the lens of your experience as a Marine, and with the May 1 deadline quickly approaching, how do you think President Biden should deal with the commitment to remove US troops from Afghanistan? Jake Auchincloss I think we evaluate the sheer failure of our policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would like to state that being a veteran does not give me any special standing to talk about these wars. Anybody can see that we’ve failed catastrophically there. Over 20 years, $6.4 trillion has been invested in Afghanistan and Iraq. To give you a sense of how badly it has gone, we are currently negotiating with the Taliban for a peace deal that is likely to be worse than what we could have gotten six weeks after 9/11. Three of our counterparty negotiators were in that original group of 20 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in the spring of 2002. To reflect on that, we are negotiating with the people that we captured 20 years ago, to get a deal that’s worse than we could have gotten 20 years ago. So, no, being a veteran doesn’t make me more equipped to recognize that this is an undesirable situation. Being a Homo sapiens who has a brain does so. How do you explain to more conservative constituents of the 4th District that environmental sustainability can be good for the economy? It’s a show, don’t tell, kind of thing. We need to demonstrate that a green economy is a better economy for everyone. I’ll give you a couple examples of that. One is a national program

for retrofitting housing stocks, making them more energy efficient. This is an issue that can create lots of jobs (and not just in knowledge economy hubs), while also saving people money on their heating bills. Another example is investing in mass transit. Everyone who’s serious about climate change knows that we need to make substantial investments in transit to reduce our carbon footprint. This investment can also improve people’s use, expand the number of jobs and services within a 30-minute commuter shed, make the labor market bigger, and improve people’s economic potential. We’ve got to stop talking about climate change as though it’s this separate sphere of policy. Climate change is a lens through which to evaluate basic things that people care about: housing, transportation, public health, and education. In your two months in Congress, what has your experience been with partisanship? There’s a distinction between bipartisanship and unity. The president, in his inauguration, called for the latter, and that resonated with me. After four years of unbelievably toxic divisiveness, people want to feel like they are bound to a common purpose. You can do that on partisan votes. The American Rescue Plan, for example, has approval ratings north of 70 percent. It’s popular with Republicans, it’s popular with the unaffiliated, and it’s popular with Democrats. Gun safety legislation, universal background checks, safe storage laws, and extreme risk protection orders are north of 60

percent, even 70 percent popular across party lines. If we were able to pass that legislation in the Senate, even if it was fully partisan, I would say it is a unifying piece of legislation. I am not going to be beholden to the Republican Conference’s ideas about what is unifying when the American people are telling us that they support the legislation. What is something that isn’t extensively talked about that you’d like to see in President Biden’s infrastructure bill? I want to see more public-private partnerships. JPMorgan has half a trillion dollars in reserve in deposits and they don’t want that money just sitting around because that isn’t profitable. They want to put that capital to work. There’s a ton of private sector money that wants to be invested in building infrastructure and housing, but it needs long-term rules that create certainties so shareholders know they can see returns. They don’t even have to be big returns because there’s so much drive for yields in the markets that honest, stable returns over the course of 30 years are very attractive. Other countries do a better job of public-private partnerships, of tapping into capital that wants to go to work to build infrastructure, than the United States does. We do not need to improve all of our infrastructure solely through tax increases, and certainly not through debt financing. We can and should do this with the private sector. You described yourself as a Baker-Obama voter in August 2020, and now your voting record is liberal and progressive. What do you want to show your constituents, especially progressives, who may not have voted for you in 2020, in the next two years before the 2022 midterms? I’m governing exactly how I campaigned. I made myself very clear: I am a pro-growth liberal. My campaign website a year and a half ago, when I first announced my candidacy, was exactly what you’re seeing in my voting record: very liberal on gun safety, on immigration, on voting rights, on LGBTQ+ rights, and on climate change. I’ve always been extremely progressive on these issues. I also believe in a growing and dynamic economy with a robust private sector, and encouraging entrepreneurs to create jobs and value. This is who I am, how I’ve campaigned, and how I’m governing.

Editors' Note: This interview was conducted in the spring of 2021, prior to the US withrdrawl from Afghanistan. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 27

Trees Are People Too The environment deserves legal rights by Claire Hodges

Critical Cyber Why the US government must incentivize private corporations to better protect consumer data by Scott Petersen

International Whalefare

The case for legalized whaling by Zachary Harris

DisArmorMent

How the US Marine Corps’s changing armor capabilities reflects the military’s shift to the Pacific by Joseph Safer-Bakal

Condomnation In the midst of an HIV epidemic, the Philippine government must break with the official Church stance and encourage the use of barrier contraceptives by Steven Long

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION

by Claire Hodges ’22, a Public Policy concentrator and a Managing Editor for BPR illustration by Naya Lee Chang ’24

TREES

The environment deserves legal rights

On April 26, 2021, a wetland, two marshes, and two creeks sued a property developer in Orange County, Florida. The lawsuit, which sounds like the opening line of a bad joke, has significant import in the fight against climate change: It is the first ever test of the Rights of Nature legal doctrine. If upheld, the doctrine could set a major precedent for future environmental conservation lawsuits and greatly impact environmentalists' fight against climate change. The doctrine seeks to bestow legal status of personhood upon the environment. It establishes that fixtures of nature—rivers, streams, and the like—are not objects to be owned but living beings with an innate right to survive and

ARE PEOPLE

flourish. The Rights of Nature movement stands to shift the way society thinks about climate change: In lieu of a human injury being necessary for nature to be protected under the law, the doctrine provides a legal avenue for nature to protect itself. The challenge inhibiting many environmental lawsuits is that of legal standing. Standing requires the individual or entity bringing the lawsuit to demonstrate that they have been directly harmed by the defendant and that the court has the ability to provide remedy for that harm. Since the harms caused by environmental degradation are typically difficult to ascribe to a single person or community, lawsuits seeking to protect nature from damages are often thrown out due to lack of standing. That is, those bringing the lawsuit are frequently unable to prove that they were personally and directly injured by the environmental harm. Perhaps the most notable environmental case involving a question of standing was

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

Sierra Club v. Morton, a 1972 lawsuit brought by an environmental advocacy nonprofit against Rogers C. B. Morton, the US Secretary of the Interior. The Sierra Club sued to stop a bid by Walt Disney Productions to build a ski resort on undeveloped land in California’s Sequoia National Forest. The case went to the Supreme Court, where, rather than rule on the merits of the case, the Court took up the question of standing, opening up debate over whether the Sierra Club would be directly harmed by the development of the ski resort. In a four to three decision, the Court sided with Morton, finding that the Sierra Club did not have the right to bring the suit. In their decision, the Court set the precedent that simply holding general interest in a problem does not constitute sufficient grounds to sue. This decision posed a major setback for environmentalists seeking to protect nature in court. The Sierra Club's lawsuit has attained status as a preeminent example of the legal system’s failure to serve environmental interests. Since then, proving standing in an environmental conservation lawsuit has repeatedly been an obstacle to legal protection. Often, it is the environmental fixture that would be damaged, not any specific human. And, while the loss of nature’s intrinsic value is devastating, the Court's decision means there is rarely legal recourse for those looking to protect the environment. The Rights of Nature doctrine could fix that. In his seminal 1972 writing, “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Christopher D. Stone introduced the idea that the Rights of Nature doctrine would endow nature with legal personhood. Through the doctrine, fixtures of nature would gain rights typically conferred exclusively to humans. While it may seem outlandish, the theory has a decades-long legal history, having been referenced by Justice William Douglas in his dissent-

TOO

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION

“The Rights of Nature movement stands to shift the way society thinks about climate change: In lieu of a human injury being necessary for nature to be protected under the law, the doctrine provides a legal avenue for nature to protect itself.” ing opinion in Sierra Club, wherein he argued for granting legal personhood to nature. The legal theory is premised on the idea that if environmental fixtures have a right to personhood, they cannot be owned or damaged. It combats an inherently Western notion of land proprietorship that allows an individual to acquire and subsequently destroy the aesthetics of nature. The view forwarded by the Rights of Nature doctrine—that nature is an individual with rights—has long been championed by Indigenous communities. Although the concept seems implausible, several nations and US counties have enacted similar provisions. The first community to grant nature the right to protection was Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania in an effort to prevent water quality damage from toxic waste. Bolivia, Ecuador, New Zealand, and India, as well as Toledo, Ohio, are among the other places that have bestowed personhood upon various parts of nature. The aforementioned 2021 case against the Orange County developer serves as a bellwether for the doctrine’s legal viability. The lawsuit brought by the waterways alleges that if the developer dredges and fills 115 acres of wetlands, they would be in violation of a voter-approved charter amendment that grants waterways the right to “exist, flow, be protected against pollution and maintain a healthy ecosystem.” The charter received nearly 90 percent of votes from Orange County residents, an astounding win for a relatively untested concept. If upheld in court, the law could put an end to the Meridian Parks Remainder Project, which proposes a 1900-acre mixed-use development on an existing wetland marsh. However, despite its broad popularity, the Rights of Nature doctrine faces a significant uphill battle in court. Yet the doctrine's concepts are not entirely novel: Its treatment of natural fixtures is actually quite similar to the current status of business corporations in federal courts. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that regarding political donations, corporations constitute legal persons, guaranteeing 32

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

businesses full First Amendment rights. The impetus behind corporate personhood was, in part, to bestow legal privileges to a business that could outlast the lifespan of any one person—a quality that likewise applies to nature. The legal history of corporate personhood may provide both a roadmap and justification for Rights of Nature, despite the conflicting intentions of the two movements. Why should industry have undue influence within the legal system when the very land exploited under capitalism has none? The Rights of Nature doctrine is certainly not free from criticism. For one, it threatens to create a liability for farmers and those dependent on agriculture who cannot guarantee zero fertilizer runoff. It also establishes a murky delineation between legal and illicit human activity, begetting criticism that the theory opens the door for a host of tenuous lawsuits. Furthermore, Indigenous communities have long championed a conceptualization of nature as a living being with rights, and the Rights of Nature doctrine risks casting that Indigenous belief of nature into a capitalist mold. Despite these vulnerabilities, granting nature standing to sue is the best legal method currently available to promote environmental conservation. As climate change accelerates and leaves behind irreparable damage, it is imperative that we explore every avenue of protection. Although thus far untested in American courts, the presence of the Rights of Nature doctrine in legal discourse and its undeniable parallels to corporate personhood demonstrate the doctrine’s potential for success. The Rights of Nature doctrine offers a robust solution to the problems of climate change, one that will transform the legal system into a tool for positive progress and allow conservationists to fight for long-term protections for society’s most precious resources.

