BPR Spring 2022 Issue 2

Editors’ Note

It’s no secret that politicians are prone to exaggeration. They declare themselves the best person for the job and charac terize their achievements as the most impactful, impres sive, and important. On the campaign trail, candidates use hyperbole to stand out to voters: former President Trump boasted that if elected, he would be the “greatest president God ever created,” and four years later, President Biden declared him “the worst president America has ever had.” These tactics are as old as politics itself, but the rise of digi tal news and social media has made them even more potent.

Simplified, eye-catching narratives can be dangerous. Condensing important political issues into tweets and headlines has shortened our attention spans and desensi tized us to hyperbole. Because we are constantly bombarded with superlatives, it has become increasingly difficult to parse through them and determine what is actually the best or worst.

But if we are to expect people to engage in politics— to recognize critical issues, form opinions, and express them in a public forum—politicians need a way to gener ate a sense of urgency. So while assigning a superlative to a particular law, leader, or movement can miss nuance, it can also galvanize political action. A striking headline that labels something in extremes is more likely to spark a read er’s interest than a measured one—especially if it is their first time engaging with the topic. And if it’s doing its job, a superlative should then encourage people to dive deeper.

In this special feature, some of our authors use super latives to sound the alarm about issues that require urgent attention. Ben Youngwood argues that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who has kicked off his second term with increasing aggression toward Kosovo, may well be the most dangerous man in Europe. Matt Walsh characterizes a Cuban baseball players’ treacherous journey to the MLB as “The Most Dangerous Commute” in the world, raising con cern for ballplayers’ well-being while also calling for a final resolution to US-Cuba antagonism. Ian Stettner criticizes the Chinese government’s decision to transform the island

province of Hainan into a free trade port, insisting that local evictions, demolitions, and environmental damages set a troubling precedent for coastal communities—one that is nowhere near worth the economic gains expected from the plan.

Meanwhile, two of our special feature authors champion promising policy proposals through the use of superlatives. Mira Mehta declares that young people are the “Most Likely to Change the World,” making the case for the Youth, Peace, and Security Act. If passed, this bill would bolster the United States’s commitment to including youth in peacebuilding and conflict resolution efforts across the world. And finally, Sarah Roberts advocates for federal law that promotes entre preneurial immigration, arguing that immigrant entrepre neurs may be the boost the US economy needs to maintain its competitive advantage in technological innovation.

We urge you to read past the headlines.

– Gabe, Hannah, Matt, and Rachel

Ben Youngwood

In one of our website’s most trafficked articles to date, Ben Youngwood ’23 sheds light on an important source of cultural pride for Ukrainians: the Eurovision Song Contest. In the midst of the Russian invasion, Eurovision has offered Ukrainian artists an outlet to affirm the country’s unique national identity and reject President Putin’s irredentist claims on the territory. Read “Dancing Russia Goodbye: Ukraine, Rus sia, and the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest” on the web now!

Media

When the Swearer Center sent Civic Engagement Fellows Kimberly Collins ’22 and Madison Mandell ’22 to an interscholastic confer ence on voter engagement prior to the 2020 election, the pair quick ly realized one thing: Brown lacked a campus organization dedicated to increasing democratic participation. Collins and Mandell worked to fill this gap by creating Brown Votes, a student club that now houses several committees doing everything from advocacy to voter registration. Recently, the BPR Media team caught up with Brown Votes to create a mini-documentary on the organization’s past, present, and future. Check it out on our website now!

Jonathan Green

Local school boards seem to have become the latest flashpoint for the country’s most contentious and vitriolic culture wars. Jonathan Green ’25 tackles this phenomenon in his article, zooming in on a Central Pennsylvania school district where debates about mask mandates and Covid-19 misinformation have turned citizens against each other. Read “Fear and Loathing in Central Pennsylvania: School Boards and the Polarization of American Politics” on the web now!

Francisca Saldivar

In “Dimming the Lights: Mexico’s Energy Reform Amendments,” staff writer Francisca Saldivar-Palacios ’24 questions whether Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s proposal to centralize the electricity sector will benefit Mexico’s economy and global reputation. Read her article on the web to learn more about why she declares the president’s decision to be the wrong one.

EXECUTIVE BOARD

EDITORS IN CHIEF

Gabe Merkel

Hannah Severyns

Matt Walsh

CHIEFS OF STAFF

Casey Chan

Eunice Chong

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

Meghan Murphy

SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR

Rachel Yan

MANAGING

WEB EDITORS

Chaelin Jung Morgan McCordick Mathilda Silbiger

CHIEF COPY EDITOR Zeke Hertz

INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS

Alex Fasseas Miles Munkacy

DATA DIRECTOR Zoey Katzive

CREATIVE DIRECTORS

Christine Wang Iris Xie

MEDIA DIRECTORS

Mina Kao Autumn-Jade Stoner

PODCAST DIRECTORS Elijah Dahunsi Alex Rubinstein

Ellie Thomson

LEAD WEB DEVELOPER

Nick Young

CONTENT BOARD

MANAGING

WEB EDITORS

Chaelin Jung Morgan McCordick Mathilda Silbiger

SE NIOR EDITORS

Milo Douglas Natalia Ibarra Max Pushkin Isabella Yepes

EDITORS

Ben Ackerman Charlie Key William Forys

Jillian Lederman Sarah McGrath Jack Tajmajer

ACTIVISM SECTION EDITORS

Sofia Barnett

Amanda Page Gabby Smith

STAFF WRITERS

Omri Bergner-Phillips Laura David Nealie Deol Henry Ding

STAFF WRITERS CONT. Michael Farrell-Rosen Sophie Forstner Simon Giordano Jonathan Green Oamiya Haque

Katie Jain

Garrett Johnson Sai Karnati Alex Lee Zoe Magley Kara McAndrew Kevin Moclair Gabriela Paz-Soldan Fausto Rojas Bianca Rosen Mira Rudensky Francisca Saldivar Akhil Saxena Ellie Silverman Isaac Slevin Ian Stettner

Peter Swope Sarah Uriarte Christopher Wai Jesse Ward

Andreas Rivera Young Ben Youngwood

COPY EDIT BOARD

CHIEF COPY

EDITOR

Zeke Hertz

MANAGING COPY

EDITORS

Robert Daly

William Lake Bianca Rosen

Jon Zhang

COPY EDITORS

EDITORIAL BOARD

SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR

Rachel Yan

MANAGING EDITORS

Carmen Bebbington

Claire Hodges Nathan Swidler

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Lauren Griffiths Justen Joffe

Annabelle Liu

Steven Long

Alexandra Mork

Caroline Parente Cole Powell Sarah Roberts Joseph Safer-Bakal Ye Chan Song Asa Turok

Andrew Berzolla Rachel Blumenstein Yevin Chung

James Dallape Meehir Dixit

Mira Echambadi Dante Flores-Demarchi Lucas Galarza Jacob Gelman Livia Gimenes Isabel Greider

Caleb Lazar

Anavi Madnani Kevin Masse Jessa Mellea Christina Miles Dea Omerovic

David Pinto Keith Richie Lilly Roth-Shapiro Taha Siddiqui

Ellie Silverman Roza Spencer Audrey Taylor Christopher Wai Hao Wen Adam You Claire Zeller

INTERVIEWS BOARD

INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS

Alex Fasseas Miles Munkacy

DEPUTY INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Mira Mehta Zachary Stern Samuel Trachtenberg Alexandra Vitkin

INTERVIEWS ASSOCIATES

Ahad Bashir Omri Bergner-Phillips Alisa Caira Léo Corzo-Clark Elise Curtin Elijah Dahunsi Ava Eisendrath John Fullerton James Hardy Alice Jo John Kelley Stella Kleinman Izzy Lazenby Seungje (Felix) Lee Shinyoung Lee Alexandra Lehman Adriana Lorenzini Alyssa Merritt Lauren Muhs Hai Ning Ng Maya Rackoff Gidget Rosen Anushka Srivastava Emma Stroupe Peter Swope Yuliya Velhan Tucker Wilke Anik Willig

CREATIVE BOARD

CREATIVE DIRECTORS Christine Wang Iris Xie

CREATIVE DIRECTOR IN TRAINING Daniel Navratil

DESIGN DIRECTORS Erin Isla Roman Hope Wisor

GRAPHIC DESIGNERS

Patrick Farrell Yu Jung Jung Youjin (Amy) Lim Alina Spatz Ashley Yae Joel Yong

ART DIRECTORS

Rosie Dinsmore Jesse Hogan Lucia Li Jiayin Lu

COVER ARTIST

Nadia Kossman-Newcomb

CONTRIBUTING ILLUSTRATORS

Ashley Castaneda Hannah Chang Naya Lee Chang Nicholas Edwards Camille Gros Maria Hahne Gloria Kim Lucia Li Kira Saks Madison Tom Elena Aguirre Uranga Christine Wang Kelly Zhou

DATA BOARD

DATA DIRECTOR Zoey Katzive ASSOCIATE DATA DIRECTOR Arthi Ranganathan

DATA ASSOCIATES Ashley Cai Elsa Choi-Hausman Raima Islam Calvin Kirk Nicole Lugo Javier Niño-Sears Colby Porter Francisca Saldivar Sashank Varanasi Zhou (Harry) Yang MEDIA BOARD

MEDIA DIRECTORS Mina Kao Autumn-Jade Stoner

MEDIA ASSOCIATES Dante Flores-Demarchi Mira Gupta Daniel Ma Alex Sarkissian Salonee Singh Jon Zhang

WEB DEVELOPMENT BOARD

LEAD WEB DEVELOPER Nick Young WEB DEVELOPERS Adit Kadakia Rosella Liu Sophia Liu Parker Simon

PODCAST BOARD

PODCAST DIRECTORS

Elijah Dahunsi Alex Rubinstein Ellie Thomson

PODCAST ASSOCIATES Fabian Antunez Lopez Elysee Barakett Ethan Drake Elizabeth Hirschfeld William Kattrup Kate Kuli

Alexandra Ali Martinez Kara McAndrew Javier Nino-Sears Caroline Parente Alex Sarkissian Michael Seoane Annika Sharp Anushka Srivastava

BUSINESS BOARD

BUSINESS DIRECTOR

Meghan Murphy

ASSOCIATE BUSINESS DIRECTORS

Charlie Key Chris Pool

Gidget Rosen

BUSINESS ASSOCIATES

Charles Adams

Rachel Blumenstein

Cannon Caspar Stefanie Del Rosario

Carys Douglas Peter Edelstein

Jake Garfinkle

Ellyse Givens Nadeen Kablawi Stella Kleinman Matias Meier Michael Obiomah Nicolas Pereira-Arias Martin Pohlen Arthi Ranganathan Alexandra Rubinstein Alex Sarkissian

Political

World Handkerchiefs for Hope by Andreas Rivera Young 16 Rare Earth Rush by Rachel Yan 20

Sanctions 2.0 by Charlie Adams

Neutral No More? by Ellie Silverman

Contractual Consent by Alexandra Mork 23

Special Feature: Superlatives 14 9

Interviews

12

Interview with Robin Steinberg: Cash Bail and Incarceration Activism by Stella Kleinman

Interview with Ken Burns: Political Storytelling by John Fullerton 18

The Most Dangerous Commute by Matt Walsh

Most Likely to Make America More Competitive by Sarah Roberts The Most Dangerous Precedent by Ian Stettner

Most Likely to Change the World by Mira Mehta

The Greatest Threat to Peace in Europe That You’ve Probably Never Heard About by Ben Youngwood

Interviews

42

United States

43 40

48

53

Fit to Serve by Christopher Wai

DNA Deception by Sophie Forstner Not In My Ecosystem by Omri Bergner-Phillips

Temporarily Protected, Permanently in Limbo by Mira Rudensky

56

The Secret’s Out by Zoey Katzive

55 46

Interview with Lenny Benson: Rethinking our Refugee and Immigration Systems by Maya Rackoff

Interview with Keith Harper: Upholding a Rules-Based International Order by Anushka Srivastava

Interview with Dr. Michael Kirst: A Local Approach to California Education by Léo Corzo-Clark

Sanctions 2.0

by Charlie Adams ’25, an International and Public Affairs and Environmental Studies concentrator and a Business Associate for BPR illustrations by Kyla Dang ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine carries on, economic sanctions remain the principal deter rence strategy of the United States and other Western countries. But they are ultimately a suboptimal solution. Often overlooked and oversimplified, cultural sanctions, which aim to ostracize Russia from cultural exchange, would supplement purely economic approaches. Their combination with traditional economic sanc tions would produce a more comprehensive strategy to undermine Russia’s invasion.

Current economic sanctions aim to exclude Russia from international economic activity and impose financial costs on the Russian economy.

While economic sanctions are compelling tools to mitigate conflict, they do not address Russian President Vladimir Putin’s central motivation. The invasion of Ukraine was not instigated by potential economic gains; rather, it was moti vated by a desire to re-establish a Russian sphere of influence across the former Soviet Bloc, a goal that was spread using state-manufactured rhet oric vilifying alleged Western aggression. If eco nomic gains are not President Putin’s primary

objective, then economic repercussions alone will not end the war.

A cultural sanction aims to disrupt collec tive and social continuity within a state and, in turn, weaken the state’s sense of self. Recent examples include the International Chess Fed eration canceling chess tournaments in Rus sia and Belarus, FIFA suspending Russia from the World Cup, the International Judo Federa tion stripping President Putin of his honorary presidency, the United States and EU banning alcohol and seafood imports from Russia, and New York City’s Metropolitan Opera cutting ties with pro-Putin artists. Although individ ually implemented, these actions collectively dismember and isolate Russia’s international cultural expression, undermining President Putin’s “blood and soil” arguments that move his armies and drive his desire for expansion.

President Putin’s primary justification for the invasion rests on a shared cultural identity between Russia and Ukraine. The word Ukraine means “borderlands” in Russian, and through out its history, the region has been culturally entangled with Russia. During the Soviet era, Ukraine was a critical part of the state, with Luhansk and Donetsk serving as key industrial centers. To this day, the eastern half of Ukraine is predominantly composed of ethnic Russians.

Cultural sanctions may be the key to undermining Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

“While economic sanctions are compelling tools to mitigate conflict, they do not address Russian President Vladimir Putin’s central motivation.”

However, President Putin’s attempts to capital ize on Russia’s cultural resemblance to Ukraine do not reflect historical sentiments and will be directly undermined by cultural sanctions. With many experts agreeing that it is not if, but when, Russia will capture large portions of Ukraine, the true test of President Putin’s ambitions will be whether he can stabilize Ukraine after the invasion. When an imperial power attempts to stabilize an occupied territory, a sense of vision is critical. Stabilization requires giving the occu pied people a reason to accept new authority, feel secure, and find a purpose within the new state.

