CPR Spring 2021 (XX,1)

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

EDITORIAL BOARD

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Olivia Choi

PUBLISHER

Rachel Barkin

MANAGING EDITORS

Janine Nassar

Heather Loepere

Chloe Lowell

CHIEF-OF-STAFF

Sarah DeSouza

PITCH MANAGER

Caroline Mullooly

POLICY 360 EDITOR

Ashley Tan

DESIGN EDITOR

Blake Jones

PUBLICITY EDITOR

Eleanor Yeo

STAFF

SENIOR EDITORS

Aditya Sharma

Raya Tarawneh

Adam Kluge

Oliver Niu

Daniel Kang

Eleanor Katharine Yeo

Kaili Fortich Meier

Annabel Kelly

Sarah Howard

John David Cobb

Timothy Kinnamon

Zachary Becker

Cameron Adkins

Jasmin Butler

Ellie Gaughan

Rachel Krul

Annie Tan

Roshan Setlur

Serena White

Leena Yumeen

Charles Wallace

Virginia Lo

Brian Perlstein

Carina Layfield

JUNIOR EDITORS

Deepa Irakam

Eli Baucom-Hays

Elina Arbo

Geena García

Haley Chung

Jaime Gomez-Sotomayor

Roel

James Hu

Jeffrey Xiong

Katerina Kaganovich

Kevin Jiang

Kiran Dzur

Matt Braaten

Natalie Goldberg

Nicolas Lama

Olivia Hussey

Renuka Balakrishnan

Robert Gao

Roopa Irakam

Ryan Safiry

Samuel Braun

Sarah Wang

Sebastian Preising

Tatiana Gnuva

STAFF WRITERS

Adam Szczepankowski

Aili Hou

Aishlinn Kivlighn

Alison Kahn

Alyssa Sales

Amalia Garcia

Anushka Thorat

Benjamin Eyal

Benjamin Waltman

Bernadette P Gostelow

Camila Guerra Fox Braga

Carmen Vintro

Christian Rodríguez

Claire Schweitzer

Colby King

Colby Malcolm

Collin Woldt

Denver Blevins

Emmanuelle Hannibal

Eriife Adelusimo

Ghazwa Khalatbari

Gustie Owens

Hannah Walsh

Ian Springer

Jason Park

Jenna Yuan

Jocelyn Fahlen

Julia Chang

Julia Shimizu

Kaitlyn Saldanha

Kayla Leong

Lucie Pasquier

Luiza Diniz Vilanova

Luke Seminara

Marissa Aaronson

Nathalia Tavares

Niharika Rao

Noa Fay

Olivia Deming

Olivia Mitchell

Olympia Francis Taylor

Panu Hejmadi

Priya Sagar

Rohil Sabherwal

Sarah Doyle

Serena Tsui

Shruti Verma

Stefan Hopwood

Tamar Vidra

Tigidankay (TK) Saccoh

Tim Vanable

Tomas Taaffe

Tyrese Thomas

Yaniv Goren

Yasmine Dahlberg

DESIGN TEAM

Blake Jones

Brynn Hansen

Christina Su

Elijah Knodell

Helena Busansky

Margadbileg Bold

EDITOR’S NOTE

At this critical juncture, I am grateful to have so many incredible voices on the Columbia Political Review eager to challenge our elected officials, seek solutions, and, advocate for change.

In this issue, Olivia Deming, Nicolas Lama, Sarah Doyle, and Katerina Kaganovich discuss opportunities for the Biden administration to make great strides in policy areas ranging from mass incarceration to data privacy.

In light of Kamala Harris’s inauguration as Vice President, Eriife Adelusimo provides a critique articulating the limits to representation and the import in continuing to hold government officials accountable. Tim Vanable furthermore provides an analysis of progressive policy strategy.

On the international front, Kaitlyn Saldanha weighs the consequences of U.S. troop withdrawal from Somalia. Julia Shimizu discusses Brazilian vaccine rollout under an administration in disarray, and Jason Park sheds light into skyrocketing Korean real estate markets.

The staff at CPR is furthermore proud to debut Policy 360, a globally focused roundtable which seeks to combat our U.S.-centered tendencies and bring a diverse lens to contemporary sociopolitical issues. Policy 360’s very first edition, showcased in this issue, tackles freedom of speech in the digital age. Our inaugural team of writers features James Hu, Samuel Braun, Kaitlyn Saldanha, Rohil Sabherwal, Jenna Yuan, and Adam Szczepankowski.

In light of the multitude of challenges our country currently faces, I am grateful to the staff at the Columbia Political Review for their commentary and analysis.

— OLIVIA CHOI, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

DOMESTIC POLITICS

KILL YOUR IDOLS: ON KAMALA HARRIS AND REPRESENTATION

Eriife Edelusimo CC '22

THE FILIBUSTER: DEMOCRACY'S ROADBLOCK TO ACHIEVING PROGRESS

Nicolas Lama CC '24

YES, PROGRESSIVES ARE ANNOYING. BUT THAT’S EXACTLY OUR POINT

Tim Vanable CC '24

LAW AND ORDER: MASS INCARCERATION UNDER THE GUISE OF SAFETY

Olivia Deming CC '24

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: A SHIFT FOR TRANSGENDER STUDENTS AND TITLE IX

Sarah Doyle BC '23

FEDERAL PRIVACY LEGISLATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Katerina Kaganovich BC '24