Why the US government must incentivize private corporations to better protect consumer data

CRITICAL CYBER

by Scott Petersen ’25, an intended Economics concentrator illustrations by Kyla Dang ’24

In June 2021, the information of 700 million LinkedIn users—more than 90 percent of the platform’s accounts—was leaked on the dark web, with the hacker responsible publicly releasing the data of 500 million of these accounts and selling the remaining 200 million for profit. This was not an isolated incident; data breaches have increased in regularity by more than 102 percent since 2020. Once a hacker has gained entry to a particular database, they can access users’ personal data, intellectual property, and confidential government records, among other

important information. Hackers then ransom private data to individuals, companies, and even government agencies in return for large sums of money, making the initial effort of the breach well worth their while. Due to the growing threat of cyberattacks, the US government must incentivize private corporations to take the necessary steps to increase their cyberdefenses and protect their data, safeguarding national interests at home and abroad in the process. Although data breaches can be disastrous, they tend to appear less newsworthy than other

crises because they don’t often affect people’s daily routines. Even if one’s personal data is accessed, the breach typically poses a minor inconvenience; users rarely have to do more than update their passwords. However, as highlighted by the 2020 hacking of SolarWinds, an Austin-based IT software company, cyberattacks can have serious consequences. SolarWinds products are popular among leading global actors, including US government agencies, Microsoft, and other high-profile private companies. During this data breach, hackers THE PROTECTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION used stolen SolarWinds code to discreetly enter private servers and access secret information. Among the organizations infiltrated during the cyberattacks were the US Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and the Treasury, as well as US nuclear research labs and several government contractors. This attack had alarming implications for US national security, and it put a spotlight on the government’s inadequate cyberdefense capabilities. Still, corporations and smaller governments are even less equipped to handle these attacks. In May 2019, a piece of code called EternalBlue, which belonged to the National Security Agency, was compromised by hackers. Baltimore, a city whose aging infrastructure was vulnerable to the EternalBlue cyberweapon, found many online services such as email, computer access, water bills, and even health alerts completely shut down. Supply chains and local infrastructure systems are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because hackers know that if they can destabilize people’s day-to-day lives, then they will be more likely to receive a payout. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack proved this point just this May, when it shut down the transport of refined oil products from Texas to New York for almost an entire week. Using only a single password to access Colonial accounts, hackers wreaked havoc on global supply chains and single-handedly caused gasoline shortages and price surges throughout the Northeast United States. In the end, Colonial executives were forced to pay Russia’s DarkSide hackers millions in Bitcoin to regain control of their systems. Currently, there is no federal subsidy that encourages companies or local governments to shore up their cyberdefenses or modernize their cyberinfrastructure, which means that an event like this could easily happen again. Though it would not be particularly difficult for companies, governments, and other entities to invest in simple cybersecurity measures, the lack of guidance around doing so hinders progress in this area. Companies are simply not willing to

bear the cost of modernizing without a government mandate to do so. To its credit, the US government is implementing new measures to improve its own cyberdefense capabilities—but these must be coupled with efforts to share innovations with private companies. In July 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that mandated modernization of the federal government’s cyber infrastructure with specific timelines, but there is still little incentive for private corporations or local governments to do the same. In recognition of growing cybersecurity threats, in 2018 the federal government established an agency dedicated to improving protections across all levels of government, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Though the creation of CISA is a step in the right

“Currently, there is no federal subsidy that encourages companies or local governments to shore up their cyberdefenses or modernize their cyberinfrastructure, which means that an event like this could easily happen again.” 34

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

“To its credit, the US government is implementing new measures to improve its own cyberdefense capabilities—but these must be coupled with efforts to share innovations with private companies.”

direction, the organization only has 2,000 employees, far fewer than other US agencies and far fewer than the urgency of the situation necessitates. The House and the Senate may be working on bipartisan bills to allow CISA to require corporations to publicly report their data breaches, but these bills have not yet passed. While this legislation would help protect individuals after their data has been leaked, the government must also promote bills that require a baseline level of cybersecurity standards. According to experts, most cyberattackers are opportunistic—they target vulnerable organizations for a quick cash grab, not for ideological or political reasons. Thus, companies that lack basic security procedures, such

as Colonial, place targets on their own backs. Colonial’s weak security likely induced the Colonial Pipeline hack, which was made possible by Colonial’s use of only one password for all of its accounts, rather than implementing a more sophisticated multi-factor authentication system such as Duo Mobile. Companies have traditionally been unwilling to improve their security systems because misaligned market incentives transfer the risk onto their customers. The only way to force organizations to prioritize cybersecurity is through government intervention: The federal government must improve cybersecurity regulations to set a baseline for software sophistication and it must fund the improvement and advancement of software both in its own agencies and in private organizations. It must also work to create better options for small governments and businesses to protect their information and, by proxy, the functioning of society itself. To protect national security, it is essential that the government revamp its cyberdefense operations and pass new legislation that effectively encourages private corporations and governments alike to increase their cybersecurity measures. This legislation could take many forms, such as providing tax breaks to companies that meet certain security standards or penalizing corporations that do not adequately protect data. By taking these steps, the United States can work to deter foreign agents with sophisticated hacking operations from attacking its cyberinfrastructure. If the US government can match its technological capabilities to those of foreign instigators, the number of cyberattacks and the threat posed by data breaches will decrease. For now, however, we should all change our passwords.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION

International Whalefare

Whales Caught in Japan from 1985 to 2019

2000

1985

1000

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

2000

3000

established the IWC and the basic rules of the modern international whaling regime. Despite this effort, the ICRW contains three major loopholes. First, Article 5(3) allows any IWC member state to exempt itself from a specific regulation by “objecting” within 90 days of its passage. by Zachary Harris ’22, a Political Science concentrator Second, Article 11 permits member states to withdraw from the IWC without penalty. Third, infographics by Arthi Ranganathan ’24, Jake Garfinkle ’23, and Amy Lim ’23 Article 8 exempts “scientific” whaling programs from standard regulation. For its first 36 years, the IWC set weak and often ineffective interIn 1982, the International Whaling Comnational whaling quotas. In 1982, faced with mission (IWC) passed a landmark moratorium rapidly depleting whale stocks and growing that made all commercial whale hunts illicit. opposition to whaling, the IWC declared all Despite this ban, individuals in Japan and commercial hunts illegal. Nevertheless, Japan Norway continue to hunt hundreds of whales and Norway have frequently used the ICRW annually, driven by deep-seated cultural and loopholes to justify their post-moratorium whalpolitical motivations. While the environmening. tal impacts of contemporary whaling are minFollowing the passage of the 1982 moratoimal, Japanese and Norwegian evasions of the rium, Japan submitted a formal ICRW Article 1982 moratorium set a troubling precedent. 5(3) objection. Three years later, it withdrew its Their circumvention normalizes defection objection, accepting the international agreefrom international conservation agreements, ment, but this reversal was mere political theconsequently endangering prospects for global ater. In 1987, Japan launched a state-sponsored cooperation. Therefore, a new approach to the scientific whaling program named JARPA. The international whaling regime—one centered program claimed to require the use of “lethal around regulation rather than prohibition— collection methods”—i.e., hunting—to assess must be considered. Antarctic minke whales’ population health. The 1982 IWC moratorium exists within Japan claimed that Article 8 of the ICRW a larger ecosystem of whaling law. The 1946 exempted scientific whaling from stanInternational Conven1994 tion for the Regulation Japan starts research dard regulation, allowing JARPA to circumvent the 1982 moratorium. Conof Whaling (ICRW) whaling in northwest Pacific (JARPN)

1995

1987 Japan begins research whaling (JARPA)

The case for legalized whaling

1990

1985 Japan withdraws objection to IWC moratorium

Furthermore, Japanese whaling only employs about 300 individuals and depends on government subsidies to remain economically viable. Similarly, despite government campaigns to popularize its consumption in Norway, data by anti-whaling organizations suggest that only 5 percent of Norwegians regularly eat whale meat. Nevertheless, both nations consider whaling a highly significant cultural activity with deep roots in their coastal economies and cuisine. Many nationalist politicians are unwilling to be perceived as surrendering their heritage in the face of unjust foreign intervention, therefore insisting on the continuation of one of the world’s most maligned industries. While it may not be profitable, it is politically advantageous to keep whale meat on supermarket shelves.

“It may seem paradoxical, but the international response to Japanese and Norwegian moratorium evasion need not be tougher enforcement.”