One tactic President Putin may use to manu facture Ukrainian allegiance to Russia is promot ing the return of a postwar Soviet-era identity. However, such rhetoric has so far largely incited resistance rather than submission—in much of Ukraine, life under Soviet rule was marked by oppression. Some historians argue that Sovi et-era famines were targeted genocides aimed at killing ethnic Ukrainians: The Holodomor under Stalin claimed the lives of 3.9 million peo ple, or 13 percent of the Ukranian population. For many Ukrainians, Soviet reign understand ably evokes sentiments of distrust. In the after math of the Chernobyl disaster, Soviet officials desperately attempted to cover up the extent of Chernobyl’s safety failures and dangers, expos ing more than 600,000 Ukrainian clean-up workers to life-threatening radiation. Cultural sanctions have the potential to invalidate Rus sia’s self-crafted image as a utopian state that former Soviet bloc countries, such as Ukraine, should desire to rejoin. Through the unveiling of Soviet-era transgressions, Ukrainians will be

reminded of their original motivation for pur suing independence, further fueling their resis tance to Russian influence and propaganda. Cultural sanctions may also catalyze resis tance to the Russian regime from within Russia. In light of recent cultural sanctions, dissent has grown among prominent Russian national fig ures. In the past several months, Russian tennis players, chess players, singers, and rappers have spoken out against the war and their country’s regime. Losing the allegiance of cultural figures encumbers Russia’s efforts to gain political and social control over sovereign Eastern European states like Ukraine. A government whose own athletes, artists, and thinkers fiercely renounce its actions cannot expect to generate sympathy and pride from its people, much less the Ukrai nians it attempts to conquer. Reacting to these challenges to his authority, President Putin criticized the West for “trying to cancel a whole 1,000-year culture” in a speech in March of this

“A government whose own athletes, artists, and thinkers fiercely renounce its legitimacy cannot expect to generate sympathy and pride from its people, much less the Ukrainians it attempts to conquer.”

year.. By saying this, President Putin declared that his country’s identity was under siege. How ever, in reality, cultural sanctions have spawned dissonance within Russia as Russian nationals attempt to reclaim their identity by separating it from President Putin’s oppressive regime.

Another tactic President Putin could attempt to use to stabilize Ukraine is advocat ing for a new unified national future, one that is entirely divorced from the violent Soviet past and current Russian aggression. Roman ticized visions of a new Russia, often referred to as Novorossiya, can also be undermined by cultural sanctions. As the invasion progresses, foreign observers and Russian nationals are beginning to dissociate President Putin’s Rus sia from Ukrainian cultural institutions. More

specifically, the world is beginning to recognize Ukrainian culture as sharing characteristics with Russia’s yet possessing its own unique, independent essence. This is a critical phe nomenon, as cultural foundations are crucial in supporting and justifying national narratives. Against the backdrop of widespread globaliza tion, President Putin’s vision becomes even more difficult to justify: It is no longer a rarity, much less grounds for forced unification, for two countries to share cultural elements or eth nic populations. In other words, forging a vision of a state based purely on ethnic or cultural sim ilarities is not sustainable.

Cultural sanctions highlight the irrational ity and impossibility of invading and occupying sovereign nations in the modern era. The cul tural sanctions imposed on Russia will make it harder for Russia to stabilize Ukraine—regard less of the outcome of the immediate invasion— and promote new narratives of freedom from oppression for Ukrainians and Russians alike. To fully maximize these effects, it will be crucial for international cultural institutions to pub licly unite in their opposition to war. Alone, cul tural sanctions may not leave a lasting impact, but combining them with traditional economic sanctions has the potential to reshape the con flict. In this way, art, music, food, scholarship, and sport can become more than just arenas for entertainment and aesthetics. They can become political battlefields through which people can usher in profound change.

“Cultural sanctions highlight the irrationality and impossibility of invading and occupying sovereign nations in the modern era.”

Cash Bail and Incarceration Activism

by Stella Kleinman ’25 illustrations by Jinghong Chen RISD ’23

Robin Steinberg is the founder and CEO of The Bail Project, a national organization that uses a revolving bail fund model to bail clients out of jail and combat mass incarceration. Prior to founding The Bail Project, Steinberg worked as a public defender in the Bronx for 35 years and founded three other effective criminal justice reform organizations: The Bronx Defenders, The Bronx Freedom Fund, and Still She Rises. She has shared her expertise in The New York Times, The Marshall Project, USA Today, TED, and several esteemed legal journals.

Stella Kleinman (SK): Throughout your 35 years as a public defender, what incentivized you to fight so fiercely against cash bail?

Robin Steinberg (RS): Every single client I saw hauled off to a jail cell because they didn’t have enough money to pay their cash bail made me question how we could attack the cash bail system from the front end. Standing next to people and defending people in the criminal legal system was an honor, but I knew in the later phases of my career that I wanted to prevent incarceration before it began. No matter how great a public defender I was or how great the people I worked with were, sometimes it all boiled down to money. The Bail Project seemed like the perfect way to spend my time attacking a system that I abhor, a system that has been a prime driver of mass incarceration in this country for decades. I’m honored to do the work that I do.

SK: In your 2018 TED Talk, you explain that the cash bail system incentivizes people to plead guilty when they can’t afford to pay the monetary costs or the social costs of spending time in jail. You talked about your decision to found The Bronx Freedom Fund and your expansion of the revolving bail fund model to a national level through The Bail Project.

What opposition did you face during this expansion process?

RS: I expected opposition from the bail bond industry, certain prosecutors, and police unions, who profit off of cash bail and want the status quo to remain. What I didn’t expect was opposition within our own social justice field, fueled by the question of who gets attention and who gets money. Those of us in the criminal justice reform space have been fighting for very limited dollars, so when I was able to get startup funding from The Audacious Project, I understood why some people were angry. But it takes an ecosystem of many people doing this work using many dif ferent strategies. We worked really hard to have a proof of concept for the revolving bail fund model and what our scaling process and impacts might look like.

It’s disheartening to face adversity from your own field. Luckily, as more money has come into the criminal justice reform space, a lot of this anger has been subdued.

SK: Do you see the revolving bail fund model as capable of combating the bail system and mass incarceration on a national scale?

RS: The revolving bail fund model is not a solution, it’s a Band-Aid. And when people dismiss it as a Band-Aid, I like to say “Band-Aids can prevent people from bleeding to death.” While we’re addressing the humanitarian cri sis and getting people out of jail with the revolving bail fund, we are feverishly working toward our ultimate goal of systemic change, toward a future that doesn’t need a Bail Project. We can’t reach everyone but we can help many individuals while we march toward long-term sys temic change.

SK: What sort of legislation should be enacted to move toward this systemic change?

RS: Progress is a long, strategic march, and it’s almost never linear. But I think there are some really good models out there. For example, Illinois just set the gold standard by passing the first statewide bail reform bill. It’s imper fect and compromised, like all bills, but it addresses a lot of common concerns about reliance on risk assessment tools. I’m excited to evaluate its impacts. There’s also a lot of conversation about bail reform in Ohio and Michigan, and obviously about the failure of California SB10.

SK: Why do you think it’s so difficult for reform to occur on statewide and national levels?

RS: We have an incredible amount of vested economic, political, and social interests in our criminal justice sys tem that won’t go down without a really big fight. Cash bail can’t just be eradicated by a lawsuit, or grassroots organiz ing, or bail funds.

Reform requires each individual person to recognize a system’s need to be dismantled or changed and to recog nize strategies for bringing about this change. But it also requires us to reckon with the harms we have caused. We need to ask ourselves: “What’s going on under the hood?” And I think the answer to that question is “fear.” Not only fear of change, but also fear of the other. We need to push through the fear that is both inherent to and exploited by humans. We need to work our way through fearmon

gering and its popularization in the media. People can fall prey to false causal narratives between criminal justice reform and increasing crime rates because fear of crime is innate. We all harbor these ideas but need to stay grounded in the truth rather than what is being exploited by those who wish to maintain the status quo. In the criminal justice field, we too often find ourselves legislating around the exception.

SK: What would you cite as your biggest accomplishments with The Bail Project and The Bronx Freedom Fund?

RS: I think we have laid waste to the myth that cash is what makes people come back to court. We have bailed 22,000 people out of jail, and our clients make 95 percent of their court appearances, providing some of the neces sary data to dismantle this myth. I’m proud of the stories that our clients have generously shared with the world about the devastating consequences of pretrial incarcer ation, what it meant to have their bail paid by a not-forprofit revolving bail fund, and the difference it made in their lives and the outcomes of their cases.

I’m proud of the communications work that we’ve done and the data we’ve been able to collect, because I’ve learned that you can change hearts with stories, but sometimes you need to change minds with actual data. Our data is unique and unusual, so I think we’re filling a gap in the field and I hope other advocates can use this data to work towards systemic change, not just in the pre trial system, but in the criminal legal system generally.

I also feel really proud that we have created a big national non-profit, but stayed respectful of local juris dictions and incorporated local leadership. We’ve hired people to work in their own local communities and pri oritized people with lived experience. I feel really good about the leadership and staff we have built and the work we’ve all done.

SK: What sort of work can we, as citizens, do to combat the bail process and mass incarceration itself?

RS: This sounds simple and corny, but get educated. It’s hard to grasp the process’s impacts without experiencing it yourself, so it’s important to get proximate. The sim plest way to do that is to go sit in a courthouse. You’ll be stunned.

To incite change, you can support progressive politi cians; ask candidates their positions on the cash bail sys tem, mandatory sentencing, and incarcerating juveniles; do research around criminal justice and judges; know who you’re voting for; and hold them accountable when they fall short on their promises.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

“We have an incredible amount of vested economic, political, and social interests in our criminal justice system that won’t go down without a really big fight.”

HANDKERCHIEFS FOR HOPE

by Andreas Rivera Young ’24, an intended History and Political Science concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR

illustration by Lana Wang ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

In Buenos Aires, a crowd of protesters dressed in green gathered in the Plaza de Mayo to patiently await the decision of the Argentinian govern ment. They stood packed together, nervous with anticipation and ready to celebrate. That eve ning, they exploded with joy as they heard the news they had been waiting for: Argentina’s leg islature voted to legalize abortion through the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

This monumental decision, made in Decem ber 2020, catalyzed a domino effect of reproduc

tive rights legislation across Latin America. In the past three years, Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia have all decriminalized or legalized abortion. These changes were not brought about spontaneously; rather, they are the product of strategic feminist organizing, which harnessed political and social power to advance women’s rights through local demonstrations, coalition building, and education campaigns.

In Argentina, one of the most effective strate gies deployed by activists was the creation of the green handkerchief symbol. The movement’s distinctive emblem alludes to the white hand kerchiefs worn by Las Madres de la Plaza Mayo, a group of women who protested the Argentin ian government’s violence during the Dirty War and fought to find their missing family mem bers. Although the goals of La Marea Verde, or the Green Wave, are quite different from those of Las Madres de la Plaza Mayo, the adoption of handkerchiefs hearkens back to Argentina’s rich tradition of female-led social change.

Shortly after Argentina legalized abortion, Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled in September 2021 that the criminalization of abortion was unconstitutional. Although this decision did not go as far as Argentina’s, experts still see it as a pathway case, contending that it hints at future abortion legalization in Mexico. Like in Argentina, this decision indubitably resulted from the work of feminist movements across Latin America. Mexican organizers even adopted the symbol of the green handkerchief as a part of their organizing strategy, visibly tying their movement to that of Argentina.

In addition to borrowing strategies from Argentinian organizers, Mexican activists have adopted their own novel tactics. According to reproductive rights activist Isabel Fulda, women “mobiliz[ed] and demonstrat[ed] in places that had never seen marches for abortion before.”

General enthusiasm for the Green Wave has fostered the creation of support networks and feminist cells within different states. These groups helped with the state-by-state appli cation of political pressure, with the states of Hidalgo, Veracruz, and Baja California all legal izing abortion in 2021. Along with Oaxaca and Mexico City—which legalized abortion in 2019 and 2007, respectively—these states collectively comprise 23 percent of Mexico’s population.

The newest addition to the blossoming fem inist movement in Latin America is Colombia, which decriminalized abortion in February 2022. This decision is especially noteworthy because until 2006—when legislators instituted exceptions for certain nonviable pregnancies,

The past, present, and future of reproductive rights activism in Latin America

“The adoption of handkerchiefs hearkens back to Argentina’s rich tradition of femaleled social change.”

pregnancies that threatened the mother’s health, and pregnancies resulting from rape or incest—Colombia had maintained a com plete abortion ban. To bring about this radical policy change, a reproductive rights coalition named Causa Justa not only organized pro tests and exerted political pressure but also made an effort to stop abortion misinformation at its source. Using videos and social media campaigns, Causa Justa helped destigmatize abortion by showing Colombians that decrim inalization ought to be about healthcare, not politics. The movement was especially effective because it relied on local organizations to reach out to women across political, social, and eco nomic divides and understood the obstacles to abortion access.

Similar to grassroots organizations in the United States, Colombian feminists moved from localized advocacy to the courts. The fram ing of abortion as a healthcare issue outside the jurisdiction of the penal system was especially salient because the Colombian judicial system is less politicized than other branches of gov ernment, and thus more receptive to this mes saging.

Latin American feminist movements were finally able to see years of advocacy work come to fruition in the courts partly as a result of demographic and ideological changes. Latin America has long been a predominantly Catholic region; research conducted by the Pew Research Cen ter showed that in 2014, Catholicism was the most common religion in every single Latin American nation. Over time, however, Catholi cism has become less prevalent: While in 1995, Latin America was 80 percent Catholic, this fig ure dropped to 59 percent by 2018. These demo graphic trends have coincided with increased feminist organizing, and activists have taken full advantage of shifts in Latin America’s cul tural landscape to ignite real change.

Even among those who continue to identify as Catholic, there proves to be a greater toler ance toward abortion. Although the Church opposes abortion at an institutional level, a great diversity of opinion exists among Catho lics. This schism occurs in part across genera tional lines, with young Catholics tending to be more accepting of abortion than older ones. Consequently, in the past five years, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile, and Brazil have seen increases in positive public opinion towards abortion. These changes have had tan gible effects on the governments’ legislative composition and policy choices, as legislative bodies in these countries have no choice but to react to large swings in public opinion.

As Latin America becomes more secular, the potential spillover effects of these reproductive

rights movements are immense. The Argentin ian movement helped to inspire the Mexican and Colombian movements, which in turn have the potential to influence women’s grassroots activism across the Latin American region as a whole. For example, Brazil, which will soon be majority non-Catholic and contains grow ing grassroots support for reproductive rights, might be the next country to amend its abor tion laws. If its lawmakers act, policy changes in Brazil will further demonstrate that legislation responds to shifts in public opinion and demo graphics. The reproductive rights movements could also reach countries like El Salvador and Honduras, which do not currently have femi nist movements on the same scale as those in Argentina or Mexico. Established reproductive

rights organizations have an opportunity to act as transnational moral entrepreneurs, helping activists in neighboring countries build blos soming abortion rights movements.

The work of feminist grassroots movements in Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia should be used in the rest of Latin America as blueprints for success. Over the past three years, these movements have made extraordinary inroads toward increasing access to legal, safe abortions. They have built a Green Wave that has secured reproductive rights for hundreds of millions of women. As one Argentine protester said: “It is not a question of morals. It is not a question of ethics. It is a question of health.”

by Ellie Silverman ’25, a History and International and Public Affairs Concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR

illustrations by Camille Gros ’22, a Printmaking major at RISD

NEUTRAL NO MORE?

Switzerland’s recent move to adopt EU sanctions against Russia could redefine neutrality for the modern era

Switzerland is best known for its cheese, choco late, and unwavering commitment to maintain ing neutrality in geopolitical conflicts. However, the mountainous nation broke with neutrality on February 28, when the Swiss Federal Council voted to adopt the package of EU-imposed sanc tions against Russia. While Switzerland’s move may seem like a groundbreaking moment in history, it is not the first time the state has allied with EU members in imposing sanctions. Since

the Cold War, globalization, pressure from the EU and NATO, and collective security concerns have all served as factors leading Switzerland to abandon what is often considered a 500-year tra dition of neutrality. Although a full break from its neutrality efforts is improbable, the sheer scope and speed of Switzerland’s most recent sanctions against Russia are noteworthy. The significance of this move lies in the precedent it

sets, as it signals a transformation of neutrality for the modern era.