INTERNET RESTRICTIONS AND CENSORSHIP DURING STATE OF DISASTER IN SOUTH AFRICA

James Hu CC '24

INTERNET SHUTDOWNS IN INDIA AMIDST FARMER PROTESTS

Samuel Braun CC '24

THE GREATEST THREAT OF MYANMAR’S COUP: CENSORSHIP AND INTERNET SHUTDOWN

Kaitlyn Saldanha BC '24

WIDENING CRACKS IN THE “GREAT FIREWALL” OF CHINA

Rohil Sabherwal, CC '24

FREE SPEECH AS A SAFEGUARD FOR THE SYRIAN PEOPLE UNDER A TIGHTLY CONTROLLED STATE? Jenna Yuan, CC '24

RESTRICTING “ILLEGAL” CONTENT: WELL-INTENTIONED BUT FLAWED LEGISLATION IN GERMANY

Adam Szczepankowski, CC '24

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

BRAZIL’S VACCINE FREE-FOR-ALL

Julia Shimizu BC '23

U.S. TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM SOMALIA AND THE NEW COLD WAR IN AFRICA Kaitlyn Saldanha CC '23

KILL YOUR IDOLS:

ON KAMALA HARRIS AND REPRESENTATION

A momentOus Occasion

On January 20th, Kamala Harris was sworn in as Vice President of the United States. The Inauguration was framed as a new dawn for Americans who felt forgotten, mistreated, or ostracized under the previous administration. Many were quick to note the historic significance of Harris’s entering the office of the Vice President—she became the first woman, first Black person, and first South Asian to hold the office. Her inaugu-

ration was celebrated by many across the country in recognition of the various identities she holds. Her alma mater, the historically Black Howard University, commemorated the moment with 49 bell tolls, representing Harris’s becoming the 49th VP. Worldwide, members of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority—of which Harris is one—donned the organization’s traditional pink and green colors and pearls and tuned into the inauguration from their living rooms, having been forced to cancel plans to

be present for Harris’s momentous inauguration as a result of the January 6th insurrection. Harris, too, could be seen wearing pearls at the Inauguration, just as she did the day she was sworn into Congress in tribute to her soroity. It was evident that Harris’s inauguration was meaningful for people across all walks of life.

The Power of Representation

There are tangible benefits to seeing oneself represented in a positive manner. Research has shown

Eriife Adelusimo // Columbia College ’22 March 8, 2021

Vice President Kamala Harris being sworn in on January 20. Photo by Kevin Tanenbaum.

a significant relationship between television exposure and children’s self-esteem. For white boys, this relationship was positive: increased television viewership was related to increased self-esteem. For Black girls and Black boys, as well as white girls, increased television viewership was related to a decrease in self-esteem. Even in media intended for children’s consumption, Black boys and girls of multiple races are presented with far more negative representations of themselves than white males are.

Research has shown that mass media representations inform how we see others and how we see ourselves. Dr. Mary Beth Oliver of Pennsylvania State University argues that the media has played a critical role in the oppression of Black men by presenting them as archetypal villains and as violent beings. This depiction has taught others, specifically those with the power to act on their anti-black biases such as armed police officers, that they should assume Black men to be threatening and aggressive. Black women suffer as a result of poor representation in the mass media as well. The three stereotypical portrayals of Black women in the mass media—as the maternal, masculinized mammy; the promiscuous Jezebel; and the combative, ill-tempered, loud sapphire—all serve to distance Black women from victimhood. Despite Black females suffering higher rates of victimization than their white counterparts, the media underrepresents the rate at which Black women are victims of violence in favor of pushing the narrative of Black women as deviants, deserving of the harm that may befall them.

Vice President Harris’s inauguration demonstrates that people relish in the opportunity to see themselves in positions of power, positions that command respect. For people who often see themselves presented in

ney of San Francisco, and Attorney General of California, Harris’s track record with wrongful conviction cases was abysmal. Often, the effects of these cases were Black people’s burden to bear. Despite many con-

the media as villains, criminals, and otherwise unworthy of grace and respect, the media storm surrounding Vice President Harris’s inauguration may have been more psychologically beneficial than the mass media intended it to be.

Kamala Harris and the Police State: An Intimate Relationship

But how heavily should representation impact who we elect to be our political representatives? Are we then to say that it is enough for politicians to hold office because of the benefits they may pose to our self-esteem, even if they fail to live up to campaign promises and have harmed people that look like them in the past? Representation aside, the idolization of Kamala Harris—a career prosecutor with a documented history of upholding antiblack systems and working against Black people—in a year where so much public mobilization intended to dismantle systems of harm against Black people has been so readily available is baffling.

As a prosecutor, District Attor-

victions being the result of evidence tampering, false testimony, and suppression of crucial information, Harris fought to uphold these convictions and served as an institutional roadblock on the road to justice for many. In 1985, Kevin Cooper was sentenced to death for the murder of four people. His trial, however, was far from fair: some evidence was planted, other evidence was hidden from his lawyers, and even a pair of bloodied overalls belonging to another possible suspect were thrown out. Cooper fought for years for advanced DNA testing to bolster his appeals and get him off of death row. As AG, Harris blocked this testing at every route until a New York Times expose forced her hand. In another case, Daniel Larsen was sentenced to 28-to-life for possession of a concealed weapon. Though there was evidence of his innocence, Harris argued on a technicality that he did not raise the appeal in time in order to keep Larsen incarcerated (luckily, she failed). These are just a few examples of the many where

“How heavily should representation impact who we elect to be our political representatives?

Harris had the power to exonerate the wrongfully convicted—many of whom were people of color—and instead chose to punish them further. Even after years of harsh criticism for her unwillingness to push for justice in these cases, Harris takes little responsibility for the harm caused by her departments. Harris jokes lightheartedly about smoking marijuana during her time at Howard University, yet nearly 1600 people were convicted on marijuana-related charges in the state of California while she was in office. When looking just at her time as District Attorney of San Francisco, 24 percent of marijuana arrests led to convictions during her tenure, compared to 18 percent under her predecessor. In 2015, legislation was proposed that would require all California officers to wear body cameras as a way of mitigating officer abuse of power. She denied the proposal her support.