2019 Japan withdraws from the IWC and resumes explicit commercial whaling

2015

2010

2005 Japan starts research whaling (JARPA-II)

2005

Given that Japanese and Norwegian commercial whaling is driven by symbolic rather than economic desires, each nation sets and abides by relatively moderate quotas. Following its withdrawal from the IWC, Japan set limits of 171 common and Antarctic minke whales, 187 Bryde’s whales, and 25 sei whales for 2020 and 2021. Since 1982, Norway has harvested an average of 500 common minke whales annually, well below its current quota of 1,278. Furthermore, both nations primarily target the least endangered species. Norway exclusively hunts common minke whales—categorized as “least concern” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature—and Japan limits annual catches of sei whales—the only seriously endangered of the Japanese species—to a mere 25. In an ideal world, Japan and Norway would abide by the 1982 moratorium. Realistically, however, decades of evasion prove that the two nations lack motivation to comply, and the international community lacks the coercive tools to force adherence. Instead, refocusing the whaling debate from the environmental to the political sphere will address the danger to international norms posed by Japan and Norway’s evasions of the moratorium. As rising trends of nationalism and authoritarianism threaten the relevancy of international institutions, it is essential that liberal states such as Japan and Norway serve as models for global cooperation

2019

veniently, however, JARPA and subsequent programs’ alleged scientific samples have also been used for commercial sale. The international community has consistently rejected the legitimacy of Japan’s scientific whaling program. Most notably, in the 2010 case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected JARPA’s scientific rationale and ordered Japan to end the program. Japan, ignoring the Court’s ruling, instead launched a new research program and ceased recognition of ICJ jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to living marine resources. As a further affront, Japan fully withdrew from the IWC and resumed explicit commercial whaling in 2019. Norway also submitted an ICRW Article 5(3) objection to the 1982 moratorium. The nation briefly operated a pseudoscientific whaling program and has, since 1993, acknowledged its whaling as explicitly commercial, albeit technically legal per its Article 5(3) objection. Japan and Norway’s moratorium evasions are not based on the capitalist greed that drives most environmental exploitation. Rather, both nations are motivated by political and cultural concerns. This is evident when looking at meat consumption. While whale meat is readily available in Japan, it is hardly a popular product. Annual personal consumption averages only 40 grams—an amount equivalent to just 0.005 percent of the average American’s pork intake.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION

The percent of Icelanders who eat whale meat regularly, according to a 2018 Gallup poll conducted for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). 84 percent of respondents claimed never to have eaten it at all.

on environmental issues. Their noncompliance risks normalizing defection from agreements like the Paris Climate Accords, which require joint action from all states to mitigate the disastrous effects of climate change. Each nation’s adherence to their emissions target is essential to limiting global temperature rise, and any circumvention of international climate agreements threatens the surpassing of the ‘catastrophic’ warming threshold. The politics of climate change may, unexpectedly, provide a solution to the deadlock on commercial whaling. The history of international climate policy clearly demonstrates that effective agreements must be tailored to address the diverse circumstances of various nations. Convincing less industrialized nations to join aggressive climate agreements requires allotting them alternative emission targets. Additionally, support should be provided to recognize their histories of colonial economic neglect and urgent need for industrial development. Similarly, Japan and Norway’s unique cultural demands validate allowing some highly regulated whaling. This was the model of a 20072010 diplomatic initiative that proposed repealing the moratorium in exchange for an end to 38

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

“Japan and Norway’s moratorium evasions are not based on the capitalist greed that drives most environmental exploitation.” the objection loophole and lower, but non-zero, whaling quotas for Japan and Norway. Hardliners on both sides, however, strongly opposed the proposal. Anti-whaling activists refused to accept legal recognition for any commercial whaling, while nationalist pro-whaling activists resisted perceived submission to international pressure. It may seem paradoxical, but the international response to Japanese and Norwegian moratorium evasion need not be tougher enforcement. Motivated by symbolic desires

rather than profit, Japanese and Norwegian hunting remains environmentally benign in comparison to the dangerous precedent for international non-cooperation set by their defection from the IWC. Therefore, the international whaling regime must be restructured to realistically induce Japanese and Norwegian compliance. Much as the 2007-2010 diplomatic initiative suggested, these nations should be allowed low, principally symbolic quotas in return for their support in repealing the objection, withdrawal, and scientific exception loopholes. This plan is unlikely to harm whale populations and could even aid whale conservation by ending the Japanese harvests of endangered sei whales. A vigorous inspection regime will prevent evasion, while low demand for whale meat and high costs of entry will disincentivize other states from re-entering the whaling market. Renewed compliance would allow the IWC to set quotas slightly below Japan and Norway’s current self-imposed ones, and the nations’ histories of abiding by moderate self-imposed quotas would encourage adherence to reformed IWC oversight. The prohibitionist approach to commercial whaling has outlived its usefulness. It’s time to legalize whaling.

DisArmorMent

How the US Marine Corps’s changing armor capabilities reflects the military’s shift to the Pacific by Joseph Safer-Bakal ’24, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR illustrations by Anahis Luna ’25

During World War II, the United States Marine Corps (USMC) engaged in an island-hopping campaign against the Japanese Empire. 80 years later, the Marine Corps is revisiting its mission of working closely with the US Navy to counter a different powerful peer adversary in the Pacific: China. The watershed moment in this transition occurred in March 2020, when USMC Commandant General David H. Berger issued “Force Design 2030,” a memo declaring the complete transfer of the Corps’s heavy tank capability to the Army. The memo also provided for other major shifts in mission, focus, and force makeup. As Gen. Berger predicts that the need to counter powerful peer adversaries will arise in naval and coastal environments rather than inland non-state insurgent groups, the Corps will transfer its tank capability to the Army, shift from cannon to rocket artillery, and increase its number of lighter, more maneuverable vehicles. The change in the Marine Corps’s force makeup is a proactive move that will strengthen the military as US foreign policy priorities shift towards the Pacific. In the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Corps needed the support of tanks for sustained inland conflict. Of the 1,848 Abrams tanks—the US military’s primary heavy tank— deployed in the Gulf War, only 9 were destroyed. Of these, seven were accidentally destroyed by friendly fire and two were scuttled to prevent capture. A more powerful adversary like China, however, will be armed with advanced drones and missiles, which are a more formidable threat to US tanks. Recent conflicts in Syria and the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh have shown that drones and missiles pose a serious threat to relatively slow-moving armor. In Nagorno-Karabakh, medium-sized Azerbaijani drones wreaked havoc on defenseless Armenian tanks. Syrian tanks suffered the same fate at the hands of Turkish drones, missiles, and aircrafts. Gen. Berger likely understands the vulnerability of tanks in the presence of relatively cheap

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION drones and missiles, reflecting the USMC’s newfound concern with China. The American military operates extremely advanced but ultra-expensive equipment, like aircraft carriers, F-35 fighter jets, and the Abrams tank. China has made serious strides in missile technology and will be able to utilize cheap and effective long-range precision ballistic missiles and cruise missiles against these expensive platforms. As the wargaming described within “Force Design 2030” demonstrates, winning in combat in the Pacific will depend on who can strike first from long-range. Given its missile advancements, China is already equipping itself for war in the Pacific. Gen. Berger aims to do the same by optimizing the Marine Corps to complement the Navy. To do this, the Corps will have to engage in a mission akin to island-hopping in World War II. Marine Corps troops will disperse throughout the Pacific, establishing firebases that will be able to strike adversaries before they can hit

the United States. However, since most of these firebases will be in territories already occupied by allies, the Marines would not have to engage in the kind of beach-storming—which requires powerful tanks—that was integral to the island-hopping strategy. Tanks have a large logistical footprint, requiring tremendous amounts of fuel, equipment, and other forms of support. Their size, weight, loud engines, and support requirements make them much more easily detectable than lighter vehicles, so they are not conducive to creating a nimble and stealthy fighting force. Eliminating armor and investing in rocket artillery, therefore, are major steps needed to accomplish what Gen. Berger sees as the Corps’s future mission against China. Critics argue that Gen. Berger’s decision to eliminate all tanks from the Corps is brash. Although Gen. Berger claims that the Marines will be able to access the Army’s tanks when necessary, Army and Marine armors operate in

“These changes will be needed for conflict in the Pacific, where speed, stealth, and range can spell the difference between victory and defeat.”

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

“The change in the Marine Corps’s force makeup is a proactive move that will strengthen the military as US foreign policy priorities shift towards the Pacific.”

fundamentally different ways. In the Marines, tanks have an explicit infantry-supporting role, while in the Army, tanks operate as a form of cavalry, trained to engage enemy tanks in largescale battles. The transfer of the USMC’s tank capabilities to the Army may mean the loss of the Marines’ tank strategy, where tankers work closely to support their infantry counterparts. Critics also argue that once the tanks are transferred to the Army, Marine Corps attempts to temporarily procure the tanks may result in inter-service bickering. Furthermore, once the Marines eliminate their tank capabilities, retraining infantry and reinstituting armor will be difficult. If the Corps’s mission shifts once again to one where they face sustained inland combat and need heavy armor, they will need time to adapt. In response, Gen. Berger contends that a nimble, dynamic Marine Corps designed to counter China, with its advanced technologies and powerful military, will be able to adapt quickly to fight a foe with inferior capabilities. A Corps designed to fight inland Iraqi militants will likely have a much harder time adjusting quickly to fight in the Pacific. The US shift towards the Pacific also requires collaboration with its allies. The recent Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) submarine deal created a multilateral defense agreement to contain and deter China. The United States agreed to sell nuclear-powered (not nuclear-armed) submarines to Australia, which can patrol while staying undetected for long periods of time, striking targets from long range. The AUKUS deal is an important step in augmenting Australian forces so they can complement their American allies. This goes hand in hand with the changes seen in the Marine Corps. US policymakers see our next war, hot or cold, happening in the Pacific. The AUKUS deal demonstrates that the new Marine Corps strategy is not unilateral: The United States is simultaneously collaborating with its allies to implement the proper technologies and strategies to counter China. If conflict stirs in the Pacific, it will be important that the Corps effectively support the Navy in coastal and maritime environments. The elimination of tank capabilities will help build a Marine Corps that has a greater level of maneuverability and self-sufficiency within budget constraints. These changes will be needed for conflict in the Pacific, where speed, stealth, and range can spell the difference between victory and defeat. The United States has just embarrassingly withdrawn from Afghanistan, marking a failed intervention project. But these changes in force makeup, as well as deals like AUKUS, signal to allies and adversaries that the United States is engaging proactively with changing international conditions.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION

Condomnation In the midst of an HIV epidemic, the Philippine government must break with the official Church stance and encourage the use of barrier contraceptives by Steven Long ’24, a Classics concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR infographics by Zoey Katzive ’24, Francisca Saldivar ’24 and Alina Spatz ’24

Uncomfortable laughter reverberated around the room as President Duterte of the Philippines popped a candy into his mouth, comparing using a condom during sex to leaving the wrapper on a sweet. His comment, given before a migrant women’s health assembly, exemplifies the government and public’s attitudes towards contraceptive use. The Philippines is experiencing one of the worst HIV/AIDS epidemics in the Asia-Pacific region, with 120,000 people currently living with HIV. In the span of a decade, this number has increased by nearly 80 percent—a growth rate more than double that of Vietnam, which has experienced the second steepest rise in cases in the region. In the developing world, less than a quarter of new infections are due to intravenous drug use, and causes other than sex without barrier contraception account for very few of the remaining cases. It follows that, in the Philippines, transmission of the disease is most likely overwhelmingly due to unprotected sex. What makes the issue in the Philippines particularly baffling is that its citizens have sufficient access to sanitation, treatment, and contraceptives— the lack of which typically drives HIV epidemics. As the United States learned in the 80s and 90s, the most successful strategy to combat AIDS is to prevent HIV infections in the first place. Sexually transmitted HIV can be easily prevented with low-cost contraceptive barriers like condoms, which are readily accessible to Filipino citizens. However, access and usage rates are not correlated. Condom usage in the Philippines is shockingly low: According to a 2019 PhilCare study, only 30 percent of people in the country use condoms. This is due to a conflict of messaging between the two most

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

+240% The Philippines

Percent change in estimated yearly HIV infections from 2010 to 2020 Source: USAIDS

+25% Mexico

-48% Italy

powerful political voices in the country—the government and the Catholic Church. The high level of religiosity in the Philippines may be the key to understanding resistance to condom use. In 1989, during the height of the American HIV epidemic, Pope John Paul II called the usage of condoms a path to “moral degradation.” Since then, the Catholic Church has never officially changed its position on barrier contraceptives. In a country where nearly 90 percent of the population is Catholic, the Pope’s edicts are highly influential. In fact, the Vatican holds far greater sway in the Philippines than it does in nearly any other Catholic country. According to Pew Research Center, 91 percent of young adults in the Philippines describe religion as being “very important.” For context, in Mexico—another predominantly Catholic country—this number measured only 45 percent. But a high level of religiosity does not mean hope is lost. In Brazil, another ver y religious Catholic country, over twothirds of Brazilian women use contraception regularly. This is largely due to spirited government efforts to change popular attitudes during the height of their own HIV epidemic. To achieve similar success in reducing cases of HIV/AIDS in the Philippines, the Philippine government must take similar action. Despite the Philippines’s socialized healthcare system with a reasonable standard of care, cultural impediments are such that Filipinos only occasionally seek out doctors. The centralized nature of the system also means that without regular interaction with a general practitioner, medical issues are generally treated as they come up. As a result, the average citizen hears only two major voices when it comes to health-related ethical issues: the state and the Church. The Vatican’s stance on the issue of contraceptives is clear and unlikely to change. The Philippine government, while nominally supportive of condom use, has only weakly stated its position on the issue. Most programs seeking to change people’s opinions on barrier contraceptives are carried out by foreign NGOs with minimal cooperation from the central government. If Duterte’s comment to the women’s health group is any indication, encouraging the prevention of HIV/AIDS through contraceptive use doesn’t seem to be high on the government’s agenda. While the government and the clergy occasionally disagree, as evidenced by a few members of the local clergy’s spirited opposition to Duterte’s drug war, the government has never come into direct conflict with official Church

Condom use during most recent highrisk sex among adults aged 15 to 49 Source: USAIDS

11% The Philippines

“The Philippines is experiencing one of the worst HIV/AIDS epidemics in the Asia-Pacific region, with 120,000 people currently living with HIV. In the span of a decade, this number has increased by nearly 80 percent...”

27% Timor-Leste

67% Cambodia

76% Thailand

doctrine. Knowing the outsized impact that the Vatican has on public opinion, the government has always been wary of the positions of the Holy See. A famous example of the government’s capitulation to the Church is President Duterte’s public apology for calling Pope Francis “a son of a whore.” This kowtow was no crisis of conscience: The public outcry in the Philippines was so great that it threatened the president’s re-election. Despite the political danger of confronting the Church, the government must strongly recommend barrier contraceptives as the best strategy to combat the HIV epidemic. For the first time in the nation's history, the government must emphatically and publicly come into conflict with an official Church stance—any other choice will result in thousands of needless deaths.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

other f

Untapped Potential

How geothermal energy from abandoned mines offers a sustainable energy alternative

infographic by Kevin Masse ’25, Aidan Ma ’22, and Mehek Vohra ’23

United Kingdom Energy Production in Terawatthours (TWh) (2019)

s Ga

h 9 TW 31. 1 -

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

British coal mines were central to the Industrial Revolution, fueling factories and heavy machinery at a previously unimaginable pace. Coal mining in England began in the early 1500s, and production steadily increased to a peak of 287 million tons in 1913. Coal deposits are primarily extracted in two ways: from surface or open-cast mines, and from underground or deep mines. In England, a majority of coal production came from deep mining—a technique used to extract coal deposits that were typically situated between 100 and 2,000 feet below ground. Today, deep mines are a relic of the past; as of 2019, only 4 of Britain’s more than 1,000 deep mines remain in operation. Yet, abandoned mining sites could pave the way to a net-zero carbon future for England. By harnessing geothermal mine water and pumping it to the Earth’s surface, old mines could provide Britain with sustainable energy that is both locally sourced and low-cost. In underground coal mining, networks of roadways are driven into coal seams— deposits of coal that lie between layers of rock—so that transportation, ventilation, electrical, and water drainage systems can be installed. Although there are several distinct deep coal mining methods, each technique relies on keeping these underground systems dry through the use of water pumps.

Nu c

by Carmen Bebbington ’22, an International and Public Affairs and Hispanic Studies concentrator and a Managing Editor for BPR

r - 56.2 TWh lea

When underground mines were abandoned during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the pumps that previously kept water out were shut off, and the mines flooded. Managing the effects of abandoned mines— and controlling the billions of liters of water that currently fill them—costs English taxpayers around £2.4 billion each year. Although mineshafts have long been considered a burden, Jeremy Crooks, Head of Innovation at the United Kingdom government’s Coal Authority, highlights the potential to harness geothermal energy from abandoned mines: “When you look at the opportunities that sit around these mines, this is no longer a liability—it’s an asset of strategic importance to the UK.” The process of deriving geothermal energy from abandoned mine sites is relatively simple, as it leverages existing structures. First, a small hole—known as a borehole—is drilled into the workings of the mine. Water, already warmed by natural geological processes, is then pumped to the surface. A pump further heats this water before directing it into a district heating network. Then, cold mine water is reinjected into the mine through a separate borehole, and the process repeats. Researchers have found this system to be highly efficient. When mine water is taken closer to the surface, it usually sits between 51.8-68°F. At this temperature, heat TWh pumps must work at a coefficient 5.9 of performance (COP) of four. That is, for every one kilowatt

Hydro -

il &

ls - 9.2 T ue

SPECIAL FEATURE | PROTECTION

b ewa les - 3 en

recalls that he “had about 400,000 square feet of warehouse that needed heating…and it was right over four layers of mine workings, which had naturally flooded over time.” After consulting with geothermal experts, Black TWh decided to sink a borehole and install 7.3 a heat pump. He is now using geothermal mine water to heat “a couple of warehouses, a distribution depot, a local bakery, and soon a nearby car showroom, too.” The company expects its £3.5 million investment to pay for itself within 5 to 10 years. Geothermal mine water could be an excellent renewable energy source option beyond Britain, too. Heerlen, which was once a large coal mining area in the Netherlands, has also experimented with geothermal energy techniques. Mijnwater BV, a Dutch energy company, has connected 500 houses and commercial facilities to the town’s district heating network. By using locally generated heat to fuel the community, the area has reduced its carbon emissions from heating by nearly 66 percent. In the Asturias region of northern Spain, geothermal energy in flooded mines has been harnessed to heat a hospital, a university, a school, and hundreds of private properties—all at a lower cost than fossil fuel alternatives. It is no secret that coal is an egregious pollutant, contaminating our air, water, and land. Repurposing abandoned coal mines to leverage geothermal mine water, however, could pave the way to a greener future—not just in the UK, but across the globe.

Other

l - 6.9 T oa

“Yet, abandoned mining sites could pave the way to a net-zero carbon future for England. By harnessing geothermal mine water and pumping it to the Earth’s surface, old mines could provide Britain with sustainable energy that is both locally sourced and low-cost.”