Switzerland has previously imposed sanc tions on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar. In 2014, it imposed sanctions on Russia over the annexation of Crimea. In these cases, however, Swiss involvement remained limited as the sanctions over Crimea differed from those of the EU and were designed to pro tect the nation’s financial center from being used to bypass EU sanctions.

The protection of the Swiss financial indus try is not the only reason for a redefinition of neutrality. Following 9/11, 31 Swiss soldiers participated in the US-led invasion of Afghan istan, and Swiss troops remained in the coun try from 2001 to 2008. Swiss troops have also participated in peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in Korea’s demil itarized zone. While these actions might be viewed as a break from traditional policy, many of them were performed in connection with the UN or EU. Switzerland’s membership in the UN and special relationship with the EU mean the nation is either obligated or incentivized to comply in order to maintain positive diplomatic relations.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been international outcry calling for aid to Ukraine, as well as an end to the violence instigated by Russia. The United States and certain EU member states have been lead ers in this movement but have stopped short of sending active troops to Ukraine out of fear of triggering nuclear war. Consequently, a coordi nated international response was seen as espe cially necessary by the Western powers initiating the sanctions. The United States and EU applied pressure on Switzerland to take action, implying that idleness would be met with possible retri bution. In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s violation of multiple articles of the UN charter means that Ukraine is currently exercis ing its right to self-defense. Therefore, Switzer land could have been accused of war profiteering had it not taken action against Russia.

Despite the nation’s small size, Swiss sanc tions are crucial in pressuring Russia to halt its invasion. In fact, many would argue that failing to sanction Russia would actually be the true breach of neutrality due to the countries’ strong economic ties. Roughly 80 percent of Russian commodities are traded through Swit zerland, and 30 percent of all Russian deposits overseas, totaling $11 billion, are housed in its banks. Additionally, Switzerland has long been a favored spot for rich Russians to manage their wealth. A report compiled by the Swiss embassy in Moscow revealed that in 2020, the net trans fers of Russian taxpayers to Switzerland totaled $2.5 billion. In light of Russia’s extreme eco nomic interconnectedness with Switzerland, increased stringency is sure to greatly impact Russia’s economic power.

Switzerland’s status as the poster child for neutrality and diplomatic mediation means its actions will reshape the modern definition of neutrality for other countries. In adopting the EU and NATO’s package of sanctions, Switzer land has set a precedent that could impact its

diplomatic response if a similar event occurs again. For example, with fears over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan growing, this alignment could mean that if tensions reach their break ing point, Switzerland would also be expected to impose sanctions on China. The strengthen ing of economic blocs as a result of the war in Ukraine could also increase Europe’s influence on the Swiss economy. That possibility makes it crucial that Switzerland works to stabilize rela tions with the EU as quickly as possible.

Switzerland’s decision to impose sanctions on Russia is not entirely novel. However, the package is unique in the extent to which Russian economic activities in Switzerland are curtailed. In the coming years, other neutral nations can draw inspiration from the Swiss government’s reaction to mass political mobilization in the face of international conflict. While it is unlikely that Switzerland will become militarily involved in the conflict, its actions build on a recent move away from strict neutrality to a more mod ern interpretation that responds to the increas ing complexity of global interactions.

“Switzerland‘s actions build on a recent move away from strict neutrality to a more modern interpretation that responds to the increasing complexity of global interactions.”

“In adopting the EU and NATO’s package of sanctions, Switzerland has set a precedent that could impact its diplomatic response if a similar event occurs again.”

Interview with Ken Burns: Political Storytelling

by John Fullerton ’24

illustrations by Jinghong Chen RISD ’23

The late historian Stephen Ambrose said, “More Americans get their history from Ken Burns than any other source.” An American documentary filmmaker, Ken Burns has produced over 40 documentaries on American history topics ranging from the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, baseball, jazz, and the national parks to Ernest Hemingway, the Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War. He is the recipient of numerous honors, including 16 Emmy Awards and two Academy Award nominations. Born in Brooklyn, New York, Burns received a degree in film studies and design from Hampshire College. In 2019, Brown University awarded Burns an honorary degree for “great distinction” in documentary filmmaking.

John Fullerton (JF): You might not be surprised to hear that I learned what the iMovie Ken Burns effect was before I learned a lot about the Vietnam War, the Dust Bowl, Hemingway, or the Mayo Clinic. How do you make sense of both the limited amount of interest and understanding of history in the United States today and the widespread fame and popularity of your documentaries?

Ken Burns (KB): I’m a filmmaker, but first and foremost, I’m a storyteller, and I happen to work in American history the way a painter might work in oil as opposed to water color, or concentrate on still life as opposed to landscape. We’re still a relatively young country, and that means we’ve been less aware of our history. There have always been people who have been deeply moved and fascinated by it, but I think history is not taught very well in schools, so few people have a handle on it. A good handle is a good story. I think we make good stories. I have in my editing room a neon sign that has, in lowercase cursive, the words “it’s complicated.” I think too often in my medium and in the way we popularly digest most history, it’s pretty super ficial, sanitized, and has a positive point of view. Ameri can history is really exceptional. It really has some dark, dark, dark edges to it, and I don’t think you can tell one side without the other.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

**John would like to give a special thanks to Elle Carrière and Jillian Hempstead from Florentine Films for their support throughout the interview process.

JF: How do you approach providing complicated and often troubling narratives to a wide audience?

KB: I’m trying to be the viewer’s representative. I rarely know a lot about a particular subject when I begin work on

it, and rather than tell you what we or you already know, I’d rather share with you our process of discovery, so my job is to be your representative and be that person who is ignorant but curious and wants to know more about something. Then we dive as deeply as we can and figure out how to tell as much as we can with all the contradic tions that arise in our history. When we have a scene that works really well in expressing one narrative, but are con fronted with something that’s contradictory, something that could change the entire scope and meaning of the scene, we don’t say, “I don’t wanna touch it.” We always go into it, and we always roil the waters. Sometimes the scene doesn’t work as well as it did before, but it’s a truer representation of that subject. That’s what I think is most important.

JF: In a previous interview for the Vietnam War project, you were asked what prompted your interest in the subject, and you said that it was time for us to talk about Vietnam. How does the passage of time influence the perception of a historical event in our collective memory?

KB: Philip Graham said, “Journalism is the first rough draft of history.” But you know what? No one ever turns in a first draft. What you need to do is have the perspec tive, and my example is Vietnam. If we’d done it in ’85, 10 years after the fall of Saigon, we were in the middle of a recession, Japan was ascendant, there was talk about American decline, and Vietnam was the symbol of that decline. If we’d waited 10 more years to ’95, America was in the midst of the largest peacetime economic expansion to date. We were the sole superpower. Vietnam would have been important, but it would be just a blip in this otherwise thrilling trajectory. If you wait until 2005, we’re mired down in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were both like a mini-Vietnam in their own rights, and your perspec tive would again change. So by the time the documentary comes out in 2017, you’ve got the ability to look at it from lots of different mountaintops and lots of different val leys. You gain perspective from the passage of time. You are able to fix the event through several different interpre tations of it and lots of scholarship, which allows you to triangulate the best overall representation of the subject.

JF: Do you foresee any difficulty in the future, both representing and understanding US culture in an increasingly international context?

LB: This is a good question, but I think it reflects the arrogance that we in the present always impose on the past, that somehow things are more complicated now. In fact, globalization is grinding to a halt. You may think of the history of globalization in the context of trade with the Silk Road, within the Mediterranean, and across to the West or East Indies, suddenly getting shut down by something interfering with their exchange of goods and ideas, and the political and social ramifications of those changes. And then you may think, “How does globaliza tion today impact American culture?” I don’t think of it that way. I just want to tell a story, and I happen to be very lucky because I found the métier that I wanted to work

in, which is American history. Just as I want to tell a good story, I want to make a good film. I’m not a historian. I don’t feel the responsibility to represent the culture, but I know that the films, in order for them to be good, must do that as part of their existence, but that’s not what keeps me awake at night.

JF: How does working on those smaller projects such as The American Buffalo or the Brooklyn Bridge influence how you approach and understand larger topics such as the Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War?

KB: Essentially, they’re the same. The process is the same, and you’ll see that on those big, epic projects, the scope, while wide, is also intimate. They are bottom-up in lots of cases as well as top-down, and so while the subject is relatively small, the Buffalo film is a big, wide, continental story involving millennia of time and a thousand gener ations of native peoples, and it’s very complicated. The Brooklyn Bridge is celebratory and one of the great tri umphs of engineering of the 19th century, if not the great triumph, and yet its story is also populated by crooks, petty politicians, and corrupt contractors. The constit uent building blocks are these individual stories. In the Vietnam War, you can follow one particular Marine such as John Musgrave, and hear about his terror, excitement, and hardship while conducting combat operations in the jungle. Then you just flip over, and there is a Viet Cong saying exactly what his American counterpart is. When you have an American and his Vietnamese pal shooting through some hedgerows at some Viet Cong, and then interview the Viet Cong who are shooting at the Ameri cans in the hedgerow and they both have the same exact view of what’s going on, that’s the universality of the human experience. It’s the smaller building blocks of sto ries that are constructed into a larger mosaic of history.

JF: How can we use that knowledge to guide us through future tumultuous events?

KB: If you do history well, if you tell stories in American history well, they offer an extraordinarily good perspec tive on the contemporary dynamic. With the combination of the pandemic, racial reckoning, and political unrest, we happen to have landed in the middle of what I believe, without a doubt, is the fourth-great crisis in the history of the United States. All these problems, the racists, the nativists, the anti-Semites, the anti-immigrants, have been ever-present in our history, but never have they had their voices amplified by the resident of 1600 Pennsyl vania Avenue. It was Lincoln who predicted that “all the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” He presided over the closest we’d come to sui cide, and you can feel a lot of those same anxieties echo ing throughout the present. We have to realize that we are in control of our fate.

“It’s the smaller building blocks of stories that are constructed into a larger mosaic of history.”

RARE

RUSH EARTH

How Chinese dominance over rare minerals creates energy security risks amid the clean energy transition

by Rachel Yan ’22, a Computer Science and International and Public Affairs concentrator and Senior Managing Magazine Editor for BPR illustrations by Jacob Gong ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

Today’s energy crisis hearkens back to the 1973 oil shock, during which Arab petrostates insti tuted an oil embargo against Western countries that led to skyrocketing prices and astonish ingly long lines at the gas pump. Since then, oil importers have structured their foreign policy around energy security to blunt “the oil weapon.” Now, as we head toward a future defined by clean energy, many hope the era of geopolitical conflict over energy resources will soon be in the past. Unlike natural resources like oil and gas, which are highly concentrated underneath a few fortunate countries, renew able energy sources such as wind and solar are more evenly distributed across the globe.

While it is true that these energy resources are inherently more accessible, the shift to a clean energy system will likely give way to new arenas of geopolitical competition. Minerals like lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare-earth

elements (REE) will define the clean energy transition due to their critical role in manufac turing electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines. But the supply of these minerals will invoke contestations of their own. Currently, China is by far the most important player in the production and refining of REEs, and Beijing’s past actions suggest it will not hesitate to use this dominance as leverage in geopolitical con flicts. In order to make way for a decarbonized energy system, today’s energy security appara tuses must be modernized to account for the distinct challenges posed by the mineral supply chain.

Oil supply may be concentrated in relatively few regions, but mineral production is even more centralized: The top producing nations control over 75 percent of global output of lithium, cobalt, and REEs, as compared to 42 percent for oil. China currently dominates the industry, controlling over 50 percent of the refining process for lithium and cobalt, and it has essentially monopolized the entire REE sup ply chain. Over the past decade or so, China has also aggressively extended its international hold over the REE market, establishing deals with the Democratic Republic of Congo and Kenya that

“While it is true that these energy resources are inherently more accessible, the shift to a clean energy system will likely give way to new arenas of geopolitical competition”

exchange Chinese-funded infrastructure for mining rights. Other countries, including Cam eroon, Angola, Tanzania, Zambia, and Green land, are also in Beijing’s sights.

As the energy transition accelerates, demand for critical minerals will rise signifi cantly. The International Energy Association (IEA) estimates that attaining targets for clean energy set by the Paris Agreement would qua druple the demand for clean energy minerals by 2040. Projections of current supply, including mines presently under construction, will only meet 50 percent of lithium and cobalt demand and 80 percent of copper needs by 2030. Fur ther complicating accessibility issues are the mineral supply chain’s many vulnerabilities, including detrimental environmental and social practices, long project development lead times, and most critically, an extremely high produc tion concentration. As a result, even countries earnestly trying to move away from fossil fuels will face significant barriers in acquiring the necessary materials to do so.

China has already shown its willingness to utilize its mineral dominance as a geopolitical tool. In 2010, China blocked exports of REEs to Japan in retaliation for Japan’s detention of a Chinese fishing trawler captain. And at the height of the trade war in 2019, Beijing threat ened to cut off exports of REEs to the United States—a move that would have hammered major sectors of the US economy, including automobiles, oil refining, renewable energy pro duction, and defense.

Part of the reason China has established such dominance over the mineral supply chain is its lax environmental and labor policies. Efforts to mitigate the harms of mining on workers and the environment in countries out side of China, such as Australia and the United States, increase companies’ costs and thus ham per their competitiveness in the global market. The two primary mineral extraction methods generate air pollution, lead to erosion, and cause chemicals to leach into groundwater. This impacts not only the environment but also all of the individuals who rely on the water and land’s resources. Human rights abuses are yet another concern, with regular reports of overworked and underpaid workers facing disproportionate

health problems. Chinese officials recognize these threats and are slowly attempting to coun teract them through large-scale cleanup efforts and the shuttering of smaller, illegal mines. Currently though, China’s established mining capacity, taken in conjunction with extremely high barriers to entry, ensures its supremacy in the short term.

Luckily, there are multiple avenues for West ern states to counteract Chinese dominance. A carbon tariff, such as the Carbon Border Adjust ment Mechanism proposed in the EU, would reward market players that have strict environ mental and labor regulations. Australia, which is home to Lynas Corporation, the world’s larg est REE producer outside of China, and Japan, where deposits of the important REEs yttrium, europium, and terbium were recently discov ered in far eastern territorial waters, are two key allies with rigid environmental laws and strong potential in the mining industry. By committing to sector-by-sector border adjustments that neu tralize the disadvantages countries with stricter regulations face in the global minerals market, the United States and its allies can reduce Chi na’s market dominance and ensure the longterm viability of a clean energy transition.

Another important aspect to addressing this crisis is technological advancement. Additional research is needed to minimize the environ

mental impact of mining, reduce the mineral intensity of clean energy products, and recycle energy transition metals. Already, researchers at Harvard University have developed a cleaner REE extraction method with less acidic bacterial solutions, and Purdue University researchers have found a novel approach that removes REEs from coal ash. Further investment could per fect these strategies and bring them to market. Moreover, the IEA estimates that 2040 supply requirements for copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt could be reduced by 10 percent through recycling, but work must be done to initiate standardized recycling practices and incentives.

Policymakers must also send clear signals about their commitment to the clean energy transition. If companies are given competi tive reassurance and are properly incentivized by aggressive government and private sector investment, they will be more likely to acceler ate their own investments to reduce the usage of minerals in clean energy products. Renault’s electric Zoe car mitigates rare-earth metal con sumption by using copper windings rather than magnets, and BMW’s fifth-generation electric vehicle was produced without any REEs.