For years, California state residents protested against Harris’s refusal to investigate the officers involved with police shootings. Harris claimed that it was not her job. After everything that 2020 brought to the forefront, considering how intimately we have been forced to grapple with the state’s violent apparatus and police officers’ unchecked power to derail and destroy Black life, how can we possibly overlook what Harris’s record makes clear? She is no champion of Black lives.

Representation is the Bare Minimum

Black people, children especially, deserve to see positive representations of ourselves in the mass media, but this cannot be our guiding principle when deciding who to hand power over to. Mainstream Black politics often falls into a dangerous trap: politicians fail to do the work

to benefit the Black community as a whole but earn themselves cultural capital by being relatable and pushing the importance of representation. They become cultural icons (see: Vice President Harris-related merchandise on Etsy) rather than political representatives.

In a prior piece, I argued that the Black community has too often been presented with settling as our best option. We have been taught not to ask for too much. I tremble to think that we are living in a political climate where asking for politicians that represent us, both in appearance and in ideology, is “asking for too much.” While I understood the joy that many felt when seeing Harris inaugurated, I, myself, could not feel that joy. While I understand the value of positive representation in the mass media, I am wary that representation will be taken as a suitable replacement for actual political change. I am certain Kamala Harris’s Black identity meant something to voters who supported the Biden-Harris ticket. Yet, it did not mean anything to her when it came time to stop the California state penal system from keeping Black people wrongly incarcerated. When it comes to politics, Black people must kill our idols. Or, at the very least, we must kill the desire to see ourselves represented if it proves a hindrance to holding our politicians accountable. Otherwise, we risk it being used against us by politicians as a cop-out for their antiblack pasts, and as the bare minimum that they will offer us when what we truly need is representation that disempowers antiblack systems.

Kamala Harris speaking in Iowa in 2019. Photo by Gage Skidmore.

DOMESTIC POLITICS COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2021

THE FILIBUSTER:

“It’s time for boldness, for there is much to do,” Biden declared in his inaugural address, speaking to the American people for the first time as President of the United States. “This is certain, I promise you: We will be judged, you and I, by how we resolve these cascading crises of our era.”

“Cascading crises” is certainly an accurate description of the immense challenges Biden is facing as he starts his presidency. Inheriting a wrecked

and a $1.9 trillion rescue to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, all awaiting congressional approval.

While the Democrats’ wins in the Georgia runoffs ensure Democratic control of the House of Representatives, Senate, and the White House, the party’s leading margins in Congress could not be thinner. Whereas the Democratic majority in the House will most likely be able to pass many of President Biden’s bold proposals, most of his administration’s agenda will live or die on the Senate floor. Regardless of the

incoming president’s agenda, and an embodiment of the worst partisan gridlock that characterizes Washington.

economy, a non-existent vaccine distribution plan, an ongoing climate crisis, a state of heightened racial and political tensions, and a nation where over 430 thousand citizens have died from COVID-19 and another 10.8 million are unemployed, is a daunting task for anyone. With the spotlight now directed at them, the Biden administration will be closely scrutinized for how they address each one of these issues.

In this vein, President Biden has repeatedly promised bold legislative action to help the American people. His proposed agenda includes legislation that would undeniably make a difference in people’s lives, with plans for healthcare reform, climate change action, immigration reform,

new slim Democratic majority and Biden’s pleas for bipartisan cooperation, odds are Biden’s bold plans for action will die. And their cause of death? Killed by the Senate filibuster.

The History of the Filibuster

The filibuster is a Senate cloture rule which requires sixty members to end debate and move to a vote. In theory, the filibuster sounds like a valuable mechanism to ensure bipartisan support for a bill and foster agreement across the aisle in passing legislation; however, in practice, the filibuster has paralyzed the Senate for decades. Instead of being a procedural rule that allows for substantive debate on proposed legislation, it has most often acted solely as a gross obstruction tactic, a steep barrier to any

For as much importance it holds in modern-day lawmaking, however, the filibuster was never part of the Founders’ original vision of the Senate, nor does it ever appear written in the Constitution. In fact, the filibuster emerged essentially by accident: in 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr advised the Senate to revise their rule book to remove certain language he viewed as redundant. Among these changes was the removal of a provision that allowed a simple majority to force a vote on the underlying question being debated, like in the House of Representatives. Soon enough, Senators discovered that this provision’s erasure from the rule book made possible some grave unforeseen consequences: it gave even a tiny handful of senators the power to block a bill indefinitely and fashioned the Senate as the inefficient body we know it to be today.

Although the ability to filibuster dates back to the beginning of the 19th century, it took several decades until the minority in the Senate exploited the lax limits on debate to regularly obstruct legislation. During the post-Civil War period, Senators began to frequently utilize the mechanism to undermine the adoption of measures advancing the rights of Black Americans. In the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction eras, Southern senators vehemently launched filibusters to kill all bills they viewed in opposition, including legislation on civil rights, the deployment of federal troops to Southern states, and the repayment of income taxes from the Civil War. As a re-

“... odds are Biden’s bold plans for action will die. And their cause of death? Killed by the Senate filibuster.”

sult of this total obstruction—made possible only by the filibuster—civil rights largely faded from the congressional agenda between the 1890s and 1940s, and when the Senate infamously tried to pass anti-lynching legislation in 1922 and 1935, these efforts were again thwarted by the filibuster. Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark law that finally broke the logjam on civil rights legislation in the U.S., was almost derailed on the Senate floor after a group of Southern senators launched a 54-day filibuster in opposition to it.