Win d&

ar ol Wh 77.3 T

(kW) of electricity put into the system, four kWs are produced in the form of heat. When working with deeper mines, where water can sit at 86°F, the process is even more efficient, with heat pumps working at a COP of 10. Despite the practice's efficiency, there remain several challenges associated with harnessing energy from abandoned mines. For one, current Coal Authority projects are largely focused on new housing C developments, as retrofitting older houses so that they can access district heating networks and leverage energy from geothermal mine water can be costly. Some have also raised stability concerns, as abandoned mine shafts have been left to decay for decades. However, regardless of these financial and technical challenges, geothermal energy generated from mines remains a low-carbon, sustainable heat source. And, under the right conditions, it has the potential to generate energy at a lower cost than conventional sources. This is especially true in the UK, where geologists estimate that one-quarter of homes— concentrated in Wales, Scotland, and northern England—sit above abandoned mine shafts, which are filled with approximately two billion cubic meters (two trillion liters) of warm water. As it stands, natural gas supplies 70 percent of Britain’s demand for heat, and heating accounts for 44 percent of energy use in the UK and 32 percent of its air pollution. Geothermal mine water could be key to the UK meeting energy demands while fulfilling its commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Not only is geothermal mine power more sustainable than natural gas, emitting up to 75 percent fewer emissions, but it is also the more affordable power source, with experts estimating that it will cost 10 percent less than natural gas. Alongside environmental benefits, harnessing power from abandoned mines promises to revitalize former coal mining communities. Wracked by mine closures during the 1980s and 1990s, northeast England has some of the country’s lowest levels of economic activity and highest rates of unemployment. Investment in geothermal mine water could be key to the area’s economic resurgence. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, investment in this energy form could create 81,000 jobs and generate up to £22 billion in private investment. While this strategy has yet to be implemented on a large scale, smaller geothermal heat network projects have proven successful. Adam Black, Director of Energy Projects at Lanchester Wines,

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

h W

Interview with Sharon Dolovich interview by Alexandra Vitkin ’24 illustration by Rosalia Mejia ’23 In this second installment of BPR's criminal justice reform series, we meet Sharon Dolovich, Professor of Law and Director of the UCLA Prison Law and Policy Program. Professor Dolovich started the UCLA Law COVID Behind Bars Data Project, which has aggregated Departments of Corrections data concerning the impact of Covid-19 on incarcerated people. The data covers infection rates and deaths in state and federal prisons as well as jails nationwide. She has also written extensively about the role of decarceration in mitigating the risk of Covid-19 to incarcerated people.

Alexandra Vitkin What were the origins of the COVID Behind Bars Data Project?

Sharon Dolovich At the beginning of the pandemic, the people who I work with on issues of incarceration started to realize the outsized threat that Covid-19 posed to incarcerated people. Incarcerated people can’t properly social distance. They didn’t necessarily have access to masks, and even if they did, they couldn’t ensure that the people in close proximity to them were wearing masks. Due to the poor health care in prisons, incarcerated people age faster, so there’s a high percentage of incarcerated people who have comorbidities that could negatively affect one’s chance of surviving Covid-19. Advocates reached out to public officials to demand action to mitigate the threat of Covid-19 to incarcerated people. The primary demand was population reductions in prisons and jails nationwide. Initially, I kept track of visitation cancellations, which was the first policy the Departments of Corrections adopted to respond to the pandemic. There was one week in March when all the Departments of Corrections canceled visits, so I said to my research assistant: “Hey, can you keep track of this for me? I feel like this is significant.” He created a spreadsheet, and we [allowed] anybody to fill in what was happening with visits in their jurisdictions.

How did prisons “locking down” in an effort to prevent the spread of the virus affect your ability to access data about what was happening on the inside?

That’s a great question. The data that we are gathering and posting is only the official data released by the Department of Corrections. From the beginning, I’ve said that the data is not to be treated as trustworthy. What we have relied on is the remarkable reporting that’s covered the spread of Covid-19 in prisons and jails. We compare what we know from the officially reported numbers with what we are hearing from journalists concerning what’s actually happening.

You’ve written a lot about decarceration, and it seems like there was a movement in some jurisdictions to do so. Do you think this momentum can be sustained beyond the end of the pandemic?

If you’d asked me that question in mid-May 2020, I would’ve said: “Oh my God, there is so much momentum.” That is no longer the case. In the early stages of the pandemic, we saw that when push comes to shove, we can decarcerate pretty rapidly. In real time, it was impossible to tell what the total impact was, but the Vera Institute of Justice has since published official data about the drop in the incarceration rate. It compared 2019 incarceration rates to 2020 incarceration from January through June to track Covid-19 decarceration. The national population of people in jails dropped 24 percent between January and June. In prisons, that decrease was 9 percent. Between June and December of 2020, there was another 5 percent drop in prisons, and in jails there was a total reversal to pre-pandemic levels of incarceration. I view those early releases as the system admitting that, at a minimum, we have no business incarcerating 24 percent of people in jail and 9 percent of people in prison. If you can release incarcerated people that quickly, you’re acknowledging that they don’t actually have to be in prison, and we should be asking why they were there in the first place.

“If you can release incarcerated people that quickly, you’re acknowledging that they don’t actually have to be in prison, and we should be asking why they were there in the first place.” Why did the momentum toward mass release of incarcerated people slow?

I think the reason why the momentum slowed was a combination of political indifference and the courts. The courts made it clear that there was not going to be constitutional liability for failure to protect incarcerated people during this period. If we are going to push decarceration based on what we saw last year, it’s going to have to be because there is explicit public recognition of the fact that we are incarcerating people we don’t need to incarcerate. Politics also play a large role in the lack of momentum towards mass release. In state prisons nationwide, most of the incarcerated population is people who are elderly and/or medically compromised. In California, at the beginning of the pandemic, there were 17,000 incarcerated people who the CDC characterized as most vulnerable to Covid-19. This population has aged out of crime. People tend to enter prison when they’re young, so the vast majority of this population will have been in prison for decades and will have already served more time than people in most other Western countries would have served for the same crimes. Incarcerated people are not going to be public safety threats, so why not release them? We saw that governors with the clemency power to release people refused to do so. Why? I was on the phone with someone in the governor’s office, in a state that shall not be named, who said, “Look, we know that these people don’t need to be incarcerated, and we should be releasing them to protect them from Covid-19, but we can’t release them because politically, it would be a disaster.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

WORLD

DESPOTIC DEVELOPMENT How Ethiopia's allegiance to the authoritarian development model has spurred economic progress at the expense of its population by Matt Walsh ’23, a Political Science concentrator, a Managing Web Editor, and an Associate Editor for BPR illustrations by Iris Xie ’23

Few countries in modern history have climbed the GDP rankings as quickly as Ethiopia has in the 21st century. Under an autocratic regime with a laser-like focus on economic development, the country has become an internationally renowned success story. But alongside economic growth, Ethiopia has been plagued by brutal repression of dissenters and simmering resentment among Ethiopia’s myriad ethnic groups. Today, a bloody civil war rages between the central government and the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), an ethnic political party representing the Tigray Region in northern Ethiopia. Not only has the conflict displaced millions of Ethiopians, but it could also reverse hard-fought economic gains that the country has achieved over the past two decades. For supporters of the authoritarian development model—a scheme of economic growth that claims that states need autocratic power to jump-start development—Ethiopia’s economic miracle is proof of the model’s success. But while concentrated power enabled the Ethiopian state to make important development decisions without being bogged down by detractors, the recent civil war and ethnic strife reveal that authoritarianism comes at a bloody cost. The Ethiopian case thus demonstrates that trusting autocracy to deliver long-term growth is a gamble, especially in ethnically divided states. Authoritarian government has long been the norm in Ethiopia after a military coup in 1974 marked the end of the country’s monarchy. The Derg, a repressive military dictatorship, was established shortly thereafter, spurring ethnic-based political organization and fueling domestic resentment. In 1991, a revolutionary 48

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

struggle led by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a multiethnic coalition, overthrew the Derg and formed the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The Tigrayan leader Meles Zenawi then became prime minister, and Ethiopia turned to ethnic federalism to assuage interethnic strife. Under this arrangement, Ethiopia’s ethnically defined regions had broad autonomy over their internal affairs, but sacrificed all central power to the EPRDF-led government. Although the EPRDF was nominally multiethnic, the TPLF held the most sway in the coalition, despite Tigrayans only comprising around 5 percent of the population. In 2018, the EPRDF coalition dissolved when Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed—of mixed Oromo and Amhara descent—formed the Prosperity Party in an attempt to reject ethnic federalism. Refusing to join the new coalition, the TPLF mobilized against the new government. Now, a civil war rages. Zenawi’s top-down developmental strategy, which the EPRDF called “Revolutionary Democracy,” sowed the seeds of anti-state rhetoric in Ethiopia. In his paper “States and Markets: Neoliberal Limitations and the Case for a Developmental State,” the late prime minister warned that liberal democracy would transform the central state “into an arena of warring individuals with nothing to hold them together.” Given Ethiopia’s destitution, Zenawi argued, the stakes were too high to tolerate infighting; the executive thus required minimal restraint to pursue its economic agenda. While Zenawi remained committed to ethnic federalism as prime minister, he was eager to inject ruling party influence into all public institutions. Party cadres were forced to engage in “self-criticism” sessions, which enabled leaders to purge dissenting government officials. Leaders created new methods to surveil local communities, identify potential troublemakers, and spread propaganda. Ballots were stuffed to ensure EPRDF victory. Worse, journalists who questioned party policy were often imprisoned and tortured. Using repression to build consensus initially seemed to work for Zenawi. True to its Marxist roots, the EPRDF was wary of the private sector, instead pinning Ethiopia’s development on public infrastructure investment, low interest rates, and state-rationed credit. Such a state-centric growth strategy often requires the government to impose its will on the people, since large infrastructural projects tend to disrupt rural livelihoods. As such, a more liberal, less autocratic Ethiopian state may not have seen the same level of GDP growth. But Zenawi ignored how this repression would impact interethnic relations. The EPRDF derived its ruling legitimacy in part from its emphasis on ethnic federalism, a practice that