China may be a stable supplier of low-cost minerals today, but its mining processes pose significant environmental, social, and geopo litical challenges. Given that new mining oper ations take 16.5 years on average to go from planning to production, failure by the United States and others to quickly invest in the min eral supply chain will likely result in a mineral bottleneck that will obstruct the energy transi tion and pose dangerous security risks. If the clean energy movement is to meet its goals of reducing environmental harm and mitigating conflict, there must be immediate investment in and regulation of the mineral supply chain.

“Currently, China is by far the most important player in the production and refining of REEs, and Beijing’s past actions suggest it will not hesitate to use this dominance as leverage in geopolitical conflicts.”

Contractual Consent

by Alexandra Mork ’25, an intended History and Political Science concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR infographic by Ashley Cai Brown/RISD ’25, Calvin Kirk ’25, Francisca Saldivar ’24, and Harry Yang ’25

In 1995, Bai Junfeng tortured and then forcibly penetrated his wife Yao, sending her into a coma that nearly took her life. Yet the Yixian People’s Court ruled that Bai was innocent of rape on the grounds that violently forcing one’s wife to have sex is not rape according to Chinese law. The court argued that the marriage contract consti tutes a permanent and irrevocable consent to sexual relations, so husbands are legally justi fied in forcing sex upon their wives.

Such a verdict was only possible because China lacks any laws prohibiting marital rape; neither its first piece of domestic violence leg islation passed in 2015 nor its pre-existing rape laws address non-consensual sexual relations between spouses. This massive omission con tributes to continuing violations of women’s rights and human dignity. The government must address this crisis by recognizing mari tal sexual violence as a crime. Doing so would represent a significant step forward for human rights in China.

The marital rape exemption has allowed sexual violence within marriages in China to remain prevalent for decades. In fact, a 2013 study led by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) found that 10 percent of Chinese women surveyed who had ever been in an inti

mate relationship reported experiencing rape at the hands of a male partner. Similarly, 14 per cent of men who had ever had an intimate part ner admitted to forcing penetrative sex upon their female partners, while 22 percent admitted to coercing their partners into any sexual act. In the same study, 9 percent of men reported sexu ally assaulting their intimate partners within 12 months of when they were surveyed.

Unsurprisingly, intimate partner violence (IPV), like that reported by the UNFPA, is extremely damaging to survivors, both physi cally and psychologically. Another UN report found that Chinese women who have experi enced IPV were “two to three times more likely to have poor overall health, be unsatisfied with their sexual life, have contracted sexually trans mitted infections, had miscarriages and/or abortions, be clinically depressed and consider or attempt suicide” than women who have not. Evidence also suggests that the psychological consequences of IPV are more profound for sur vivors of marital rape who, in addition to expe riencing the violation of autonomy that all rape survivors are subjected to, also undergo viola tions of trust by individuals close to them.

The Chinese government’s refusal to catego rize these violations as crimes reflects its longheld prioritization of protecting the chastity, or zhen cao, of women over protecting women themselves. Historically, rape laws in China have been written with the goal of protecting the husband’s property. Because this property right extended to the ownership of a wife’s sexual

How China’s failure to recognize marital rape represents the nation’s longstanding disregard for women’s rights

purity, female chastity was of the utmost impor tance. With traditional Chinese attitudes largely considering men as superior to women, it’s no surprise that rape laws prioritize men’s property rights over women’s sexual freedom and physi cal and emotional well-being.

These attitudes largely stem from long-standing Confucian beliefs in the impor tance of natural hierarchies in preserving social harmony. One of the most prominent of these hierarchies is the division between the sexes: Women, who are associated with the Yin symbol, are expected to be subservient to men, who are considered superior as a result of their identifi cation with the Yang sign. Consequently, wives are expected to demonstrate unwavering obedi ence to their male heads of household. Histori cally, a wife’s sexual loyalty to her husband has represented the pinnacle of this obedience and has even been compared to the political loyalty demanded of citizens to their state.

This view of appropriate sex as tied to filial piety (xiao) is revealed in the legal codes of the Ming and Qing Dynasties, which defined illegal sex (jian) as “vaginal intercourse outside mar riage.” This language implies that sex within marriage is intrinsically legitimate and that marital rape is an oxymoron. By these dynasties’ laws, outside of a marriage, there is a distinction between consensual and non-consensual sex. Within a marriage, no distinction exists.

When these definitions of sexual assault pervaded rape laws, the consequences for women were profound. The prevalence of cases of “marriage by abduction” during the MingQing-era serves as one extreme example of such

a consequence. In marriage by abduction cases, grooms—who feared their brides’ families might delay or break off their engagement—kid napped and raped their future brides in order to secure their marriage contract. Since marriage constituted a covenant between male heads of household, the only relevant legal question when these cases were brought to court was whether the marriage negotiations were legally acceptable. If they were not, then the groom would be guilty of coercive illicit sex since it took place outside marriage. If the marriage contract was valid, however, then it was deemed that there was no foul play, and the violence the wife experienced was legally irrelevant.

This is because Chinese law did not recog nize the rights of women—or anyone else for that matter—until the 20th century. Rather, as historian Matthew Sommer explained, “it would be more appropriate to speak of the ‘duties’ and ‘privileges’ that are attached to different roles within the kinship hierarchy” than the rights a modern legal system might acknowledge.

The view of sex from this perspective is still prominent in modern times. In the 2013 UNFPA study, 41 percent of men and 33 per cent of women surveyed in China believed that “a woman cannot refuse to have sex with her husband.” Furthermore, almost 24 percent of men and 26 percent of women surveyed agreed that “if a man has paid bride price for his wife, he owns her.” These polls reveal the enduring power of patriarchal beliefs in China, in part tied to Confucianism, that men are justified in dominating their wives, especially with regard to sex. These beliefs not only justify marital rape in theory but also encourage it in practice: 86 percent of men who have raped women cited their conviction that they had the “right to have sex even by force” as a motive.

These misogynistic attitudes, combined with the cultural value placed upon family unity, hinder wives from reporting or even sharing their experiences of abuse. The Con fucian emphasis placed upon household har mony means that family discord is considered

“The marital rape exemption in China has allowed sexual violence within marriage to remain both pernicious and prevalent for decades.”

catastrophic since it disrupts societal order. In order to avoid disunity, all members of the fam ily, particularly women, are expected to make individual sacrifices for the benefit of the col lective. For wives of abusive husbands, this can mean choosing not to report violence or pursue an official protective order against their abuser for the sake of their families.

Even in the rare instances in which women do come forward, their voices are often silenced by law enforcement officers who uphold the idea that IPV belongs in the private realm. For example, after 23-year-old Ah Lian was beaten and raped by her husband, she was told by police officers to “just work it out” with him. Disturbingly, her experience is not uncommon: Police and judges regularly brush off claims of spousal violence, encouraging women to return to their husbands to preserve their marriages and families. As a result, protection orders are infrequently granted or enforced.

The prevalence and persistence of cultural attitudes rationalizing violence against women and silencing their stories clearly demonstrate that legal changes will not be a panacea for rape and sexual assault within marriage. Rather, addressing this epidemic will require wide spread, long-term cultural changes that move China away from its patriarchal roots toward a more egalitarian future. Still, legal recognition of marital sexual violence as a crime is none theless a necessary first step toward achieving this future; Chinese women are more likely

to experience rape by intimate partners than other perpetrators, so sexual violence legisla tion should reflect this reality. Criminalization would provide a legal basis that would enable women to seek safety from abusive partners. At the same time, it would send a social signal that women do not renounce their rights to auton omy, respect, and human dignity when they enter marriage.

“The Yixian People’s Court ruled that Bai was innocent of rape on the grounds that violently forcing one’s wife to have sex is not rape according to Chinese law.”

title illustrations by Iris Xie ‘23, a Graphic Design major at RISD and Creative Director for BPR

by Matt Walsh ’23, a Political Science concentrator and an Editor in Chief of BPR illustrations by Madison Tom ’23, an Illustration major at RISD

Despite being one of the biggest stars in the Cuban Baseball Federation (FCB), Yasiel Puig lived off of a meager $17 per month wage. With his talents, he knew that signing with a Major League Baseball (MLB) team in the United States could be his shot at a better life, but each of his 12 previous attempts to escape Cuba had ended in failure. One time, his couriers failed to show up; another time, the US Coast Guard intercepted his boat. On his thirteenth attempt, Puig finally reached the tip of the Yucatan Pen insula with the aid of human smugglers from the infamously ruthless Los Zetas cartel. From there, the rest of the trip was hardly a cakewalk. As Puig and his fellow travelers holed up in a decrepit motel, his Los Zetas handlers threat ened him with a machetazo—a blow from a

machete—if he didn’t cough up the exorbitant, and ever-increasing, transportation fee. If that happened, he’d never play baseball again, and the entire defection ordeal would be moot.

Fortunately, Puig’s story ended happily: His underwriter—an air conditioner repairman from Miami named Raul Pacheco—cobbled together the money to pay the transportation fee. Once Puig made it to the United States, he signed a seven-year, $42 million contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers and became an instant fan favorite for his rabble-rousing behavior. Other Cuban ballplayers have also defected suc cessfully, as there were 19 Cuban-born players on the MLB opening day rosters last season. But this number is small considering the immense amount of baseball talent in Cuba, a country of 11 million.

The strained diplomatic relationship between Cuba and the United States means that Cubans have not been able to enter the MLB draft since 1961. Thus, in order to play in the MLB, players like Puig must renounce their Cuban citizenship and establish residency in a third country before signing with a team. This comes with grave risks: Cubans who defect are sometimes jailed by Cuba’s authoritarian government, forcing many to rely on violent human smugglers like Los Zetas for transpor tation. Recognizing this reality, former Presi dent Barack Obama allowed the MLB and the FCB to negotiate a deal as part of his efforts to normalize US-Cuba relations. Finalized in 2018, the posting agreement had similar terms to ones that the MLB had struck with professional leagues in Taiwan, China, and South Korea. As long as the MLB club signing the Cuban player paid a fraction of the contract to the FCB and the player was 25 or older, the athlete could live and play in the United States during the season and return to Cuba in the offseason.

The Trump administration nixed the deal in April 2019 before it could take effect, alleg ing that it was illegal under US sanctions. With the ball now in his court, President Biden must allow the MLB to renegotiate the 2018 posting agreement—not only to prevent dangerous and illegal trafficking, but also because baseball represents one of the few symbols of cultural common ground between the United States and Cuba. Allowing Cuban talent to travel freely and safely between the two countries would be an important symbolic step toward normal diplo matic relations.

By authorizing the reinstatement of the posting agreement, the Biden administration can disempower both human smugglers like Los Zetas and their enablers. Most Cuban play ers enter the United States by way of Mexico, creating demand for middlemen who arrange transportation, lodging, and communication

“With the ball now in his court, President Biden must allow the MLB to renegotiate the 2018 posting agreement—not only to prevent dangerous and illegal trafficking, but also because baseball represents one of the few symbols of cultural common ground between the United States and Cuba.”

with agents in the United States. Leonys Mar tin, a speedy center fielder who left Cuba at age 22, had to fork over nearly $1.35 million to the Mexican company Estrellas de Béisbol, which describes itself as an “academy that cultivates and trains amateur baseball players who desire to play professional baseball in the United States.” In a 2013 lawsuit, Martin claimed that he was kidnapped and extorted into signing a contract with Estrellas de Béisbol and alleged that the company is little more than a front for trafficking. With a reinstatement of the 2018 posting agreement, demand for the services of corrupt actors like Estrellas de Béisbol would evaporate. Likewise, renegotiating the agree ment will cut off a funding source from violent traffickers like cartels.

Opponents of the deal worry that it would bankroll an authoritarian regime with American dollars. Trump’s State Department, for exam ple, canceled the deal based on allegations that the FCB was an arm of the Cuban government. Since the agreement arranged for MLB teams to pay the FCB, it was deemed illegal under the trade embargo. But putting aside the legality of the agreement, we currently have the choice to empower either the Cuban government or vio lent human traffickers. Giving money to the for mer to impair the latter seems to be the safer option.

Right now, because navigating defection is so risky and paying off traffickers is so pricey, only players confident in their odds of signing a large contract with an MLB team take the plunge. But followers of the MLB know that some of history’s biggest stars were not consid ered promising prospects early in their careers.

By removing the potential peril from defection, the posting agreement would give more Cuban players a chance to play in the MLB.

Restoring the posting agreement could also play a role in normalizing US-Cuba relations. Baseball has long been a flashpoint for antago nism between the countries despite being a piece of cultural common ground. As relations soured in the 1960s, the MLB relocated the Havana Sugar Kings, a professional American farm team, from Cuba to the United States against the will of the Castro regime. Meanwhile, Fidel Castro politi cized baseball by plastering Communist Party slogans across stadiums and using significant public money to support Cuba’s baseball league. During détente in the 1970s, MLB commissioner Bowie Kuhn attempted to set up exhibition games in Cuba, but Cold War mentalities got in the way, and he canceled the games. The MLB’s relation ship with Cuba hardened after these failed over tures, and Kuhn officially forbade teams from making deals with Cuban players.

By reducing opportunities for cultural exchange, MLB rules have helped to preserve

mutual antagonism. But with a reinstatement of the posting agreement, both countries could benefit. As more Cuban players enter the MLB through the agreement, perhaps Cuban society would begin to seem less foreign to an Ameri can audience. Moreover, FCB players would be of greater interest to American baseball fans, prompting increased American media coverage of Cuban baseball. Meanwhile, Cuban play ers—being able to return to the island in the offseason—could offer a sober perspective to their friends, neighbors, and media on life in the United States. Currently, Cubans can only watch their countrymen play in the MLB using ille gal streaming services given the government’s restrictions on access to foreign media. With a deal codifying FCB players’ right to sign with MLB teams, the government might be forced to permit some American sports coverage.

Fostering these ties through baseball could also increase popular demand for an end to the sanctions. It is clear that the goal of the embargo—to choke the Cuban economy and force regime change—has not panned out. Reinstating the posting agreement, through promoting productive cultural exchange, would demonstrate to voters that normalizing rela tions with Cuba will have nothing but benign effects.

The posting agreement could also resurrect the professional relationships between Ameri cans and Cubans that existed before the imposi tion of sanctions. More MLB scouts would travel to Cuba, building relationships with players, the FCB, and even the Cuban government. Solidify ing these professional ties while the embargo remains in place will surely have to involve Amer ican diplomats. By forcing diplomats to produc tively engage with Cuba, the agreement could slowly instill anti-embargo sentiment within the State Department. More broadly, reinstating the deal could show that cooperation between Amer icans and Cubans is not only possible, but also mutually beneficial.

US sanctions on Cuba prevent meaningful cross-cultural exchange, fail to foster demo cratic reform on the island, and, worst of all, impoverish ordinary Cubans. In the world of baseball, they empower human traffickers and their enablers, putting ballplayers’ lives at stake. If Biden allows the MLB to restore the posting agreement, gone will be the days when playing baseball in the United States means risking a machetazo. Ending the embargo will, of course, require more than just reinstituting the posting agreement, but the cultural exchange and pro fessional relationships that the deal would foster could help initiate diplomacy.

“More broadly, reinstating the deal could show that cooperation between Americans and Cubans is not only possible, but also mutually beneficial.”

THE MOST DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

“It has been a long time since we last met, and I hope it will be a long time before we have to part.”

In his keynote address at the 2018 Boao Forum for Asia, Chinese President Xi Jinping quoted this line from an old Hainanese folk song. Less than a week later, the Chinese Com munist Party (CCP) announced that Hainan, an island province roughly the size of Taiwan located in the South China Sea, would be trans formed into a free trade port by 2025, making it

a central node of China’s economy. But despite its purported economic benefits, the CCP’s new initiative reveals a darker side to state-sponso red gentrification that threatens to upend the lives of thousands of Hainan’s natives.