In reassessing the filibuster’s role in today’s political landscape, it is critical to see the filibuster for what it really is. Despite what is conventionally said in its defense, the filibuster was not deliberately designed

by our Founders and emerged by a simple accident. We must recognize the filibusters’ history of repeated obstruction against civil rights legislation as a clear demonstration of how easily individual senators can wield their positions to defend horrendous status quo policies and prevent progress from ever advancing off the Senate floor. By giving so much power to this accidental bureaucratic rule and allowing it to stand in the way of necessary progress throughout our history, the Senate has failed the American people (and future generations of citizens) who entrust our government the duty to make a meaningful difference. Now, however, as they take the reins of our government leadership with a promise to

“Build Back Better,” President Biden and the Democrats have a unique opportunity to make a change.

The Fight Over the Filibuster Today

Despite his party’s control of Congress and his promise to partake in bipartisan cooperation, the harsh reality is that much of President Biden’s agenda will die on the Senate floor at the hands of the filibuster. Republican senators have powerful incentives to deny President Biden the ten Republican votes he will need, in addition to all fifty Democrats, in order to end debate and pass most legislation in the Senate. With Republicans needing to take back just a handful of seats to regain majorities in both the House and Senate, blocking Biden’s agenda through

Though it emerged in the 1800s, the Senate filibuster gained popularity in the Reconstruction era as an obstruction tactic. Photo by Pierre Blaché.

the filibuster will make it easy for Republicans to make Democrats look feckless and ride voter discontent to gains in 2022.

Yet, at this pivotal moment in our nation’s history, when urgent action is needed to help the American people combat a pandemic, economic recession, climate change, and other urgent crises, the filibuster, and partisan gridlock cannot be the reason we are denied impactful legislation. In the face of Republican obstructionism, Democratic leaders must ask themselves a crucial question: do we keep the Senate filibuster to preserve the status quo, or finally get rid of this obstructionist plague to be able to actually help American citizens now?

Throughout the recent history of the Senate, the filibuster has been modified several times, indicating that there is precedent for changing procedural rule when there is a will to do so. In 1975, the Senate lowered the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds, or sixty-seven votes, down to three-fifths, or sixty votes. In 2013, frustrated by what they considered relentless Republican obstruction to President Obama’s appointments, Senate Democrats led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) led a successful push to reform the filibuster to allow the lower court and Cabinet nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority. In 2017, when the roles reversed, Senate Republicans led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) successfully changed the rules again, this time to eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nomi-

nees in order to clear the pathway for controversial judicial picks by President Trump.

In analyzing the Senate as it is today, there is no rational argument for why 60 votes are needed to pass a law, but only 51 votes are needed to give someone the lifelong power to dictate what kind of laws Congress is allowed to pass. Given the shameful historical use of the filibuster, the changes the Senate has made to it in recent years, and how little the contemporary Senate truly accomplishes, Democrats have more reason than ever to unite as a caucus against the filibuster and pass the urgent legislation that the American people need.

as centrist Senator Joe Manchin (DWV) and Senator Krysten Sinema (D-AZ), who have indicated opposition to challenging the status quo.

Expectedly, with talk of eliminating the filibuster spreading within the party caucus and garnering media attention, Democrats are now also facing heavy criticism and pushback from their Republican counterparts. As the 117th Senate commenced its duties this January, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attempted to block the transfer of control of the chamber’s committees, ironically

And because of his decades-long service in the Senate, President Biden knows how the Senate operates better than most, giving him unique credibility to lead a successful push for reform if he believes it is truly needed.

Even if the Democrats make the right choice and decide to push for the elimination of the Senate filibuster once and for all, they will still face an uphill battle. While many senators have voiced favor for removing the filibuster, Democrats would require the support of every member of their caucus in order to change the rule. This includes several members, such

using the filibuster itself to paralyze any progress on the Senate floor until Democrats vowed to not get rid of the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rejected the demands, holding on to the option of nixing the filibuster as political leverage, and thereby creating a standstill in the first week of the Biden administration. Although the impasse eventually ended, with Senator McConnell relenting on his demand, this most recent political clash is just another demonstration of the filibuster’s immobilizing par-

“President Biden knows how the Senate operates better than most, giving him unique credibility to lead a successful push for reform if he believes it is truly needed.

tisan chokehold on Senate progress at a crucial time when we need Congress to work.

The Pathway Forward to Achieve Real Progress

The Senate’s paralysis-by-filibuster on important legislation has become normalized in the Washington playbook. Despite what its defenders may want the American people to believe, in today’s deep political divide, the filibuster has not and will not spur more bipartisan cooperation or agreements across the aisle. Instead, it will only continue to inflame partisans in the minority party who demand victory over their opponents—be it total or Pyrrhic—by blocking legislation to the detriment of the needs of American citizens. The gridlock is too often insurmountable.

As we strive to strengthen our democratic processes, repair a damaged economy, and attend to the critical health care needs of all Americans in a pandemic, we need a Congress that can properly function. Right now, with sixty votes required to achieve cloture and the ability of just one senator to hold up urgent legislation necessary for all of us, it cannot. The solution is to make the Senate work more like the House of Representatives, where only a simple majority is required for the passage of legislation, and where whatever party controls the majority decides what happens in the end. While this poses a powerful risk for Democrats, as Republicans will eventually gain more seats, regain control of the Senate, and undoubtedly launch an act of bitter partisan revenge someday, this cannot be the reason the filibuster

remains unchallenged. In a democracy, elections have consequences, and whether one likes them or not, the results of our elections and the ideas they represent should be allowed to come to form in our government. That’s how an effective democracy works.

In this moment of crisis in our country, President Biden and Democrats must step up to meet the needs of the American people, and they must do so quickly. They can only accomplish this if they no longer prefer the false peace of decorum and status quo over the true progress of democracy. Adapting and modernizing a government is a necessary step in improving its performance for its

constituents, and there will always be debate about when the time for change should happen. But if we are to face the immense challenges of our day that require our government to take action to help us, we cannot afford for the Senate to remain the place where good ideas go to die. The time is now.