turned ethnicity into the most salient political identifier in Ethiopia. Even as the leader of a multiethnic coalition, Zenawi advanced the narrative of Tigrayan oppression throughout his rule. When the EPRDF quashed challenges to its authority, the disempowered groups often viewed it as ethnic repression by a privileged Tigrayan minority. In turn, the government’s attempts to urbanize farmland and the protests by Oromo farmers that followed became an ethnic struggle rather than just a policy debate. The accumulation of similar episodes contributed to the general resentment that ended EPRDF rule, blackballed the TPLF from power, and sparked the current civil war. Yet an EPRDF that better accommodated dissenting opinions, but still maintained its authority over developmental matters, could have both fostered growth and averted civil war. The EPRDF’s authoritarian development model also increased the spoils to be won by successive governments, further fueling today’s conflict. In his infamous essay on the developmental state, Zenawi contended that Ethiopia ought to “monopolize rents and allocate them strategically for value creation over the long term.” This principle lent the EPRDF a strong grip over economic resources. Again, without such a policy, building expensive infrastructure necessary to jumpstart development—like the Gibe III Dam, which doubled Ethiopia’s electricity production—might have taken decades. In a country with strong democratic norms, constraints on executive power, and institutions that foster power-sharing, such a strategy might work. The same could be said about a country without such institutions but with a united populace. Ethiopia’s ethnicization, however, once again makes it an exception. Government monopolization of rents in the context of ethnic division and Tigrayan dominance has inevitably led to disputes over the control of economic resources, stoking the current strife.

Consider the example of the Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray (EFFORT). A massive conglomerate of businesses operating in Tigray, EFFORT began with the noble intention of rehabilitating the battered region after the civil war against the Derg. While the TPLF also provided seed money for similar conglomerates in other regions, these contributions pale in comparison to those received by EFFORT. The businesses that operate under EFFORT are now major monopolists in Ethiopia’s economy that primarily employ Tigrayans. Critics have alleged that EFFORT received favorable treatment owing to the TPLF’s dominance in Ethiopia. For example, an explosive report in 2004

alleged that the state-owned Commercial Bank of Ethiopia extended a massive loan to EFFORT with no collateral, then subsequently canceled its debt. To opponents of Tigrayan rule, this was yet another example of how the TPLF’s grip on power enriched a minority ethnic group at the expense of everyone else. The extent of EFFORT’s corruption remains unclear but because the conglomerate exercised such immense influence under the TPLF government, it has likely entrenched feelings of resentment towards Tigrayans. Displacing TPLF dominance would therefore enable other ethnic groups to win power within the government. For the TPLF, which now reasonably fears that

“...Ahmed must also alter Ethiopia’s developmental strategy if postconflict peace is to last.” THE PROTECTION ISSUE

WORLD its share of the economic pie might diminish, warfare has become an attractive option. Once again, non-Tigrayans’ discontent under developmental authoritarianism has bubbled into violent conflict. The unenviable responsibility to ease conflict and promote development now lies in the hands of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. To do so, Ahmed must acknowledge that ethnonationalism is the linchpin of TPLF ideology. Rejecting ethnic federalism will only spark further conflict between Tigray and the central state. He must also take a hard line against human rights abuses on all sides to minimize any belief— especially among Tigrayans—that he is biased toward specific ethnic groups.

Assuaging the TPLF is a crucial first step. But Ahmed must also alter Ethiopia’s developmental strategy if post-conflict peace is to last. To begin, he must oppose all forms of corruption and rent-seeking, regardless of ethnicity. Doing so will assure the population that he is not favoring one group at the expense of others, thus easing ethnic tensions and making development seem less like a zero-sum game. Second, Ahmed must incorporate diverse voices into the decision-making processes for large, dislocating development projects. Market liberalization and democracy in Ethiopia will take time—but in the short term, taking these steps may help Ahmed put Ethiopia back on a trajectory of growth and peace.

“Not only has the conflict displaced millions of Ethiopians, but it could also reverse hard-fought economic gains that the country has achieved over the past two decades.”

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

Interview with

Shannon Mattern interview by Alice Jo ’23 illustration by Rosalia Mejia ’23

Shannon Mattern is a professor of anthropology at The New School in New York City. She previously served as a faculty member in The New School’s School of Media Studies and earned a Distinguished Teaching Award. Her teaching, research, and current projects focus on the intersections between archives, libraries, and other media spaces; media infrastructures; spatial epistemologies; and mediated sensation and exhibition. She also writes a regular long-form column for Places, an open-access journal focusing on architecture, urbanism, and landscape. Alice Jo In a 2018 article, you argue that social stability is mediated by the work of maintenance and care for physical and social infrastructures. How has the Covid-19 pandemic affected our ability to practice maintenance and care? Shannon Mattern The pandemic has revealed the brokenness in many of our infrastructures, including health care, education, and internet connectivity. One saying about infrastructure is that it often doesn’t reveal itself until it breaks; we can conveniently forget about its existence because it flows underneath our

everyday activities, except for the people who work to maintain it. I think people came to realize how dependent their daily comforts are on folks bringing packages to their doors; taking away their trash; delivering food; maintaining a supply chain so they have toilet paper, food, and groceries. Folks were genuinely appreciative of a lot of this previously invisible labor and of the fact that so many health care workers were putting their own lives in danger to maintain larger public health. How has the pandemic made maintenance and care harder? The fact that we can’t physically get together and social infrastructures have been challenged makes it harder to do things together. That said, people have found ways to develop alternative ad hoc infrastructures like mutual aid organizations and virtual grassroots organizing to make up for where the more official systems have fallen short. What are some ways to integrate maintenance and care into education? In the past several years, maintenance theory has emerged as an antidote to the fetishization of innovation. We tend to present the fact that the economy depends on everybody learning how to do science, technology, engineering, and math. It’s good to have literacy in those areas, but that cannot be divorced from the critical thinking and historical contextualization that the liberal arts provide. The whole academy is also based on the idea of the individual genius, individual authorship, which promotes this idea of proprietary natures rather than maintaining and caring for our community. There are more feminist and collaborative ways to practice citation: We all support a discourse network that produces much greater knowledge into the world than if we all have our own little fiefdom. How can the methodologies of librarians and archivists guide our ethical frameworks for big data and privacy issues? Most librarians and archivists are committed to values like patron privacy and equitable access. So, I think it’s helpful to ask questions like, “If you collect data from someone, how can you ensure that it’s used responsibly? How can you preserve it?” Preservation is a concern because so much digital media is so ephemeral. The lifespan of a digital media object is much shorter than, say, a newspaper printed 250 years ago that we still have access to. So it’s important to be concerned about responsible preservation, as well as responsible access to make sure that only particular parties who have agreed to certain terms of use have access to data sets. Some archivists and librarians might also

prompt us to ask the question, “Does the data even need to be collected?” Not all of the world’s knowledge that is worth knowing is renderable as data. Sure, you can make a video recording, but there’s material culture, physical archives, oral histories, and other forms of cultural production in which the material nature is essential to the way culture is generated, shared, and preserved within a community. Media infrastructure shapes how social movements are pushed forward these days. What are the strengths and weaknesses of practicing activism in digital spaces? The way we build social movements is shaped by the media that is available to us. Digital media has made the connection of a global network possible. You can find like-minded activists all around the world, use encrypted platforms to connect in a secure space, and coordinate impromptu protests. But there are all kinds of bad things that can happen with digital activism too. There’s the difficulty of content management which makes people wonder if we should have built our society differently and relied on libraries and public institutions to be our search engines and our repositories, instead of Google and Twitter. Because these corporations are our public infrastructure in the digital realm, we are dependent upon their policies. So what is their policy for free speech? How do they conceive of those policies and moderate abusive content? These are some of the risks that are presented to us when we rely on digital technologies for not only social movement organization, but also basic social activity in general. What makes you hopeful about the future? Some things that make me hopeful are how resilient students have been, how wonderful my classes have been, and how responsive, creative, and mutually supportive my students have been. Recognizing the need to care for one another has reminded them that scholarship does not have to be a space of competition and intimidation. It can be a space of mutual support and encouragement.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

WORLD

The Forgotten Ones

by Jillian Lederman ’24, a Political Science and Economics concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR illustrations by Georgina Bronheim ’22

Surging anti-Semitism across the globe must be addressed and combatted, not ignored