Situated between the FTPs of Hong Kong and Singapore, Hainan has historically held limited commercial importance. Though foreign invest ment and immigration to Hainan have steadily increased in the last 30 years, it was not until the Hong Kong protests of 2018 that President

Ian Stettner ’25, an International and Public Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR illustrations by Leo Chan ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

Xi saw the need for a new international port in the region with stricter party control.

Hailed as a stroke of strategic and commer cial brilliance, President Xi’s initiative seeks to strengthen ties between mainland China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) by making Hainan an attractive desti nation for foreign firms. Alongside a reduction of income taxes and tariffs, the CCP’s policies seek to expand Hainan’s tourism industry by legalizing limited types of gambling, construc ting the largest duty-free shopping malls in the world, and supporting the growing surfing indu stry with expansive coastal development.

However, for some of Hainan’s locals, the transformation of the island into an FTP may prove catastrophic. Tucked in the inlets of the southeastern coast of Hainan, communities of a little-known ethnic minority live their lives almost entirely at sea. The Shuǐshàng of Xincun Bay traverse the dark waters at night, returning from work to sell their catches at dawn. Their village is unconventional—a sprawling lattice of floating wooden docks connects hundreds of homes to schools, banks, and shops with most citizens rarely setting foot on dry land. Through centuries of cultural isolation and ingenious construction, Shuǐshàng people have found independence on the water. But with state-spon

sored gentrification looming, their traditional way of life is under threat.

As hotels crop up on the southern shores of Hainan, the local government has begun to demolish a Shuǐshàng floating village to make way for new tourism infrastructure. As of July 2021, Hainanese officials have seized and destroyed around one-third of the Xincun vil lage, with more evictions scheduled to follow. In an area where forced evictions have histori cally been marked by brutal police enforcement, locals collectively dread the demolition of their village—an outcome that many perceive to be inevitable.

While evictions unmistakably threaten to upend the Shuǐshàng people’s way of life, Hai nan’s rapid modernization presents subtler challenges as well. Increased tourism and con struction around the island have led to shoc king rates of coral depletion, with the coral population dropping by more than 80 percent in the last three decades. The disappearance of seagrass meadows in the same region suggests that the ecosystem, which has sustained fis hing and sea urchin hunting for centuries, has already deteriorated substantially. For Xincun’s fishermen, the effects of coastline infrastructure development may soon become an existential threat.

“As of July 2021, Hainanese officials have seized and destroyed around one-third of the Xincun village.”

The destruction of the floating village is unfolding slowly: As new opportunities lure Xincun’s most capable workers to land, others are squeezed out through evictions. Those too young or too old for assimilation are left to fish in increasingly depleted waters, anxiously awaiting the day they will have to abandon their lives at sea. On land, the Shuǐshàng peo ple will face even greater hardships. Unable to bring their fish farms with them, many fisher men will be forced to sacrifice their life savings; with development projects increasing housing

prices across Hainan, most will have no choice but to seek refuge in the Chinese interior. If the CCP follows through with its initiative, Shuis hàng people will have to leave their traditional homes, leaving their communities fractured and creating a diaspora.

Despite the clear dangers of Hainan’s rapid gentrification, CCP-controlled media has begun to push an alternative narrative. State conglo merates like the China Global Television Net work (CGTN) and Thatsmags stress the dangers and unpredictability of sea life and encourage the movement of the Shuǐshàng people to shore.

One CGTN article represents a carefully curated image of the Shuishàng people as descendants of the Han Chinese thrust into the sea against their will, depicting their rich culture and tradi tions as important but ultimately at odds with what is best for future generations. The result is a media landscape with frighteningly few accounts of the Shuishàng evictions. Keyword

searches regarding the issue on Chinese search engines come up empty, and doubt about the demolitions continues to circulate despite satel lite imagery revealing that some villages have shrunk dramatically in the last five years.

For President Xi, Hainan’s rapid moder nization sets an example for the nation. In his own words, “Just as the radiance of the sun is reflected by a drop of water, the development of a country may be epitomized by an individual region.” If Hainan is his precedent, however, this should stand as a warning for the next Chi nese ethnic minority community caught in the crosshairs of President Xi’s developmental aspi rations.

For the Party, the issue of Hainan’s Shuǐshàng people is a waiting game. As time goes on, commercial development will make it increasingly difficult for humanitarian groups to protect the property rights of the Shuishàng people, and the Chinese media’s manipulation will quiet opposition. President Xi continues to reiterate his claims that “reform and opening up [have] given life and prosperity to Hainan.” But as the needs and desires of the Shuǐshàng people continue to be disregarded, it becomes increasingly clear that President Xi’s promise of prosperity was never meant for them.

“If Hainan is his precendent this should stand as a warning for the next Chinese ethnic minority community caught in the crosshairs of President Xi’s developmental aspirations.”

Make America More

by Sarah Roberts ’24, a Computer Science and Religious Studies concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR

infographic by Javier Niño Sears ’25 and Colby Porter ’24

In February 2022, the US House of Represen tatives passed the America COMPETES Act in response to the Senate’s June 2021 US Innova tion and Competition Act (USICA). Though both bills aim to improve the country’s ability to com pete economically with China and the rest of the world, they differ on one crucial front: immi gration. The America COMPETES act includes a section—Title III—with a two-fold proposal on entrepreneurial immigration, while the USICA does not mention any immigration reform. As immigration is crucial to improving the coun try’s competitive advantage in technological innovation, Congress must prioritize the Amer ica COMPETES Act and include Title III in the compromise between these two bills.

The first provision of Title III proposes the creation of an entirely new visa category for for eign national entrepreneurs. Foreign national entrepreneurs with at least a 10 percent stake in a startup entity with $250,000 of investment from qualified US investors would be eligible for a W nonimmigrant visa. This W visa would allow individuals to stay and work in the United States for an initial three-year period, which can be extended upon meeting further criteria. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that about 3,000 immigrants would come to the United States each year with a W visa, strength

ening the US economy by creating more than one million jobs in 10 years.

Though the W visa may appear to have simi lar goals and requirements as the existing Inter national Entrepreneur Rule (IER), this is not the case. The IER, an Obama-era law that was suspended by the Trump administration but recently revived by the Biden administration, is a federal regulation that creates a pathway for entrepreneurs to stay in the United States and start new businesses. Both the W visa and the IER require applicants to meet certain eligibil ity requirements regarding levels of investment from qualified American investors. Though the IER was just recently written into law in Octo ber 2021, the program has essentially suffered a bureaucratic death because well-known invest ment companies are reluctant to release the necessary confidential financial information

that the rule requires. The House bill would bypass this issue as the initial three-year period granted by the W visa would give companies more time to gather the necessary data to peti tion for visa extensions.

Another key difference between the two pathways for immigrant entrepreneurs is that the IER offers recipients temporary legal res idence and employment in the United States at the discretion of the President. In contrast, the W visa is a “dual intent” visa, meaning that a grantee can apply for Lawful Permanent Res ident (or “green card”) status if their company meets additional standards, offering a direct route to permanent residence.

Additionally, the America COMPETES Act includes a proposal that would enable STEM PhDs looking for work in their field in the United States a direct path to employment visas

and green card status. This process, commonly referred to as “stapling a green card to STEM diplomas,” has long circulated among science and innovation advocates as a way to encourage American-educated foreign talent to stay in the United States. Under this policy, foreign nation als with PhDs in STEM fields would be exempted from the annual green card caps, allowing them to avoid the massive immigrant visa backlog that many talented doctoral graduates—espe cially from India and China—are currently forced to endure.

The successful implementation of the W visa and the STEM PhD exception would be a majo boon to the US economy in years, given the myr iad contributions that foreign entrepreneurs make. Though immigrants only comprise about 13 percent of the US population, they account for 30 percent of all new, American-based entre

preneurs. Today, more than 40 percent of all Fortune 500 companies were founded by firstor second-generation immigrants, collectively employing over 10 million people worldwide. However, none of these entrepreneurs came to the country on a visa designed for startups. The United States is one of the only developed coun tries without something like a startup visa for international entrepreneurs; over 20 countries have such visas, including China. Should the Title III entrepreneurial immigration provisions be included in the final bill, they would play a key role in advancing the bill’s overall purpose of strengthening American competitiveness on the world stage.

Though the United States has long held a reputation as a land of opportunity, its outdated immigration system limits its ability to maintain a competitive advantage. In an era when Canada advertises for immigrant talent on American highway billboards and China pumps billions into its domestic startups, the United States must do more to welcome the next generation of entrepreneurs. Including Title III in the compromise of the America COMPETES Act and the USICA would incentivize the best and the brightest foreign nationals to establish and grow their businesses in the United States. This proposal would not only change the lives of these exceptionally talented foreign entrepreneurs, but it would also transform the US economy.

Throughout history, youth voices across the world have played integral roles in protest movements. Facing coordinated state violence since the February 2021 coup, young people in Myanmar have taken to the streets to protest for democracy. Uyghur youth are leading efforts to preserve their culture and resist the ethnic cleansing that the Chinese government is per petrating against their community. Both Russia and Ukraine, young people have spoken out against war, and some Russian youth have even been detained for participating in protests.

Despite the crucial role that youth—defined by the UN as those aged 29 and under—play in responding to conflict and shaping community politics, the United States currently lacks any comprehensive strategy to include them in miti gating armed conflict. The passage of the Youth, Peace, and Security Act (HR 4838) would correct this oversight.

This bipartisan bill would require a “whole-of-government strategy to promote the inclusive and meaningful participation of youth in peace building and conflict prevention, man agement, and resolution, as well as post-con flict and recovery efforts.” A Youth Coordinator would be appointed at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to lead

the development of this strategy by assisting grassroots youth movements.

With nearly one-third of refugees world wide under 18 years old, it is imperative that youth be included in the peace-building pro cess. Youth determine the future of their coun tries, and if their concerns are not addressed, conflicts are likely to reemerge. A coordinated US response that prioritizes the voices and perspectives of young citizens in war settings would make it possible to build a sustainable post-conflict world.

It is clear that youth across the world can cat alyze change. For example, young people played a pivotal role in sparking the Arab Spring pro tests throughout the Middle East, which led to massive political upheaval and, in some cases, violent conflict. Notably, the Independent Youth movement in Yemen helped mobilize the coun try to enact democratic change, initiating many of the protests against former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s administration. Yet despite their involvement in protests, youth are gener ally excluded from formal decision-making and peacebuilding processes.

HR 4838 is not just about enabling new modes of youth participation: It also aims to uplift and amplify the work youth are already doing around the world. The Youth Coordinator would be authorized to provide grants as well as emergency and technical assistance to youthled civil organizations and youth peacebuilders. This is especially important given the current difficulties small and local NGOs, particularly those led by young people, face when applying for funding from USAID—one of the main ave nues through which humanitarian and develop ment projects around the world can receive US financial support. However, the application pro cess to obtain funding from USAID is incredibly bureaucratic, time-consuming, and difficult to navigate, even for the most established organi zations. For young people around the world, lack of credibility and connections with USAID offi cials can serve as barriers to this financial sup port. Consequently, funding is often deferred to large, international NGOs, which offer critical

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

illustrations by Jacob Gong ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

“Despite the crucial role that youth play in responding to conflict and shaping community politics, the United States currently lacks any comprehensive strategy to include them in mitigating armed conflict.”

aid but often neglect the perspectives of those working on the ground. Lowering the barriers to financial resources for youth peace-builders is key to supporting Burmese, Ukrainian, Uyghur, and Yemeni youth organizers, in addition to many other young organizers who are fighting for their communities.

Civil society programs for youth focused on education, mental health services, and civic engagement are also crucial to support young people living in conflict-ridden areas. These services are often inaccessible when families are enduring violence and being displaced. The crumbling infrastructure of a nation absorbed in conflict is not conducive to youth develop ment: One in three young people between the ages of 5 and 17 in a country affected by conflict or disaster are out of school.

Education and other support services are critical not only for child development, health, and community building but also as an invest ment in peace. An education and civic engage

ment program in Somalia, for example, was associated with an approximately 50 percent decrease in people’s willingness to participate in or condone political violence over a six-year period. Supporting locally-led programs like these could foster a future that is safer for all people—one that promotes peaceful conflict resolution and political change.

The United States is behind in recognizing the power of youth involvement in global con flicts. UN Security Council Resolution 2250, passed in 2015, recognized the importance of youth in “shaping and sustaining peace” and called on countries to include youth in peace and security work. In 2020, the UN released its first progress report on youth, peace, and secu rity, finding that while recognition of youth’s role in establishing peace has increased, there are still many structural barriers to their par ticipation. Many peace processes are undemo cratic, opaque, and devoid of clear avenues for youth to effectively make their proposals visible to those with decision-making power. Moreover, youth have become increasingly disillusioned with their governments and international sys tems, signaling the urgency of granting them a democratic voice. Unfortunately, in the seven years since the passage of UN Resolution 2250, the United States has done very little to realize the UN’s youth, peace, and security agenda.

Implementation should be fairly straight forward: The proposed Youth, Peace, and Secu rity Act mirrors the Women, Peace, and Security Act passed by Congress in 2017. This law has successfully integrated national security pro tections for women and has included women in foreign policy, proving that the United States is able to restructure its peacebuilding processes to promote inclusivity.

An approach to peace that includes youth and their ongoing work in their communities has already proven effective. As global conflicts are sparked and persist, including in Ukraine and Myanmar, the tremendous human cost of that violence is on full display. American legis lators have a responsibility to promote peace through every means possible—first and fore most, by recognizing the Youth, Peace, and Security Act as a tool for achieving it.

“HR 4838 is not just about enabling new modes of youth participation: It also aims to uplift and amplify the work youth are already doing around the world.”

As a grotesque, albeit contained, conflict in Ukraine sows fear across the West, some are wondering who could be capable of sparking all-out war across Europe. It might well be Alek sander Vučić, the current President of Serbia. Standing at 6’6”, Vučić has a unique résumé compared to other European leaders: He’s a chess pro; he once yelled at a 7-year-old Croat for not supporting a Belgrade soccer team; and in February 2022, he presented Johnny Depp with the Gold Medal of Merit, a ceremony that moved Depp so much that it prompted him to say that he was “on the verge of a new life.”

When he is not bonding with Johnny Depp or screaming at children, Vučić rules Serbia with an iron fist. Despite Serbia’s recent turn to democracy after a century of authoritarian

by Ben Youngwood ’23, a Public Policy concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR illustrations by Kyla Dang ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

control, Vučić has relentlessly curtailed press freedoms and consolidated power since his 2017 election. This democratic backsliding caused Freedom House, a nonprofit that mon itors political liberties, to designate Serbia in “the gray zone” between pure autocracy and free democracy in 2020. Even so, Vučić scored a major landslide victory in the April 3 elections at all levels of government, securing his domi nance over Serbia.

While there are plenty of autocrats to go around Europe, Serbia’s political reality puts Vučić in a unique position. While Hungar ian leader Viktor Orbán leads a NATO country without serious geopolitical enemies, Vučić commands Serbia—a nation with long-stand ing hatred for some of its neighbors. And while Vučić, like Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko, is friendly with President Putin, he does not need Russian approval to start a war against his neighbors. So while many outlets dub Orbán and Lukashenko as “the twenty-first century dictator[s],” Vučić may actually hold the keys to continental bloodshed. Military action

against a NATO neighbor like Croatia, as Serbia has done before, could trigger a united Western military response yet to be seen in Ukraine. In his second term, Vučić is poised to continue squeezing democratic institutions, compli cating relations with the EU, and inflaming regional hostilities, posing perhaps the greatest current internal threat to European peace and stability. After all, one should never count out Serbia to start a world war.