Eliminate the filibuster, and America will see a far more functional federal government that can more effectively respond to the challenges of the present day. Keep it, and it’s most likely to deliver yet another four years of legislative paralysis our country cannot afford.

Having served as a U.S. Senator from Delaware for 36 years, President Biden has a unique credibility in the Senate to lead a successful push for reform. Photo by Jay Godwin.

YES, PROGRESSIVES ARE ANNOYING. BUT THAT’S EXACTLY OUR POINT.

Tim Vanable // Columbia College '24

February 25, 2021

Almost a decade ago, progressives launched the socalled “Fight for $15,” a sprawling national movement to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15. They argued, correctly, that the benefits of such a wage hike would go far beyond a few more bucks in workers’ pockets—including sweeping reductions in worker

depression levels, sleep deprivation, teenage pregnancy, and chronic stress. Even still, moderate liberal Democrats proved unwilling to commit to progressives’ ask, offering up a lukewarm counterproposal of $10.10 per hour. While a sign of progress, this figure wasn’t even halfway between the old and proposed minimum wages.

So, progressive activists kept

pushing. Unions organized strikes. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont led his conversation-shifting crusade for the presidency. And today, after years and years of activism, the Democratic Party establishment has finally come on board, with President Joe Biden vowing to push for a $15 minimum wage in Congress.

$15 per hour, however, is no longer good enough for many pro -

gressive activists. The cycle has started all over again. “It should be $25 today,” said Briahna Joy Gray, former National Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign. Representative Cori Bush, a firebrand progressive of Missouri’s 1st congressional district, added, “We need to pass the $15 minimum wage immediately. Then we need to get right back to work to raise it to an actual livable wage.”

In all of this, a clear trend emerges: Progressives set a goalpost, wait until the party establishment sluggishly follows along, and then move the goalpost to a new, bolder standard. Ever so slowly, much of the radical becomes mainstream.

It’s the same phenomenon that marked President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s introduction of social security in the mid-1930s. For a nation on the heels of a Great Depression and three consecutive conservative presidents, the notion of a broad, pay-it-forward social safety net wasn’t an easy sell. But over time, Roosevelt made his “sound ideal”—one pulled straight from the European economic playbook— into the overwhelmingly popular policy it is today, appealing directly to Congress and the American people through formal presidential addresses and fireside chats. Indeed, in a sign of the policy’s full integration into the political mainstream, many political scientists now con -

sider social security America’s political “third rail,” denoting a political issue so “untouchable” that even its staunchest ideological opponents are afraid to nakedly criticize.

Once again, as they did on the $15 minimum wage, progressives are leaping to move the goalposts on social security—pushing not just for its preservation, but wholesale expansion. Maggie Astor of the New York Times notes that the “shift towards progressive economics is clear and quantifiable” on the issue of social security. In 2015, Senator Bernie Sanders’s (D-VT) proposal to expand social security had exactly zero co-sponsors. But by 2017, sixteen senators—sixteen of our nation’s elder statespeo -

Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush and Ayanna Pressley, some of the leading progressives in Congress. Photos courtesy of U.S. House Office of Photography

ple—had locked arms with Senator Sanders to co-sponsor the bill. Here, again, it was progressives’ aversion to complacency (along with a healthy dose of Sanderian hand-waving) that moved the radical into the mainstream.

And if progressives’ “never enough” approach to politics annoys you, it should. As the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us in his Letter From Birmingham Jail, change never comes about in the “absence of tension;” it demands “a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” So it is with the modern progressive movement, whose tendency to annoy is not a fluke but rather the entire point.

More often than not, history vindicates annoying progressives. Progressives were right, for example, to call for greater oversight of the meatpacking industry at the turn of the twentieth century. They

were right in 2012 to push for a $15 minimum wage. And today— although many moderate liberals may not see it yet—they are right to advocate for, say, a single-payer healthcare system, something every other industrialized nation in the world has recognized as a given.

Yet despite the critical role progressives play in left-wing politics, moderate liberals often treat them as the children in the room, rather than as good-faith actors working to meet the moment. Former President Obama captures this liberal annoyance with progressives well in his recent memoir, A Promised Land. He recalls an episode from his time at Columbia in which “some smug bastard”—a progressive, no doubt—“dropped a newspaper in front of me, its headlines trumpeting the U.S. invasion of Grenada or cuts in the school lunch program or some other disheartening news.” Was this “smug bastard” not funda -

mentally right, though, to criticize an invasion that the United Nations General Assembly itself called “a flagrant violation of international law”? Was he not fundamentally right to lament “cuts in the school lunch program”? Like many moderate liberals, President Obama seems more bothered by the often sanctimonious tone of progressives than by the bitter truth behind their claims.

It’s hard to imagine how the “smug bastard” could have broached the issue of cuts in the school lunch program without implying that Mr. Obama wasn’t paying enough attention to hungry schoolchildren. Sanctimony, or the perception thereof, is inherent to any exchange in which one person tells another they’re not doing enough to help a certain class of people. And if that’s what it takes for progressivism to win the day, so be it. Ambition— smug, crisis-inducing ambition—is how we will come to meet this moment, not tepid pragmatism.

The dynamics at play here might be best imagined in the context of a giant steamboat representing the Democratic Party. Aboard the USS Democrats, progressives are the loud, creaky engine, propelling the ship forward to the Land of Tomorrow. Technocratic liberals, like former President Obama, are the proud captains of the ship, their course set for the Island of Complacency. The engine might be loud, creaky, and defiant, but it’s getting us from Point A to Point B, from $15 to $25, from a small to adequate social safety net—and that’s something worth getting on board with.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a champion of the progressive wing, is often credited as moving the party Democratic Party left with his at times lofty calls for change. Photo by Gage Skidmore.