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

History is prescient. A mere 80 years ago, World War II left blood splattered across the globe as the Nazis slaughtered over six million Jews. It was one of history’s most violent injustices and left a generation of people that vowed to “Never Forget” in its wake. But this promise of remembrance is being broken. Internationally, Holocaust denial proliferates. With it comes record cases of violent anti-Semitism: Jews, despite comprising just over 2 percent of the US population, are the victims of 57.8 percent of religious hate crimes. While many

perpetrators are radical white supremacists on the fringe right, anti-Semitism now traverses the political spectrum: A new wave of far-left anti-Semites bring perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that translate into a generalized prejudice against Jews. Justice cannot be exclusionary, and as faulty memories and bigoted scapegoating become increasingly potent, the safety and well-being of Jews in the world grows ever more fragile. Substantial numbers of photographs, written and verbal accounts, and physical remnants of the Holocaust remain in circulation today, providing extensive documentation of the slaughter of two-thirds of the European Jewish population. In spite of this archive, denial of such horrors is pervasive, with much of the rhetoric springing from age-old anti-Semitic tropes that label Jews as greedy, power-hungry masterminds intent on manipulating the truth to garner sympathy. According to the Claims Conference, a group working to support Holocaust survivors, 49 percent of Millennials and Generation Z in September 2020 said that they

had seen posts espousing Holocaust denial or distortion on social media, and 22 percent of Millennials hadn’t or weren’t sure that they had heard of the genocide. An event that the world vowed to remember forever is now being forgotten, steadily increasing the possibility that it will occur once again. Amid the disturbing trends of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, too, is on the rise. Following a downward trend of anti-Semitic sentiment between 2001 and 2015, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported a 34 percent spike in 2016. That figure further increased to 57 percent in 2017, coinciding with the infamous neoNazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. All of this aligned with the election of former President Trump, who was widely panned after saying that there “were very fine people on both sides” of the rally. Just one year later, a terrorist murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pennsylvania, a tragedy that preceded the arrest of 12 white supremacists for their suspected roles in terrorist plots against the Jewish community over the following year. In 2019, a March of Remembrance in Arkansas was invaded by a neo-Nazi group equipped with swastikas and chanting “six million more.” These people do not reject the Holocaust’s existence; they support its revival. Appalling incidents such as these may seem isolated to the fringes of the far right, but as of late, prejudice against Jews is also growing among radical, far-left activists. This trend is inextricable from Israel, the world’s only Jewish-majority country. In 2017, a Chicago gay pride parade expelled Jewish marchers carrying rainbow flags stitched with Stars of David. After accusations of anti-Semitism, march organizers responded by saying that they made the decision after the marchers “repeatedly expressed support for Zionism.” In May 2021, after record escalation in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, an extremist fundamentalist Islamic militant group with deeply anti-Semitic roots, a flood of anti-Israel sentiment ensued. This subsequently drove an increase in anti-Semitism

“Jews, despite comprising just over 2 percent of the US population, are the victims of 57.8 percent of religious hate crimes.” globally, as conflations between the beliefs of the Israeli government and those of all Jews ran rampant. At a pro-Palestinian protest in Berlin, participants waved flags lauding Hamas. In Norwich, England, a swastika was sprayed onto the door of a synagogue. In north London, four people were arrested for yelling anti-Semitic abuse. And in the United States, the number of anti-Semitic incidents increased by 115 percent this May compared to the previous year, particularly in high-density Jewish areas like New York. Though these incidents have been widely condemned, it is essential to acknowledge that anti-Semitism continues to spread, bleeding into mainstream politics. One month after violence erupted in Israel, Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar drew a comparison suggesting that atrocities committed by the United States and Israel were akin to those of globally recognized terrorist groups Hamas and the Taliban. At George Mason University in September, Vice President Kamala Harris nodded along as a student accused Israel of “ethnic genocide.” While Israel and Hamas called a ceasefire on May 20, President Biden waited 4 days to publicly condemn the rise in anti-Semitism correlated with the 11-day conflict, when he published a statement to Twitter. None of this is to say that these individuals themselves are anti-Semitic, but each of these incidents demonstrates that as public figures with incredibly large audiences,

they spare insufficient concern for how anti-Israel sentiments threaten the Jewish community. Insufficient concern for Jews is hardly a phenomenon exclusive to politicians. According to a 2020 report, 72 percent of Americans said that a Jew labeling an incident anti-Semitic would either have a negligible or negative effect on whether or not they considered it anti-Semitic as well. When asked if they thought anti-Semitism had increased over the past five years, 82 percent of Jews said yes; just 43 percent of nonJews said the same. The same study reported a 25 percent difference in the rates of Jews versus non-Jews (88 to 63) in the United States who consider anti-Semitism a significant problem. In a society that lauds justice, fights for equality, and works to elevate all, Jews are being left behind to fend for themselves. Vastly more education is needed: about the Holocaust, about anti-Semitism, and about the intricacies of the relationship between Israel and the global Jewish population. The perception that fighting anti-Semitism and opposing Palestinian suffering are mutually exclusive, or that all Jews are responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, is anti-Semitic at its very core and springs from ignorance, hatred, and bigotry. Never forget that the fight for justice is not over until its reach extends to all.

“According to a 2020 report, 72 percent of Americans said that a Jew labeling an incident anti-Semitic would either have a negligible or negative effect on whether or not they considered it anti-Semitic as well.” THE PROTECTION ISSUE

Interview with Schuyler Bailar interview by Zach Stern ’22 illustration by Rosalia Mejia ’23 Schuyler Bailar is an inspirational speaker and advocate for transgender rights, body positivity, mental health awareness, and inclusion. He is a former member of the Harvard Men’s Swimming and Diving team and is the first transgender athlete to compete in any NCAA Division I sport.

Zach Stern Could you talk a little bit about your relationship with gender during your childhood before you transitioned?

Schuyler Bailar I was assigned female at birth, and I spent most of my early years just being a kid. When I got the agency to start picking my own social plans, I began hanging out mostly with boys and presenting myself as more male. My parents were very lenient with gender roles and didn’t force me to do stereotypically feminine things, but I did feel boxed in during times when we had to dress up for special events. I wasn’t really able to articulate it at the time, but I remember the visceral reaction of not wanting to be perceived in a feminine way. Throughout middle school, I began to get bullied quite a bit for looking different. The girls decided I wasn’t a real girl and the guys decided that I wasn’t a real boy, so I got caught in between. When I got to high school, I got sick of that, and in particular, I got sick of being afraid to go to the bathroom or getting thrown out of bathrooms because I didn’t look enough like a girl. That’s why I ended up growing my hair out, shopping in the women’s section, wearing makeup for the two times that I did, and trying to present myself as more female. Having struggled with an eating disorder and depression throughout high school, I decided to take a gap year to go to a treatment center. This is where I realized that I am trans. At the all-women’s treatment center, I knew by knowing what I wasn’t. Having a great therapist also helped me investigate my gender and learn to express it.

What was your experience like once you decided to swim on the men’s team after transitioning?

The whole process involved a lot of learning and patience on both sides. Many people said ignorant and sometimes harmful things, not because they meant to but because they didn’t know any better. I had to understand that that’s where they were coming from and be able to sit in those moments and figure out how to work through them together. And we did. They really did that. The team together did that. The coaches did that. That first year on the men’s team was probably one of the hardest years of my life because everything was so new—but it wasn’t because of the team. The team was really wonderful.

How do rigid gender norms affect transitions and how do they impact our understandings of trans identities?

It’s really important to tease apart the difference between gender identity and gender expression. For trans people, the problem is that the two get conflated, and people—including trans people—expect that if they’re going to transition, they have to assume all the roles assigned to the other gender. They’re transitioning into a particular presentation, but that’s really not what it means to be a man. I didn’t jump out of the box of womanhood in order to jump into somebody else’s box of manhood. I know that I’m a man. That’s in my heart.

“I didn’t jump out of the box of womanhood in order to jump into somebody else’s box of manhood.” What role do lessons about body image play in people’s discovery of their gender identity?

Diet culture and body shaming culture are unbelievably toxic, prevalent, and impactful no matter who you are, but trans people have a higher rate of eating disorders than any other demographic. A lot of that is connected to body dysphoria—the experience of one’s body feeling incongruent with their gender identity—which is often comorbid with body image distortions—negative, often unrealistic views of one’s own body that are often associated with having an eating disorder. We have so many expectations of what bodies are supposed to look like from the media and from diet culture, but I’m a big proponent of eliminating all messaging that says your body must look a certain way.

It seems like trans women competing in women’s sports have been met with a lot of backlash over the past few years. Why do you think critics are responding this way?

One reason is that people are misogynistic towards trans women. This stems in large part from toxic masculinity and the idea that trans women are not real women, but there are also a lot of women that are resistant because they think that trans women are in some way destroying womanhood. There is also the belief that testosterone-driven puberty gives you an advantage. There’s a lot of science that supports that, but there are also many ways to ensure that trans women can be included in female sports in a fair way. If you’re a trans woman that wants to compete as a woman in the NCAA, for example, you have to prove that your testosterone levels have been lowered to an average female level for at least a year. I think that’s as fair as it gets right now with all that we know. People are reacting to trans women participating in women’s sports because they think they are going to threaten other women, but there is biological diversity everywhere, including among cisgender women. If we see a 6’3” cis woman who’s good at basketball, we say that she’s made for basketball, but if we see a 6’3” transgender woman, people say that’s unfair. We need to check our biases while also staying up to date in our research on how best to include folks who have transitioned after puberty to make sure that we’re being fair. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Penguin Random House

WORLD

Relic or Relevant?