Aleksander Vučić is no stranger to the war on free press. From 1998 until 2000, Vučić served as Information Minister under the bru tal Milošević regime, during which he imple mented the infamous Information Law to crush local media. Vučić oversaw aggressive crack downs on news outlets and mandated personal approval of all articles published by Serbian “opposition” media. Yet, rather than replicating Milošević’s use of murder, imprisonment, and banishment, Vučić has attempted the softer, more durable approach of undermining media credibility. Vučić has orchestrated carefully coordinated smear campaigns against unsup portive media outlets, drawing widespread criticism from the international community. While he is not immune to popular dissent, an emboldened second-term Vučić is well posi tioned to continue his crackdown on press free doms and shutdown of domestic opposition.

While Vučić’s first term featured attempts to join the EU, recent developments indicate that a second-term Vučić may have second thoughts. Vučić supported EU accession at the start of his presidency while maintaining good relations with Russia and China as part of his strategy to prevent Serbian isolation. But as Vučić launched his re-election campaign, he changed course. “We were very enthusiastic about the accession process—today we are not,” Vučić told a panel of EU and Balkan leaders. “We don’t care any more.” Vučić may wager that in a second term, fellow Russian and Chinese autocrats could make better friends than pesky Westerners obsessed with international law. Russia may have noticed the same thing, evidenced by Putin’s decision to send his top security envoy to Serbia days before invading Ukraine. Indeed, Serbia is the only country in Europe to keep its skies open to Russia and one of just two nations not on Russia’s official enemy list. That Vučić failed to capitulate to Western pressure one month from his re-election demonstrates his newfound willingness to blow off European security concerns in favor of his own interests. Vučić’s pivot away from the West and toward global autocrats during the war in Ukraine underscores his tolerance for international con demnation and sets the stage for Serbia to host a geopolitical crisis of its own.

Perhaps most importantly, after five years of moderate diplomacy with Kosovo, Vučić is slowly building hostility towards the new nation. Serbia still refuses to recognize Kosovo, an autonomous region of Serbia from 1963 that faced brutal conflict after the dissolu tion of Yugoslavia until its 2008 declaration of independence. When discussing Kosovo, Vučić tries to play the victim, portraying his nation as the target of a relentless Western humilia tion campaign. Vučić has applied this logic to recent multilateral negotiations: After EU-led talks last July, Vučić claimed—incorrectly—to have accepted all three major negotiating points while Kosovo accepted none.

WWI parallels aside, it’s not outlandish to assume fervent Serbian nationalism could spark a world war. EU High Representative Josep Bor rell and Kosovar president Vjosa Osmani have both explicitly warned of the increased threat of Serbian aggression. Concerningly, Vučić is carefully positioning Kosovo’s NATO pros pects as a fundamental attack on Serbia. After Osmani requested expedited NATO member ship this February, Vučić was outraged, arguing the request was merely the result of “pressures and blackmail” from “[Kosovo’s] lobbyists’ in the EU and the [United States].” But Vučić did not stop there: “Serbia will preserve its territo rial integrity,” he affirmed immediately after wards, reiterating his insistence that Kosovo is a part of Serbia. While Vučić has twice said that the Kosovo situation will remain a “frozen con flict” without compromise, he is pushing Ser bia away from the EU and toward Russia, away from negotiation and toward the very conflict of which he warns.

Should Kosovo attain NATO membership, Vučić has positioned Serbia to act militarily against its neighbor, potentially sparking a con tinental or global bloodbath. Admitting Kosovo to NATO would symbolize in no uncertain terms that much of the West intends to protect the region from a Serbian attack. But Kosovo’s accession to NATO would not be the nightmare scenario in itself, since doing so would likely provoke only significant public warnings from Serbia. The true nightmare scenario is one in which Vučić does not send clear signals of the threat of invasion months before its occurrence, as Putin did with Ukraine. The nightmare sce nario is one in which Vučić, emboldened by his second term landslide and the lack of interna tional attention paid to the Balkans, decides to act unexpectedly and, in so doing, launches the next world war. Given his tremendous power to instigate significant regional volatility with little warning, Vučić may soon be the most dangerous man in Europe.

How the US military could combat its manpower shortage

FIT TO SERVE

by Christopher Wai ’25, an Economics and Political Science concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR

illustrations by Jocelyn Chu ’23, a Biophysics concentrator

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine rages on, Western powers are undoubtedly assessing their own military capabilities. The US mili tary, despite eclipsing every other nation in defense spending, is facing an unexpected challenge: a shortage of manpower. The Uni ted States has experienced a steady decline in manpower since the end of the Cold War. This decline, combined with looming threats posed by rising powers, may prove a challenge to the United States’s military dominance. The best way to address this challenge is by adopting a two-part solution: The US military should simultaneously modernize its technological capabilities and revamp its recruitment pro cess to increase the size of its talent pool.

According to 2017 Pentagon data, more than 70 percent of Americans aged 17 to 24 are ineligible to serve, as 27 percent are overweight and nearly 32 percent have an additional dis qualifying health problem. Of those who apply to join the military, 15,000 fail their physical exams every year, and 30 percent fail the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), the military’s mental aptitude exam. The risks posed by having an unfit population are only compounded by the fact that the US military is currently an all-volunteer force, meaning that an abundance of alternatives in the job market has further diminished the public’s interest in pursuing military careers. The US military’s manpower shortage has already created real issues: In 2018, the US Army failed to meet its

recruiting goals by 8.5 percent, falling short by 6,500 soldiers. The lack of qualified personnel not only impacts conventional operations but also affects advanced units, like Marine Recon naissance personnel. With a more demanding selection and training process compared to conventional units, special operations units are especially hard hit by the lack of suitable personnel. Moreover, because the United States has engaged in more unconventional warfare in the past few decades, the need to deploy top-tier units for limited military operations has expo nentially increased. The US military’s struggle to fill these ranks drains its operational capa bilities and diminishes the country’s ability to compete with its rivals in unconventional ope rations.

To address the manpower shortage, the US military should first embark on an internal modernization and reorganization campaign. By improving resource allocation and incre asing reliance on technology, human resources within each force can be better deployed and developed with more focus. The Marine Corps is setting a good example: In 2020, it began a large-scale force redesign, doing away with its tank, bridging, and law enforcement battalions. Altogether, the newly envisioned Marine Corps will require 12,000 fewer Marines by 2030.

Incorporating more advanced techno logy across the US military would both reduce demand for manpower and improve military capabilities. The use of drones is a prime exam ple of how technology can improve operational effectiveness and preserve the lives of military personnel. Drones have served a pivotal role in modern warfare: With no human operators onboard, they substantially reduce the risk of harm to military personnel. Drones have also

acted as an effective force multiplier, signi ficantly improving the likelihood of mission success. Drones are able to gather intelligence with relatively low risk to friendly personnel in the battlefield, which allows military planners to integrate new information into their stra tegy and adapt to volatile battlefield conditi ons. These advantages increase the chances of a successful operation and reduce risks to US personnel both directly, by not requiring human pilots, and indirectly, by offering improved intel ligence.

The Marine Corps’s force redesign illustra tes how innovation can bolster the US military. Additional steps include increasing research and development of cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Leveraging these technologies, a small number of well-trained individuals could inflict substan tial damage to a rival nation’s infrastructure. If drones are any indication of the power of inno vation, then new technologies will alleviate the

demand for manpower while at the same time improving the US military’s capabilities.

The next step in tackling the issue of unfit personnel in the US military’s recruitment pool involves domestic policy reform. Obesity is no longer merely a health issue—it has become a national security issue: The obesity epidemic has rendered the nation incapable of producing a sizable force should a military draft be reinsta ted. Thus, it is imperative to combat obesity and unhealthy lifestyle choices on a national level. Federal campaigns to emphasize health and fitness in early education can help prevent obe sity from an early age and work in tandem with

existing programs that actively try to reduce obesity among adults. Additionally, providing recruiters with resources like training pack ages, courses on fitness and nutrition, and aid in using fitness technology would help indivi duals that are currently unfit to serve join the military.

Beyond revamping recruitment efforts and better equipping recruiters, the current recruitment structure should be revised. Unifying recruitment efforts across the Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, and Coast Guard, as well as appointing trained personnel to posi tions of leadership in recruitment, would increase organizational efficiency. By making recruitment a joint effort, redundant ele ments could be removed, thereby allowing branches to use fewer resources to target the same population set. Additionally, market information such as aptitude test results or job interests should be shared more transpa rently between branches, allowing for a more coordinated effort to recruit suitable candi dates for each respective branch. Currently, the past five generals who have led the Army Recruiting Command have never served in a recruitment capacity, creating a potential mismatch between skills and position. By implementing substantial structural changes to current recruiting systems, the US military may be able to tackle the threats posed by its declining manpower.

As new global powers threaten US hege mony, the United States will increasingly face pressure to assert itself as a leader capable of maintaining the liberal world order. The cur rent manpower shortage must be confronted with a two-front solution that addresses both the need to increase the number of eligible and qualified recruits and the possibility of a future in which the United States relies less on manpower. Only then can the United States continue its hegemony and guarantee the security of the current world order and the relative peace it has afforded the world at large.

“Incorporating more advanced technology across the US military would both reduce demand for manpower and improve military capabilities.”

by Maya Rackoff ’24 illustrations by Jinghong Chen ’23

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Maya Rackoff (MR): Do you think the legal definition of a refugee needs to be broadened?

Lenni Benson (LB): Yes. Part of the current legal definition is a legacy of the aftermath of World War II and the Cold War. In the United States, we often focus on people displaced by fascism or by the Holocaust in Europe. But there were people displaced by war throughout the world, such as in the Philippines and Southeast Asia. The nations of the world really struggled with how to respond to this surge of refugees. They found a narrow definition of “refugee” that both the Soviet powers and the Western allies would find tolerable.

One of the key aspects of that definition is that it refers specifically to a person outside of their country of origin or nationality. Right away you think, “Well, what about all those people who were resisting totalitarian regimes inside their countries?” During the Cold War, the governments of Cuba and other commu nist countries didn’t want their citizens to be able to seek refugee status while they were still inside national boundaries because it would create rebellion, insecurity, and chaos. Thus, the distinction of people inside versus outside their country of origin was made a key part of the definition.

MR: A major issue with international humanitarian law is that it’s really hard to get people to vote for policies that they don’t understand will directly benefit them. How do you reconcile this as a refugee and immigrant advocate?

LB: I grew up in Arizona and was predomi nantly surrounded by Republicans, so I learned to make economic arguments first. A lot of very respected economists have shown that immi

Rethinking our Refugee and Immigration Systems

Lenni Benson is the Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law at New York Law School. She founded the Safe Passage Project, a nonprofit organization that provides legal support to refugees and immigrants facing deportation. Benson has won multiple national awards for her service and leadership in immigration law teaching and reform. She has published books on immigration law and migrant children, as well as numerous academic articles on immigration and the refugee crisis. She is also currently a Senior Fellow at Immigrant ARC, a nonprofit working to expand legal services to immigrants.

grants, at every education level, contribute more to public benefits than they take out. Even unauthorized migrants contribute through sales and real estate taxes paid as part of home ownership or passed on by landlords. Many also pay personal income tax even though they don’t have formal authorization to work. Law ful immigrants pay into our systems as well, of course. Additionally, people don’t realize that few benefits are available to even lawfully resid ing immigrants. They might get emergency medical treatment, but they are not going to qualify to buy insurance in a health exchange. Congress has put severe restrictions on being able to buy into the health care exchanges cre ated with the Affordable Care Act.

One of the arguments for increasing our quota for employment-based visas is that one out of two businesses in the tech industry are created by immigrants. Sixty percent of the people doing graduate degrees in STEM are foreign-born and are on student visas. One million foreign students attend US educational institutions, and in many places, they pay full tuition and subsidize the cost of going to col lege for the local students. Places like Northern Kentucky and Indiana, which you never would think about as being immigrant centers, have huge populations of foreign students recruited by these institutions because it helps to keep the cost of education down in that state.

MR: This semester you’ve been on leave from New York Law School to work full time on Afghan resettlement and evacuation.

Can you talk about the work you’re doing?

LB: When the president announced the Afghan evacuation, I began to see concerns by a num ber of human rights groups, military veterans, and current military people about needing to

evacuate our allies. Really, there was a remark able evacuation. It wasn’t 100 percent suc cessful at all, but the estimates are that about 70,000 people were brought out in less than a month’s time. Congress responded positively with funding and support to help these people as well.

I am now trying to expand the approaches beyond refugee processing to aid those Afghans left behind. I began with lecturing, preparing webinars, and going to meetings with other organizations. What I’m trying to do is build a network of experienced business and family immigration lawyers who will mentor other lawyers, nonlawyers, and students who are stepping forward to volunteer. You and stu dents at Brown could go to your international student office or your provost and say, “Do we have any open positions?” Let’s say right now, looking on Brown’s job board, you see that there’s a position open for an accountant. That could be an Afghan accountant. And those are the people the Taliban might want to target due to their past employment in the public or NGO sector or due to their education.

Many industries have a short supply of workers right now. There are Afghan people in danger who could fill those jobs. Women don’t have as much freedom in Afghan society, but they might be cooking for 20, 30, 40 people at a time, and so they could be a cook in a restau rant. A sponsoring US business owner could sponsor an Afghan, rescuing the cook, her spouse, and her minor children. While it has to be a good-faith future job offer, there is no obligation to employ the person forever. How ever, once the person is sponsored through employment based immigration, she or he has permanent residence and can work lawfully in the United States.

by Omri Bergner Phillips ’24, an International and Public Affairs Concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR

illustrations by Rosalia Mejia ’23, an Industrial Design major at RISD

Not in My Ecosystem

On March 3, 2022, the California Supreme Court dealt a major blow to UC Berkeley when it ruled that the university must keep its enrollment at its 2020 levels. In a 4 to 2 ruling, the court upheld Alameda County Judge Brad Seligman’s order that Berkeley must halt construction on new housing developments and maintain its current enrollment levels. The plaintiff in the case, Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods, successfully argued that the university’s plan to construct more housing for Berkeley students and faculty did not consider the effects of increased enrollment

on surrounding neighborhoods, thus violating a piece of longstanding environmental legislation known as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Even though the university may not ultimately have to cap enrollment because recent legislation provides Berkeley with other avenues to comply with the court’s decision, the question of whether the university will have to decrease enrollment is in itself significant. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the lawsuit by Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods is indicative of a broader, more troubling trend: the strategic

Environmental legislation in California has been co-opted by wealthy citizens seeking to prevent development in their neighborhoods

misuse of CEQA and similar environmental laws in the United States by anti-development acti vists. If lawmakers are serious about fighting cli mate change, they must design climate-friendly legislation that cannot be exploited.

Passed in 1970 under then-governor Ronald Reagan, CEQA subjects state and municipal development projects to reviews by environmen tal impact reports (EIRs) prior to construction. While EIRs vary in format, they must include options for the mitigation of a given project’s negative effects on the environment. The drafts are subject to public review for set periods after they are submitted. But CEQA’s broad purview consists of poorly-defined terms: The act covers all public and most private projects, and it makes few recommendations for the specific content of EIRs, which, in turn, can balloon to thousands of pages in length. The result? The legislation has become a tool wielded by anti-development activists for causes with weak connections to environmentalism.