LAW AND ORDER: PERPETUATING MASS INCARCERATION UNDER THE GUISE OF SAFETY

Olivia Deming // Columbia College ’24

February 25, 2021

The U.S. unequivocally uses the prison system for profit rather than reform. America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world—disproportional to our population— and currently allows that system to function as a modern means of systemic oppression. Law and order rhetoric—which emphasizes ‘cleaning up the streets’, protecting youth from succumbing to drug use, and reducing violence— almost always has racist undertones that persecute the existence of Black individuals, particularly low income Black individuals. This, in conjunction with tough on crime mentalities, have allowed racist and ineffective policies to become the norm. As a result, America’s structure of mass incarceration, entrenched in racism, is not going anywhere without concerted changes in policy and rhetoric. We need to listen to advocacy groups that have been paying attention to injustices far longer than politicians who have only recently stopped pushing for the same “law and order” that Trump weaponized as a means to criminalize BLM advocates and fear-monger his way into a second term. The people who spout “this [referring to any of the numer-

ous crises we confront] is not America’’ must reckon with the fact that the country may not embody one’s ideals of a modern America, but that it is our reality nonetheless. Historic and explicit racism has become increasingly covert but persistently salient to a myriad of American institutions, mass incarceration being one of the most insidious.

advantage white people have in access to resources, jobs, and property. This connects to another means of marginalization in the grim timeline of systemic racism: the War on Drugs. Beginning in the 1970s with President Nixon—another candidate who ran on law and order rhetoric— and evolving to this day, the War on Drugs furthered policies that

Our history allows us to understand how we arrived at the tangled state of affairs, but more importantly, it allows us to begin to create policy that no longer perpetuates racism under the guise of safety. Although Jim Crow laws— the codified segregation and oppression of Black people after the Emancipation Proclamation—no longer exist overtly, their impact can be observed in the

mandated harsh sentences and propagated fear around drug use. Police would frequently patrol neighborhoods with high Black populations, stopping as many people as possible. Consequently, the United States now leads all other nations in incarcerated people, with 2.3 million people behind bars. While it is currently the Republican Party who is most known for harkening law and

“The fact that Black people have the highest rate of incarceration (more than quintuple that of white people) is not a curious accident to shrug your shoulders at. Rather, it is manufactured to be this way...”

order, Democrats have feared retribution in the past for the reputation of being too soft on crime, and in 1986 pushed through a bill requiring mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses in order to appear “anti-drug.” In 1988, then-Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was campaigned against for being soft on crime, begetting white fear that Democrats would release “dangerous criminals.” These bigoted and unfounded fears bully politicians into passing certain legislation and taking entire party-stances that disproportionally impact people of color.

The fact that Black people have the highest rate of incarceration (more than quintuple that of white people) is not a curious accident to shrug your shoulders at. Rather,

it is manufactured to be this way through practices such as the ’94 Crime Bill, the origin of policing, the lack of resources for less affluent communities, and the damaging verbiage that politicians have employed to be elected. The deck is stacked against those that were not born with a silver spoon, which is why we must undo the way incarceration was manufactured. At every step— arrest, trial, serving, probation—racial disparities are visible. Prosecutors are twice as likely to press for mandatory minimums with Black defendants, and those same defendants are then less likely to receive relief from those minimums. Furthermore, a Black person convicted of a drug offense serves the same average time as a white person convicted of a violent crime. If “law and

order” had any grounds to stand on, this one statistic should be enough to crumble them.

No matter how difficult it is to conceptualize 2.3 million incarcerated people, it should be easier to recognize that it is egregiously disproportionate to the crime rate in America. The U.S., with only 5% of the world’s population, holds a quarter of imprisoned individuals, and since the 1990s, has increased spending on corrections from 16.9 billion to 60.9 billion. This should be alarming considering that violent and property crime rates have plunged since the ’90s. Although it certainly doesn’t help, Trump’s cries for “law and order” are not the sole cause of the trends we’ve seen for two decades. This begs the question of how things have gotten so bad

Protestors march against mass incarceration. Photo by Flickr user DC Protests.

right under our noses. The short answer? Profit.

The most obvious source of profit is privatized prisons, but they make up a small piece of the larger puzzle, contributing only marginally to profit found in incarceration. President Biden “banned” private prisons on January 26, essentially phasing them out, and there is already plenty of criticism that this move was not enough. Less than 9% of incarcerated individuals are kept in private prisons, which are largely made successful from the greater system of which they are a part. Prison labor makes incarceration profitable to corporations as well as the prison itself, and although the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involutary servitude, Section 1 also says “except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Racial disparity in prisons has led prison labor to look a lot like modern day slavery under the guise of law and order.

Policies attempting to slow the expansion of the prison industrial complex are beginning to gain traction as the issue of mass incarceration grows in urgency and public opinion. In 2019, Senators Bloomenthal, Booker, and Representative Cárdenas introduced the Reverse Mass Incarceration Act (RMIA) to combat the incentivized system of increasing prison populations. Such legislation

would have $20 billion in federal funds to provide to states over ten years that decrease their prison population by 7% over three years without an increase in crime. This money would have to be invested in further reducing incarceration and crime. Senator Cory Booker acknowledged that “incarceration tears families apart, costs us billions annually, and doesn’t make our communities any safer.” This comes more than two and a half decades after the 1994 crime bill, which in part drove the increase in incarceration since the ’90s. Pres-

all concrete ways we can pull people out of—and protect them from falling victim in the first place—our corrupt incarceration system.