Is National Service in Singapore outdated or still necessary?

by Christopher Wai ’25, a Political Science and Economics concentrator and a Copy Editor for BPR illustration by Joshua Sun ’22

After spending two years conscripted into Singapore’s army, I concluded my National Service (NS) term with an overwhelmingly positive perspective. Spending my formative years outside of Singapore made the ideas of being Singaporean and serving in its military seem foreign, so I viewed enlisting in NS as my opportunity to earn my citizenship and affirm my Singaporean identity. Perhaps wanting to make the best of my NS time inflated my appreciation for it. Nonetheless, my experience has undoubtedly affirmed my belief that the vital role NS plays in both Singapore’s defense and national unification far outweighs the economic costs that critics purport. NS originated as Singapore’s national policy of conscription in 1967 after a split with Malaysia and a hasty withdrawal of colonial British forces left the small nation isolated with no guaranteed way of defending its sovereignty and national interests. Conceived and forged in an era of uncertainty, NS has allowed Singapore to nation-build and eventually prosper for over half a century. Now, in an unprecedented period of peace, critics of NS have become more vocal than ever in questioning its relevance. However, they fail to consider the continued significance of NS in supporting Singapore’s national defense policy and fostering its national identity. The combination of deterrence and diplomacy—discouraging threats through defense capabilities and developing friendly relations with foreign states—forms the fundamental principles of Singapore’s defense policy. Its successful implementation depends on the capacity of power that NS asserts by maintaining a substantial military force. NS requires all able-bodied male citizens and permanent residents of Singapore to serve a two-year term of active service upon reaching 18 years of age, 56

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

with additional reserve obligations up to age 50. This allows Singapore to boast an active force of approximately approximately 72,000, roughly 40,000 of which are conscriptss, and a reserve force of over 350,000 in the event of a national emergency or full-scale war. Singapore’s military credibility allows its sovereignty to be acknowledged and respected, giving it power in both deterrent and diplomatic interactions. Essentially, the success of Singapore’s defense policy is contingent upon the military power that NS provides. Beyond defense, the egalitarian nature of conscription fosters Singaporean national identity by uniting citizens with various ethnic, cultural, and class differences under the

common goal of national security. At the time of NS’s conception, Singapore was a nation of diverse migrant groups that lacked strong commonalities. NS served as the solution to that problem. Its success is exemplified in an uptick of conscripts going beyond their call of duty and voluntarily extending their service past the required two year term. More than 350 conscripts extended their term of service in 2010, demonstrating NS’s influence in motivating Singaporeans to work together towards common national interests. Critics of NS point to the financial burden imposed on those conscripted and on the Singaporean state, alleging that the system drives down competition in a modern job market, as having NS obligations may depreciate prospective employees’ attractiveness to employers. However, anti-discriminatory legislation against employers set out in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices already helps to protect conscripts from lower wages. Others suggest a smaller, all-volunteer force as a cheaper alternative to maintaining an active conscript and reserve force. But comparative cost analyses illustrate that, assuming a 30 percent reduction in manpower, an all-volunteer force would actually be more expensive. If anything, the presence of NS has strengthened Singapore’s economy, as the promise of security provides the stability required for economic development. Today, an increasingly diverse Singapore still faces foreign challenges to its sovereignty. NS continues to play a hand in both ensuring the nation’s geopolitical security and bolstering its internal nation-building objectives of unity and economic growth. It remains, therefore, that NS is, as it was at its conception, relevant and necessary for Singapore to thrive today and in the future.

RESERVING WATER FOR RESERVES How Canada can end long-term water advisories for First Nations communities

by Ben Singer ’24, an intended concentrator in Archaeology, Art History, and Political Science and an Associate Editor for BPR infographic by Nicole Lugo ’25, Raima Islam ’25, and Yu Jung Jung ’23

This morning, I woke up feeling quite thirsty. “Well,” I thought, “that's an easy fix.” I got out of bed, grabbed my mug, went to the bathroom, and filled it up from the tap. My thirst was suddenly and unsurprisingly gone. That’s a process most of us don’t even think about: If we are thirsty, we drink water. Many are quick to recognize that, in some parts of the world, clean water is not immediately accessible. But in countries in the Global North like the United States and Canada, that isn't an issue, right? Wrong. In Canada, many communities live under drinking water advisories, either short-term or long-term, which indicate that their water is heavily contaminated and must be boiled before consumption. However, water advisories do not affect Canada’s population equally. Rather, they are a direct manifestation of the Canadian government's continued mistreatment and neglect of Indigenous communities. Today, there are over 100 drinking water advisories affecting First Nations across Canada;

of these, 45 are considered “long-term,” or in place for over a year. Fortunately, this problem is solvable: With technologies like water treatment plants and investment in proper training of treatment-plant workers, Canada can work to end these advisories once and for all. In central Canada, the Ojibway of Shoal Lake 40 First Nations Reserve went 24 years under a long-term drinking water advisory. Surprisingly, this community draws its water from the same source as the city of Winnipeg, the capital of the Canadian province of Manitoba. Why, then, could Winnipeggers drink carefree from their taps while the Indigenous peoples of Shoal Lake 40 were forced to boil their water? The answer to this question demonstrates the unjust treatment of First Nations communities in Canada: The city of Winnipeg had a water treatment facility and the people of Shoal Lake 40 did not. In 2021, however, a $33 million water treatment facility was installed, and the drinking water advisory was subsequently lifted. Herein lies a simple solution to this rampant problem: Canada can ensure that none of its citizens go without clean drinking water by working with Indigenous leaders to install effective water treatment facilities on First Nations reserves. The key word here is “effective.” An ineffective water treatment facility notably caused the onset of the Neskantaga First Nation’s water THE PROTECTION ISSUE

WORLD

Freshwater Quality of Salish Sea Rivers Water Quality Index scores for 20 major Salish Sea rivers from 2000 to 2017 2000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Average

Cheakamus, BC

100

Englishman, BC

100

River

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Duckabush, WA

Skokomish, WA

Quinsam, BC

100

Snohomish, WA

Fraser, BC

Cedar, WA

Lower Skagit, WA

Upper Skagit, WA

Nisqually, WA

Deschutes, WA

Elwha, WA

Cowichan, WA

Sumas, BC

Stillaguamish, WA

Green, WA

Samish, WA

Nooksack, WA

Puyallup, WA

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

advisory, now the longest standing in Canadian history. Since the advisory was first established in 1995, many residents have lived their entire lives without clean drinking water. The Neskantaga community, comprised of around 300 people, accesses water from the highly contaminated Lake Attawapiskat in Northern Ontario. In 1993, the Canadian government built a treatment plant to resolve the contamination issues, but the plant failed to work. Contamination in the area continues to be an issue; as recently as October 2020, the water supply needed to be completely shut off to address an “oily sheen” of unknown origins which had formed on the surface of the lake. As a result, many community members had to be evacuated to hotels. The initial 1993 water treatment plant failed to clean the water supply for the Neskantaga community for one key reason: Its employees lacked the proper training and ability to operate the facility. An unnamed engineer explained to the National Observer that the plant employed unqualified workers and did not provide appropriate supervision. Lieutenant Justin Gee, the Vice President of First Nations Engineering Services, added that the contractor responsible for the Neskantaga water treatment plant “cut corners every day.” The widespread unprofessionalism within this facility triggered multiple ongoing legal battles brought by members and representatives of the Neskantaga Community, as well as other Indigenous groups. For example, members of the Neskantaga First Nation, Tataskweyak Cree Nation, and Curve Lake First Nation communities recently brought a national class action lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada. They sought compensation for Indigenous people who have

“The initial 1993 water treatment plant failed to clean the water supply for the Neskantaga community for one key reason: Its employees lacked the proper training and ability to operate the facility.”

“Today, there are over 100 drinking water advisories in place affecting First Nations across Canada; of these, 45 are considered ‘longterm,’ or in place for over a year.”

been adversely affected by a lack of drinking water, declaring that Canada has a duty to work with Indigenous communities to ensure they have access to clean water. On July 30, 2021, the government settled the suit for $8 billion, with $1.5 billion earmarked for direct compensation and $6 billion for increasing reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves. The settlement, however, still requires court approval. In addition to taking legal action, members of the Neskantaga community are speaking out through protest. One sign posted in the community reads, “Dear Mr. Trudeau, come live here for 2 weeks then you will know what our people face.” During the forced evacuation of the community in November 2020, 12-year-old Lyndon Sakanee joined protesters outside of the Thunder Bay Collier Project Leaders office, declaring, “We’re not animals. We’re not things. We’re human. We need our water to survive.” The cases of Shoal Lake 40 and the Neskantaga community together present a complete solution to these long-term drinking water advisories. As demonstrated by Shoal Lake 40, investing in water treatment facilities can secure the Indigenous population access to safe water. But the failure of the 1993 Neskantaga water treatment facility shows that constructing such plants is not enough; these facilities must also be staffed with employees who are properly trained and supervised. Implementing these solutions is more than possible. In Canada, provinces have jurisdiction over the water treatment and testing for their communities. First Nations communities, however, do not have the same control; it instead

falls under the purview of the federal government to provide clean drinking water to these communities. It follows, then, that the federal government is responsible for carrying out these solutions. Shortly after being elected in 2015, the Trudeau government pledged to end all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021. With 45 long-term advisories remaining and March 2021 long gone, the administration has failed to meet this pledge. Upon this failure, the government pledged an additional $1.5 million to solve the problem, though their plan of action remains vague. Canada is one of the world's wealthiest and most water-rich countries, hosting 7 percent of the world's freshwater surface supply in a country with just 0.5 percent of the global population. Nonetheless, many Indigenous people, some of Canada’s most vulnerable residents, still lack access to safe, drinkable water. On March 22, 2016, World Water Day, Trudeau announced an investment of almost $4.6 billion for infrastructure to provide clean water to First Nations communities. With the problem still seeming to persist unchecked, however, this money clearly must be spent more effectively by building working treatment facilities in these communities staffed by fully qualified workers. After Canada recognized the UN declaration on the human right to safe drinking water and basic sanitation in 2012, it would be egregious not to legislate toward this goal, too.

THE PROTECTION ISSUE

Support Student Journalism

Support Student Journalism Support Student Journalism1 ¶Support•Student•Journalism#

Support Student Journalism Every word and image in this magazine has been produced by students at Brown and RISD. As a student-run publication, we are dedicated to teaching and learning journalism across our ten boards. Subscribe to BPR to support this mission and help us bring our work to College Hill and beyond.