Not only has CEQA been applied to prevent the construction of housing for the homeless, but it has also gained notoriety for its use in stymieing projects like bike lanes, which have well-documented environmental benefits. A revealing study conducted by law firm Holland & Knight found that CEQA lawsuits often obstruct transit, renewable energy, and dense multifa mily housing developments and that nearly two-thirds of the plaintiffs in CEQA suits had no history of pro-environment work. Holland & Knight has long supported significant changes to CEQA, and for good reason: Delaying new con struction developments doesn’t automatically help the environment.

Beyond its environmental problems, CEQA has equity issues, too. By centering litigation— an avenue more easily pursued by the wealthy— in the environmental review process, it lends disproportionate power to California’s most elite. Indeed, Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods is headed by former investment banker Phil Bok ovoy. Wealthy Californians who can afford to file frivolous and expensive lawsuits have repeatedly used CEQA to block low-income housing propo sals in their neighborhoods. Plaintiffs in CEQA suits can even remain anonymous, obscuring the interests at play in any given case. Conversely, while environmental advocates have won some choice victories on their behalf, low-income and Spanish-speaking Californians are less equipped to use CEQA to halt the forward march of oil dril ling in their neighborhoods, which research has shown to cause significant health problems for residents. CEQA’s “self-executing” status means its enforcement is left to the public rather than

“Can the public be trusted to defend its own environmental interests? Numerous examples of CEQA’s misuse show that the answer is often that it cannot.”

a state agency. If members of the public are not informed or well-resourced enough to file litiga tion, this status can essentially greenlight the progression of harmful developments.

Thankfully, some California legislators recognize that CEQA is in dire need of an over haul. San Francisco’s Democratic State Senator Scott Wiener recently introduced SB 922, a bill that exempts projects like bike and bus lanes from the CEQA process. Despite significant criticism of the legislation’s numerous flaws in the wake of the Berkeley decision, CEQA still remains standing after 52 years. The act still has some defenders who argue that CEQA plays a key role in ensuring that members of the public—particularly those whose voices fre quently go unheard—get a say in determining the landscape of their communities.

Their argument raises a broader question: Can the public be trusted to defend its own environmental interests? Numerous examples of CEQA’s misuse show that the answer is often that it cannot, as discontented Californians have frequently prioritized their desire to main tain their neighborhood ‘character’ over making

progress on the state’s long-term environmental goals. And legislation that aims to grant power to the public in the decision-making process over developments frequently confers power to the most monied members of the public, as CEQA has. Looking past the philosophical point about public input in neighborhood develop ment, then, there is a much simpler argument against CEQA: Other states seem to be doing fine without legislation like it. Just 15 states besides California have their own environmental policy acts, and none of them are as expansive in their reach as CEQA. Most of these acts stop at the regulation of state development projects. Only four others apply to municipal developments, and only Minnesota and New York’s apply to a specific, narrow subset of private projects.

There are two logical fixes for CEQA: Repeal it entirely or severely restrict its scope to only state developments, striking local and pri vate projects from the law’s jurisdiction. Both of these fixes are potentially beneficial, given that states with more limited or non-existent environmental acts—like Virginia and Oregon, respectively—have both managed to curb ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) obstruction of dense housing developments, which evidence shows to be environmentally friendly. Repea ling CEQA altogether, though, may be a dras tic measure since the law does still have some utility in the fight for environmental justice in California. There are some milder yet still sig nificant opportunities for changing CEQA, such as expanding AB 1907’s CEQA exemption on housing for the homeless in Los Angeles to the whole state. More difficult to enforce—but more on-the-nose—might be a provision to exempt all California developments that demonstrably diminish pollution. All of these solutions would help CEQA fulfill its original mandate of protec ting the environment.

The CEQA debate highlights the difficult balancing act facing all environmentally-cons cious state governments, between ensuring that vulnerable people have a voice in their neighbor hood governance and preventing residents from acting only on their short-term, environmen tally unfriendly impulses. To correct the current imbalance toward NIMBYism, CEQA must be overhauled, as relying on carving out exempti ons to correct egregious outcomes is not a viable long-term strategy. More broadly, policymakers at the municipal, state, and federal levels must treat CEQA as a cautionary tale as they draft new climate legislation. To protect the environment in reality and not just in spirit, they must avoid vague guidelines, overly broad scopes, and blind deference to public input.

“Wealthy Californians who can afford to file frivolous and expensive lawsuits have repeatedly used CEQA to block lowincome housing proposals in their neighborhoods.”

Upholding a Rules-based International Order

by Anushka Srivastava ’24

illustrations by Jinghong Chen RISD ’23

Ambassador Keith M. Harper was US Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN Human Rights Council from 2014 to 2017 based in Geneva, Switzerland. He also served as a chair for Native American policy in President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and then as a member of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team in the Energy and Environment Cluster. For the lion’s share of his legal career, Ambassador Harper has represented Indigenous nations and individuals. He represented the plaintiff class of 500,000 Indigenous individuals and served as class counsel in the landmark American Indian trust funds lawsuit, Cobell v. Salazar. Ambassador Harper graduated from University of California, Berkeley with a BA in Sociology and Psychology and from New York University School of Law with a JD.

Anushka Srivastava (AS): How did you balance your personal politics with your duties as US ambassador?

Keith Harper (KH): I was fortunate enough to serve a pres ident in an administration where our values matched.

Barack Obama certainly stands out as a politician who saw the problematic nature of things like torture and using military power to solve international crises. I believe the United States should be advancing human rights, which his administration made a cornerstone of its foreign pol icy.

If there were differences between others in the admin istration and myself, they were fairly mild. Even when you’re playing a senior role in government, you recognize that you don’t get to make every decision. I normally was able to get a voice in the dialogue on things that were within the scope of my duties, but inevitably, some of

those calls were made by others, so I did not find it partic ularly challenging to balance.

For those who serve as career officers in the US For eign Service, they may encounter an administration or a president that is less consistent with their political views, but they accept that bargain when they decide to go into the field. Ultimately, you always have the choice. It’s a hard choice, but if the delta is too great between what you believe is right and what the administration believes is right, you can resign your position. Some people have done that, as seen during the Trump administration.

AS: How did you balance advancing human rights with other US foreign policy goals as ambassador?

When they were at odds, what usually prevailed?

KH: It’s a balance. It’d be naive to think that we promote and advance human rights without any other consider ation of national interests, be they economic, political, or military. However, there have been instances where our advancement of human rights took precedence in a clear way. The United States has no desire to unnecessar ily poke China in the eye, but on the floor of the Human Rights Council, I read a joint statement of 12 countries condemning China’s human rights record. At the time, China was attacking human rights activists and their law yers and then kidnapping people from Hong Kong. If we were serious about the human rights system, we had to make clear that this kind of a breach would not go unan swered. So we pushed back, and China took notice, and we think that that had a demonstrable effect on their attitudes and conduct. That’s an instance where we were steadfast in pursuing human rights despite our compli cated relationship with China.

AS: How is the war in Ukraine being treated from a standpoint of international human rights norms that have been carefully constructed and reinforced over the years? Why is this being treated differently than previous invasions?

KH: I see Ukraine as an inflection point in the interna tional rules-based order, which is a set of rules about how states have to act with one another and vis-à-vis individu als. Human rights concern that latter piece. And yes, there have been other invasions by various states in various places like Georgia and Crimea. One difference is that it’s quite obvious that Russia’s intent is to conquer Ukraine, and it would like to force Ukraine into a client state. That undermines certain base principles of international law that have been present since the UN was formed.

Firstly, the invasion breaches the territorial integrity of Ukraine because Russia is essentially trying to annex it. Smaller countries like the rule against breaching the ter ritorial integrity of another state because it protects them from being invaded at will by more powerful states. Pow erful states in Europe were taking each other’s territory for hundreds of years over several wars. As a result, they have understood that’s just not a formula for stability. The United States cares because we have fundamentally taken the position that when we can enforce this set of international rules to the fullest degree, we help set the

foundation for a more secure world. That security is what undergirds greater prosperity and development.

The second principle being violated is that of self-de termination. Ukrainians have clearly decided that they would like to have relations with the West to a greater degree. Well, that’s what we call self-determination. Every people has the right to this, including Ukrainians. The world sees this as different because it is such an extraor dinary breach of fundamental rules that protects every body’s interests internationally.

AS: How effective was the UN Human Rights Council resolution condemning Russia? What other tools can powerful countries wield to deter Russia?

KH: It’s incredibly powerful to have a vote like that in concert with other things. For one, it’s a clear indication between the two votes—the one at the UN General Assem bly and the one at the Human Rights Council—that Rus sia is the bad guy, and that helps to politically isolate it. Giving Russia a scarlet letter is important in international affairs, because that undermines the credibility of their future actions. On the other hand, it also emboldens the United States and EU to sanction Russia economically and financially.

These are political weapons, and they are helpful in the global debate about what should happen with Rus sia’s dangerous and incredibly inhumane, indiscriminate violence against the Ukrainian people. Relatedly, there have been other actors who have threatened this or that. China has flirted with the idea of military force against Taiwan. Well, now the West and most of the world has demonstrated that it will not stand by and let those kinds of things happen. At one level, you’ve got the impact it has on the Russian Federation in the Ukraine situation. But then you have broader, more systemic implications that should affect the calculus of other states considering sim ilar actions.

AS: How will Russia’s recent actions set the tone for the foreign policy of the United States and other countries moving forward?

KH: After the Trump years, there was a questioning of whether the West was in retreat. This demonstrates that we’re not in retreat. Not only that, but we are also prepared to stand steadfast for our values. That is a really import ant signal for the world, but it’s also an important signal internally for the United States. It demonstrates what we can still do. What has occurred by the uniting of Western democracies, and most of the world, has been gratifying in reaffirming that we can still have unification around an international rules-based order.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

“I see Ukraine as an inflection point in the international rules-based order.”

How DNA databases and genetic genealogy threaten our privacy

D E C E P T I O N D NA

by Sophie Forstner ’24, a Political Science and Education Studies concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR

illustration by Rosie Dinsmore ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

In 2016, a woman in San Francisco was sub jected to the intrusive process of a rape kit after suffering domestic violence and sexual assault. She hoped that the kit’s collected sample would provide evidence against her assailant, but she never expected that law enforcement would use it against her.

The woman’s DNA sample was incorporated into the San Francisco Police Department’s database, and five years later, the police used this DNA to identify the woman as the suspect in a burglary case. The woman’s lawyer described this as “the ultimate betrayal and revictimiza tion at the hands of authorities and people that she sought help and protection from.” Upon learning about the origin of the genetic sam ple, the district attorney dropped the case. The woman is now planning to sue the city, but one lawsuit is not enough to protect against similar invasions of privacy. Likewise, policy changes at the local level will not provide sufficient pro tection against these constitutional violations. Instead, the federal government must restrict

“While these companies technically give their customers the choice to enable law enforcement to access their data, because customers are automatically opted in, many give up their data without understanding the gravity of their choice.”

law enforcement’s DNA collection, storage, and usage across the country.

Under the DNA Identification Act of 1994, only genetic samples from specific categories of people can be included in the National DNA Index System. These include convicts, arrest ees, detainees, unidentified human remains, and missing persons and their relatives. A per son whose data is in this database can petition for expungement if their conviction has been overturned or their charges dropped. Although there are strict privacy protections at the federal level, state and local databases are not subject to these same regulations. As the San Francisco case demonstrates, these databases sometimes include samples collected from victims of sex ual assault.

Many of these databases also include data collected from genetic and ancestry testing ser vices. Although large companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.com have restricted government access to their data, lesser-known companies like GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA allow their data to be used by law enforcement. While these companies technically give their customers the choice to enable law enforcement to access their data, because customers are automatically opted in, many give up their data without under standing the gravity of their choice.

Supreme Court jurisprudence suggests that collection of DNA samples should be unconstitutional per the Fourth Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and sei zures.” In the 1976 case United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court established the third-party doctrine, which states that individuals who sur render their information to a third party like a bank or internet service provider have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Lewis F. Powell argued that bank records contain information forfeited to a financial institution and thus could not be defined as constitutionally protected “private papers.”

In the 2017 case Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court limited the scope of the third-party doctrine, ruling that it does not apply to cell phone records indicating a person’s location. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that reasonable expectations of privacy have transformed in the digital age, which makes precedent on this issue unreliable. Roberts argued that tracking locations through cell phone records is certainly intrusive enough to violate expectations of pri vacy, especially because cell phone users are

often unaware of their providers’ data collection practices. Under Chief Justice Roberts’s logic, collecting DNA samples from genetic tracking services should also be found unconstitutional. A person’s DNA is more intimately personal than their location, and samples are often col lected without the subject’s explicit consent.

One of the most common arguments in favor of genetic forensics is its ability to deter future crimes. Supporters argue that people will be less likely to commit minor crimes if they know that conviction for these crimes could put them in genetic databases and, in turn, con nect them to future crimes. A 2020 study from the Manhattan Institute concluded that add ing people convicted of violent felonies to DNA databases reduces recidivism by 17 percent over five years. However, this effect can only function if the databases are restricted to criminals. The DNA from the rape kit in San Francisco should never have been included in a database, as she was the victim, not the perpetrator, of a crime.

If victims of sexual assault are made aware that the government can gain access to their genetic information when they report these crimes, these victims will be even further disincentiv ized to come forward with allegations. Accord

“If victims of sexual assault are made aware that the government can gain access to their genetic information when they report these crimes, these victims will be even further disincentivized to come forward with allegations.”

ing to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, only 31 out of every 100 sexual assaults are reported. Given this dismal statistic, society needs to be encouraging survivors to report assaults, not discouraging them. Victims of sex ual assault and domestic violence should not have to choose between reporting a crime and maintaining their privacy.

The use of genetic genealogy further com plicates the issue. This controversial practice occurs when law enforcement finds a DNA sam ple of a criminal’s family member and uses it to identify a suspect. The most prominent exam ple of this technique was the identification of the Golden State Killer in 2018, who raped and killed women from 1976 to 1979. Police finally determined the culprit when they discovered a partial match for the DNA found at the crime scene within a sample on GEDmatch. They then narrowed their search to this person’s relatives and identified Joseph James DeAngelo as the Golden State Killer. Though some hailed this as an impressive achievement of genetic forensics, others saw it as a dangerous violation of DeAn gelo’s right to privacy and Fourth Amendment protections.

Even more egregious abuses of genetic genealogy have taken place in recent years. In Georgia in 2018, two detectives came up to Eleanor Holmes outside her house and asked for her DNA. They explained that they were attempting to identify human remains found in Florida that they suspected were from a relative. Holmes consented and allowed the detectives to swab her cheek. Days later, she discovered that these detectives had lied to her: They were not actually identifying remains but rather trying to build a case against her son by matching his DNA to a sample found at a crime scene. Holmes felt betrayed by the police officers and believed that she was not informed enough to be able to consent to the sample collection. The lack of informed consent in this situation illustrates that, without strict regulations on genetic data collection, law enforcement will violate citizens’ privacy rights.

In 2021, Montana and Maryland became the first two states to pass laws restricting and regulating the use of genetic genealogy by law enforcement agencies. In Maryland, the new legislation allows the tactic to only be used in investigations of serious crimes like murder and rape, requires a judge’s signoff, and limits the investigators to using only genealogy websites that follow specific privacy policies. The Mon tana law is even more restrictive: Investigators must be issued a search warrant before obtain ing search results from a consumer DNA data base unless the information is from a consumer who has previously waived their right to privacy. These laws offer a roadmap for other states look ing to safeguard the use of genetic data by law enforcement.