ident Biden authored the ’94 crime bill, and now supports the RMIA, an important evolution of policy and important to its potential future in the coming months post-inauguration. The RMIA legislation is based on a 2015 proposal by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, which also asserts the importance of providing federal grants for reducing prison populations. Money speaks, and by drying up monetary support for being “tough on crime,” we can discontinue the blind acceptance of mass incarceration. We can also begin to propagate the belief that the prison system is cyclical and disenfranchises rather than rehabilitates which would encourage investment in housing, education, and after-school programs. These are

Federal policies and legislation are vital, but state-level reform serves as an example to the rest of the country. In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a “Clean Slate” criminal justice reform bill on January 4, with multiple opportunities for current and formerly incarcerated individuals. This bill has made it easier to have records expunged, a step to decrease felony disenfranchisement that hinders anyone with a record from getting a job, voting, and creating a life for themselves beyond bars. Additionally, this legislation will abolish mandatory minimum sentences, reduce penalties for multiple low-level offenses, and seal the records of juvenile offenders. Governor Whitmer hopes these initiatives will reduce poverty and stimulate the economy, with research from the University of Michigan finding that people who receive expungements see a 23% salary increase within a year. Meek Mill and Jay-Z’s criminal justice reform organization—REFORM Alliance— advocated for these laws on the behalf of Michiganders and millions of people both incarcerated and under the control of probation and parole officers. Under the RMIA, state-based initiatives such as these that decrease prison populations would be eligible for federal funds, which tackles the majority of

Just because a problem is not easily solved... does not mean we should stand still and allow the issue to metastasize.

prisoners that are not incarcerated in private prisons.

With the recent Senate wins of Reverend Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, Democrats have majority control of both the executive branch and Congress, providing the opportunity to pass sweeping—and categorically necessary—prison policy. This could start with the RMIA, but should be parallel with more bottom-up approaches such as legalizing marijuana and expunging prior convictions for recreational use, negating some of the detriment that the War on Drugs has proliferated. President Biden’s vision for justice includes the decriminalization of cannabis, but says it is in the states’ hands to legalize recreational use, preserving the nationwide discrepancy of sentencing for marijuana-based offenses. An estimated 40,000 people in jail for marijuana are watching legalization proliferate as they continue to serve. In a peri-

od of time when media is incessant and catastrophe is unrelenting, there seems to be not enough bandwidth or hours in the day to speak out and act for reform across the board. As millennials and Gen-Z emphasize the perilous nature of global warming, call for the defunding of police, and assert the crushing amount of student debt, addressing mass incarceration needs to be in that same breath.

Just because a problem is not easily solved with one bill or executive order does not mean we should stand still and allow the issue to metastasize. In actuality, it is these exact issues that must be given the most attention, in order to capitalize on democratic majorities early on and not let the clock run out as people suffer. How broken is a system of arrest that 326 people were arrested on June 1 alone for BLM protest and only 230 arrested so far in the storming of our nation’s capitol on January

6? Democracy is fragile right now in the United States—conflict gets louder by the second and divides seem to be etched in stone. This is precisely why we cannot waste more time staying silent. A nation heals when you start from the roots and allow yourself to look at the ugliness you’ve dug out, not just put bandaid after band-aid on whatever crisis pops up on the daily. We cannot count on institutions to evolve for the better when they are doing exaactly what they were created to do: perpetuate the oppression of marginalized individuals. This calls for changes introduced in the legislature, beyond even federal funding for decreasing prison populations or making it easier to have a record expunged. Words carry weight, and we desperately need to retire rhetoric surrounding law and order, which is convincing citizens of a false reality with a false solution.

A depiction of the man-made nature of mass-incarceration. Photo by Jared Rodriguez.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: A SHIFT FOR TRANSGENDER STUDENTS AND TITLE IX

Sarah Doyle // Barnard College '23 March 6, 2021

With the victory of President Joseph R. Biden in the 2020 election, our country has seen a new ray of hope in what has been a bleak four years for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, specifically the rights of transgender individuals. Under the Trump Administration, transgender individuals were banned from serving in the military, the Department of Health and Human Services attempted to reduce the protections against discriminating doctors, and the Department of Education rescinded the Obamaera rule allowing transgender students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their identity.

President Biden is trying to shift the tide, beginning with his reversal of the controversial military ban, and perhaps even more notably, with his new executive order. The order asserts that “[a]ll persons should receive equal treatment under the law without regard to their gender identity or sexual orientation,” including that “[c]hildren should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, locker room, or school sports.”

Biden’s executive order is based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which formally made unlawful

discrimination in public places on the basis of sex, religion, race, ethnicity, or national origin. Biden’s executive order recalls the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme court decision, which ruled that Title VII’s definition of “on the basis of sex,” extends to sexual orientation and gender identity, as opposed to just the sex assigned at birth. Biden’s executive order builds on the foundation of Bostock, by also counting gender identity and sexual orientation among Title IX protections, which forbid discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal funding. This interpretation of the phrase “on the basis of sex” is a direct contrast to the previous administration, which did not believe the phrase in Title IX included sexual orientation and gender identity. While the immediacy of actions towards improving the experiences of transgender students in schools is unclear, a door has definitely been opened for a more inquisitive review of how educational institutions treat their LGBTQ+ students.

A possible effect of Biden’s executive order will be schools and states reviewing their current policies on sexual orientation and gender identity inclusivity. However, it is not likely that all schools across the nation will be so

compliant. Because the executive order lacks specific steps for how to implement new policies and adjust old ones, more conservative states, parents, and students have room to work around, or just outright ignore the order. For example, the Protect Women’s Sports Act, a hypocritically labeled bill, seeks to prevent students assigned male at birth from participating on girls’ sports teams. Despite the knowledge that schools could lose federal funding by failing to acknowledge trans identities, many anti-trans organizations and state legislatures plan to continue their discriminatory policies, and fight against any loss of funding.