Although these new state laws are a step in the right direction, they are not enough to ade quately protect our reasonable expectation of privacy. These laws focus primarily on the use of DNA samples. However, one of the biggest threats to our fundamental privacy rights comes from the very fact that law enforcement col lects these samples in the first place. Congress must introduce legislation requiring state and local governments to adopt similar standards to those of the DNA Identification Act of 1994. Additionally, genetic genealogy should be more heavily regulated to prevent any possible abuse by law enforcement. At a minimum, the govern ment should pass nationwide restrictions akin to those in the Maryland and Montana laws. If the federal government fails to act, no one in the country can be confident that their genetic data is not being stored in a government database.

“Congress must introduce legislation requiring state and local governments to adopt similar standards to those of the DNA Identification Act of 1994.”

TEMPORARILY PROTECTED, PERMANENTLY IN LIMBO

As the Russian invasion rages on in Ukraine, countries from around the world have come together to support Ukrainian refugees. Poland, Moldova, and other bordering countries are allowing refugees in by the millions. The global community has responded to the crisis by donating millions of dollars to charities and granting refugee status to Ukrainian people. One nation, however, has notably neglected to grant refugee status to those fleeing Ukraine: the United States.

On March 3, 2022, the Department of Home land Security announced that it will be granting Ukrainians—both those currently in the United States and those fleeing to it—Temporary Pro tected Status (TPS) for 18 months. TPS is an immigration distinction that allows nationals from certain designated countries to live in the United States for a short period. While this response may seem adequate at first glance, the reality facing immigrants that come to the United States with TPS is much darker.

The origins of TPS lie in the Immigration Act of 1990, through which Congress granted the attorney general the authority to provide temporary protection to immigrants who can not return to their own countries due to safety concerns. The problem with TPS, however, is that even though it was meant to be used for only short-term situations, such as natural

disasters, it has come to be used as a quick way for the United States to take in individuals who really should have been granted refugee or asy lum seeker status. According to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, being granted TPS “does not lead to lawful permanent resident sta tus or give any other immigration status.”

Part of the reason US presidents are so quick to grant TPS is that it is incredibly difficult for refugees and asylum seekers to gain admittance into the United States through other avenues. The main difference between these two desig nations is that a refugee applies for their status outside of the country they’re moving to, while an asylum seeker claims asylum upon arrival in their new country.

To legally become a refugee, one needs an official referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and even then, admittance is not guaranteed. Attaining asylum seeker status takes less time, but asylum seekers receive less guidance on resettling in the United States. Both processes can be incredibly difficult for those living far from the United States, not to mention lengthy and inefficient; if someone’s admittance to the country as an asylum seeker is denied, their legal status is in limbo as immi gration courts process their case.

by Mira Rudensky ’25, a History concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR illustrations by Nicholas Edwards ’23, an Illustration major at RISD

How the granting of Temporary Protected Status serves as a crutch to avoid more meaningful action towards asylum seekers

While TPS does not preclude someone from applying for asylum, it is extremely difficult to navigate the asylum process, especially because immigration courts do not receive sufficient funding. Yet, many TPS recipients are being persecuted in their own countries and should truly be granted asylum without having to jump through legal and bureaucratic hoops. For these individuals, asylum status is far more benefi cial than TPS because it does provide a direct path to permanent citizenship. And, perhaps more importantly, the status of asylum holders is much less vulnerable to the changing winds of America’s political climate than that of TPS holders.

The transitory nature of TPS became acutely clear during the Trump administration. On September 14, 2020, former President Trump revoked TPS designation for immigrants from El Salvador, Sudan, Nicaragua, and Haiti. This sudden move left TPS recipients only six months to find a way to gain legal status or risk being deported. Many of the 300,000 residents put at risk for deportation have lived in the United States for decades. In fact, more than half of Sal vadoran and Honduran migrants with TPS have lived in the United States for over 20 years, as well as 16 percent of Haitian migrants. These individuals have built lives here; often, their children have not known any other home.

A young woman from New Jersey named Liane Taracena held back tears as she described the pain that she felt when thinking of her mother, who was unable to watch her go off to college due to the uncertainty regarding her TPS. “[N]ow that I am finally going to college,

it’s kind of bittersweet,” Taracena said in a video produced by the American Friends Service Com mittee in support of TPS. “It’s exciting…but we run the risk of her possibly not being able to witness that with me. It’s something that we’ve worked so hard for, and she’s probably not going to be there for that.”

TPS does fulfill a certain niche in our coun try’s immigration process for those fleeing short-term crises. But the problem is that poli ticians lean on TPS instead of trying to expand who and how many people can be granted asy lum. The recent Supreme Court ruling Sanchez v. Mayorkas has made it even more difficult for TPS recipients to attain permanent legal status. Now, many TPS holders must leave the United States and apply for a visa to gain legal status, a process that can take up to 10 years.

It is a deep failure of our immigration sys tem that the president can unilaterally take away the legal status of hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades. And it expresses a deep cru elty that the country would allow TPS recipients to live in a constant state of uncertainty of their status being revoked. Amidst the quagmire of US immigration law, it is understandable why President Biden would grant TPS to Ukrainians. Still, TPS is merely a Band-Aid for a fundamen tally broken system.

A good start to fixing this system is creating a way for those granted TPS to gain legal per manent residency more easily. Fortunately, this is a plan the Biden administration, along with House Democrats, have already introduced. President Biden has requested that Congress work on legislation that would allow TPS recip ients to gain permanent resident status directly through the program, which reaffirms his com

mitment to helping refugees despite the rapidly falling numbers of refugees that the United States is taking in. He has proposed to allow TPS recipients to apply for a green card immedi ately upon receiving their status. These changes would also make TPS holders eligible to apply for citizenship only three years after receiving their green card, an accelerated timeline com pared to most green card holders.

Granting Ukrainian refugees TPS is merely a temporary solution to the fastest growing ref ugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Still, increased political scrutiny of TPS could pave the way for real, necessary changes in the usage of TPS and the treatment of TPS recipients. The Biden administration’s new push to reform TPS could fundamentally improve the lives of those with TPS designation. Hopefully, it will be a step in the right direction in terms of revitalizing the United States’s floundering treatment of asylum seekers from around the world.

“It is a deep failure of our immigration system that the president can unilaterally take away the legal status of hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades.”

by Léo Corzo-Clark ’25 illustrations by Jinghong Chen RISD ’23

A Local Approach to California Education

Dr. Michael W. Kirst is Professor Emeritus of Education and Business Administration at Stanford University and the longest serving President of the California State Board of Education, serving from 1977 to 1981 and again from 2011 to 2019. Dr. Kirst received his BA in Economics from Dartmouth College, his MPA in Government and Economics from Harvard University, and his PhD in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University. Dr. Kirst is a cofounder and advisory board member of an education policy think tank called Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE).

Léo Corzo-Clark (LC): You’re considered the mastermind behind the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), a landmark California education law that restores more control to school districts and provides greater funding for districts serving foster youth, English learners, and low-income students. How should local control be balanced with state control, especially since the former can lead to socioeconomic segregation while the latter can lead to less funding for certain areas?

Dr. Michael Kirst (MK): The LCFF led to two big changes for California. One was local control and the other was a formula that had a new concept of school finance. School finance has always had weighting where you give higher amounts to low income kids, but our con ceptual change was a belief that where there are very high concentrations of low-income pupils—which in California often correlates with English learners—you need even more money. We put in a formula where, in districts that had over 55 percent concentrated poverty, we increased their spending allotment by 50 percent per pupil.

Now, as to local control, California is a behemoth and it’s very complex. After 40 years of working together, Governor Jerry Brown and I became humble about how much we could really figure out exactly what the locals should spend their money on. We used to tell the districts exactly what to do, and categorical programs were all arranged in the 1970s when I was there in California. With LCFF, the idea was to take off all these earmarks, so you get out of telling them how to educate children and ask instead: “What are your results?” And if the results aren’t any good on a dashboard of indi

cators, then we’re going to be offering support and intervention and all those sorts of things.

You’re not putting full trust in the locals, but you’re not trying to tell them how to educate children. The balance is much more “let the districts figure out how to spend their money, but hold them accountable for what they pro duce.”

LC: Looking back, do you think the LCFF, almost a decade after it was first implemented, is doing enough to remedy education funding inequities compared to the old system, which was predominantly based on local property taxes?

MK: If you buy into the concentration theory and its effects on education, then I don’t know of a better formula in the United States. I think it’s beyond the ability of the state to control how money is split up by districts, between the central office and the schools, and which schools for that matter. If the state tries to touch any of that, it’s going to get back to too much control. So yes, I’m pretty happy with it.

If you’re asking, “What didn’t we do right?” I guess I would say the big thing we didn’t do right was we never built up the capacity of our teachers and our administrators to teach the complex, demanding curriculum we have. So, if you remember that, then you have got to think, “How do you link funding to that?”

That’s really a state role, so what I’m proposing is that the state should be building the capac ity. We can’t rely on the districts to do that—we learned that from LCFF. Districts just didn’t put in enough money and, in my view, you can only accomplish so much with funding. It’s the array of policies you put around it.

LC: Other states still mainly rely on property taxes for school funding, and, while this is less equitable, they still have higher average per pupil funding than California. Do you think that other states should still look toward adopting a funding model like California’s LCFF?

MK: Yes, you’re pointing out the difference between equity and adequacy. With LCFF, we said from the very beginning we’re not address ing adequacy. We will take whatever money the state has and make it equitable. The way other states do it is through a school finance con cept called power equalization, which basically means that the state will set a minimum level of funding, and whatever local property taxes can’t raise, the state will come in and cover the rest. If you have local control and no power equalization and no state redistribution, then you’re gonna have inequity between districts with different property values.

California doesn’t do power equalization because we essentially have full-state assump tion of financing. Most states have a mixture of state and local financing, so they have to each come up with a formula or equalize their local share, which California doesn’t have to worry about, because we take all our local money and drag it into Sacramento. I think we have the better formula—the best formula, really—but without that local component, we can’t com pete in funding with other states like New York or Connecticut that have big local property taxes. The bottom line is that no matter how equitable you make the funding formula, if there’s not enough money to go around, you’re going to have problems.

*This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The Secret’s Out

Expanding coverage under the ACA means expanding confidentiality for adult dependents

by Zoey Katzive ’24, an International and Public Affairs Concentrator and Data Director for BPR

infographic by Elsa Choi-Hausman ’24 and Raima A. Islam ’25

In the early spring of 2010, former President Barack Obama addressed a crowd of 300 law makers and supporters who eagerly gathered to celebrate the most monumental accomplish ment of his administration. “We are not a nation that scales back its aspirations,” Obama pro claimed, but “a nation that does what is hard, what is necessary, what is right.” His audience cheered the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became law just a few moments after the president concluded his speech.

The bill, also known as Obamacare, was designed to guarantee access to adequate healthcare for all Americans. The numbers speak for themselves: According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, the number of uninsured nonelderly adults decreased by 41 percent nationwide between 2010 and 2016 thanks to the ACA. As of 2021, 14.8 million adults have enrolled in Medicaid due to expanded eligibility under Obamacare.

Among those individuals who gained access to healthcare in the 12 years following the pas sage of Obamacare were 2.3 million young adults. This unprecedented expansion of cov erage is thanks to a provision in the ACA that requires insurance providers to extend coverage to dependents on their parents’ or guardians’ insurance plans until they turn 26. Unfortu nately, however, lawmakers failed to ensure that patient confidentiality for dependents would be protected under this provision. Federal law requires health insurance companies to protect the confidentiality of patient information, but if there is a sole policyholder of an insurance plan that covers an entire family, that person will have access to insurance claims and the expla

nation of benefits (EOBs) for all plan members. In other words, an adult dependent between the ages of 18 and 26 has no federal protection of their health confidentiality if they choose to stay on their parents’ plan. In most cases, the details of adult dependents’ prescriptions will be acces sible to their parents.

The ACA’s confidentiality loophole is a major blow to efforts to improve the sexual health of teens and young adults. According to Kaiser Health News, although Americans aged between 15 and 25 account for nearly half of all STI cases, only 11.5 percent of this age group was tested for STIs in 2013. With stigma against premarital sex still prevalent in many parts of the country, it is likely that medical privacy con cerns deter sexually active young adults from seeking testing and treatment. The repercus sions of avoiding testing for fear of confidential ity leaks include complications from untreated infections, reluctance to acquire contraceptives, and refusal of abortion care.

A lack of dependent confidentiality may also disproportionately affect the mental health of young transgender people still under their par ents’ plan. When parents of transgender adult dependents do not support gender-affirming medical care, they are likely to use financial

leverage to coerce their children to end treat ment. According to a University of California Los Angeles Law survey, transgender adults whose identity was rejected by their parents were twice as likely to attempt suicide in the past year compared to those who did not expe rience rejection. When young people, especially transgender youth, are deprived of necessary treatment due to parental control, it can exacer bate existing mental health concerns.

Some states have acted against this unjust confidentiality loophole. In California, Colo rado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington, insurance providers must respect written confidentiality requests that ask to remove the adult dependent’s medical infor mation from bills, claims, and EOBs. New York and Wisconsin have also implemented confi dentiality protections that are specific to EOBs. While statewide legislation is a good starting point, insurance providers can still legally deny patients’ requests to conceal prescriptions in the other 42 US states.

“Unfortunately, lawmakers failed to ensure that patient confidentiality for dependents would be protected under this provision.”

“A lack of dependent confidentiality may also disproportionately affect the mental health of young transgender people under their parents’ plan.”

A push for a federal-level solution to this pervasive issue is necessary to protect the med ical rights of young people across the country. The confidentiality rights granted to adults in the 1994 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) must apply to those insured under their parents’ plan, or else the benefits of the dependent coverage provision of the ACA will be diminished.

The dependent coverage provision of the ACA was meant to help young people gain greater access to medical care, but the lack of guaranteed confidentiality undermines this goal. Even nearly 12 years after former Presi dent Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, President Joe Biden himself said, “We’ve made tremendous progress, but our work is far from over.” Policymakers and advocates must stand up for the rights of marginalized young adults by demanding that adult dependents’ confiden tiality remain secure from parental insurance policy holders.

“The ACA’s confidentiality loophole is a major blow to efforts to improve the sexual health of teens and young adults.”

With widespread financial hardship, and a society moving toward digital banking over cash, it has become increasingly common to ask for money on the internet.

Your Post Has Been Removed.

Written and illustrated by Olivia Lunger ’22, an Illustration major at RISD

It has also gotten harder.

But those asking for internet donations may have some of their proceeds simply not reach them.

GoFundMe automatically takes a 2.9 percent cut from every donation, plus an extra 30 cents. If you need to move money immediately, Venmo and Cashapp charge a transfer fee. Venmo raised their fees on May 23rd.

Once the post is ready, the next step is promotion. Social media seems like the best option, and it can’t be denied that a viral tweet can be the difference between $10 and $10,000.

What goes “viral,” however, is hard to determine.

And many users, forced to resort to crowdfunding out of life-threatening necessity, don’t have time to experiment.

Due to a recent push toward advertiser-friendly content, a bot/spam account problem, and a crackdown on monetization (largely targeting sex workers), some social media sites end up terminating donation posts automatically.

Many have to remake posts several times. Others censor by replacing Venmo with v3n//m0 or Cashapp with C@sh@ pp, to escape deletion.

The more we entrust our finances to digital corporations, the less control we have over them. All of this can make crowdfunding—or even asking for $20 to cover a meal—feel like a futile endeavor.

Will you get double the amount you asked

The post removed before anyone can see it?

Half?

An anonymous message telling you to get a job?

It’s impossible to know.

Have our magazine delivered directly to your mailbox by suscribing today.

brownpoliticalreview.org/subscribe