This isn’t the only example of transphobia, either: South Dakota’s House of Representatives recently approved a bill that would prevent transgender girls from competing with cisgender girls in high school and college sports. This requires sport divisions to be based purely on biological sex, as opposed to gender identity, and minimizes the importance of protecting all identities. States legislatures including that of North Dakota, Montana, Mississippi, and Utah, are also advancing similar bills. States and organizations that align with arguments against transgender indiviuals in sports go as far as to refer to Biden’s executive order as “the end of women’s sports,"

a harmful phrase that fails to recognize that transgender women are women.

Arguments about “protecting biological sex”—i.e. preventing trans women and girls from playing on girl’s teams—are based on ideas about gender essentialism; that there is something intrinsic about being a man or woman that comes with physical make-up. Essentialism is an outdated concept that is incredibly damaging to trans identities. These misguided and non-scientific ideas affect how the transgender community is perceived, allowing room for arguments mistakenly claiming unfairness in a sports competition between

transgender and cisgender students. Essentialist arguments suggest that someone labeled female at birth, for example, would be at a disadvantage when playing their sport.

However, there are frequently biological differences between athletes in general, regardless of whether they are transgender or cisgender. A cisgender sutdent with an extreme difference, such as a heart condition that allows them to breathe easier or faster during running, or extra height that allows them to reach a basketball hoop or stretch their legs, would never be stopped from competing. This com-

mon argument about biological fairness lacks scientific basis. Additionally, for youth in K-12 sports, the aim of participation is rarely to become a professional athlete, but rather to socialize, learn about teamwork, and achieve personal growth: all children deserve the chance to make friends and work hard at something they love.

The truth is, these arguments about “fairness” happen because many do not recognize transgender individuals as the gender they are. Banning transgender youths from competing does not eliminate natural biological differences that can occur regardless of whether some-

one is cisgender or transgender, but it does set the trans community apart in a way that is both illogical and damaging to their social development and mental health. The Trevor Project outlines this when they took a stance against the South Dakota bill, urging a rejection of the bill due to its potentially damaging effect on the mental health and well-being of transgender individuals, who deserve more affirming and safe spaces, not less. Forcing a transgender student to compete on a sports team that differs from their gender identity places them in a horrible, Catch-22 situation, where they either submit to experiencing dysphoria on a team they do not feel like belong on, or miss the

chance to play on a team at all, like any youth deserves.

Schuyler Bailar, a transgender athlete who swimsfor Harvard University, addressed how difficult it is to be a trans student interested in playing sports, stating, “your identity does not ever have to rob you of your own passions.” Students should be welcomed in schools, to seek out passions, make friends, and play the sport they wish to, regardless of their identity.

While Biden’s executive order is a significant shift from the former Trump Administration’s stance, transphobic rhetoric such as the “fairness” argument still persists giving others a platform to attack the trans communi-

ty. Clearly, the battle is far from won, as states have the option to continue to neglect Biden’s executive order, raising the question of how far the Biden Administration is willing to intervene on a state level regarding this issue.

President Biden’s executive order is a step in the right direction and creates the potential for an even more significant change: the eventual elimination of the confines of the gender binary placed on high school sports entirely. With the understanding that Title VII and IX go beyond biological sex, sports teams that adhere to the gender binary are too limited. Teams separated by girls/boys suggest that there are either only two genders, or that there are only

“

” these arguments about “fairness” happen because many do not recognize transgender individuals as the gender they are.

two genders that matter, both of which are incorrect and refuse to acknowledge other identities.

Even if transgender men and women are allowed to compete on a team that aligns with their identity, the rights of nonbinary and gender non-conforming students are still being violated. Currently, it is common to separate many sports by gender once children reach teenage years. This leaves non-binary or gender non-conforming individuals, feeling as though they have to choose between the male or female team, neither of which might fit their identity.

However, popular sports such as ultimate frisbee, roller derby, or horseback racing, amongst others, are not always separated by gender. The existence of these organizations suggests that mixed gender teams do not hurt the experiences of the teens in sports — they compete while still building teamwork, spirit, and socialization abilities

— something that all children deserve the chance to experience.

Eliminating gender divides would amend team divisions that ignore other identities outside of men and women, so that any individual's identity is properly recognized. Additionally, if necessary, teams can be categorized by groups based on skill (A/B, varsity, and junior varsity, or different heats) the way sports teams like track, soccer, or basketball already do. Sports teams already have ample ways in order to take “fairness” into account. While the playing field can never be perfect, there are other ways to create a more equalized space without discriminating against transgender individuals. Removing the labels of male and female would allow sports to be entirely skill-based, negate gender essentialism, and include non-binary and gender non-conforming youth in a way that is both safe and inclusive. Identities beyond

male and female are, becoming socially and widely recognized, and President Biden’s executive order reiterating the real meaning behind “on the basis of sex” confirms this. Now, it is time for schools to allow all students to participate in sports regardless of their gender identity.

Unfortunately, the common questions about fairness and biology persist, because society has not completely overcome the importance of gender identity over arbitrary biological sex. However, this first step by the Biden administration, while admittedly vague, offers hope for a significantly less divided high school sports experience in the future. There is a long way to go in terms of LGBTQ+ identities, but this is a first step in, hopefully, a series to come, so that there is a future ahead of us that recognizes all genders and identities, so that at long last, we can truly say that discrimination “on the basis of sex” in schools has been eliminated.

The Biden administration is seeking to undo many of the discriminatory, anti-trans policies of the Trump administration. Photo by Elvert Barnes.

FEDERAL PRIVACY LEGISLATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: A

POSSIBILITY WITH A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY

Katerina Kaganovich // Barnard College '24 March 1, 2021

National scandals involving privacy violations and leaks have become a staple of news coverage. From Cambridge Analytica using Facebook to manipulate the 2016 election to the surveillance of location information, as well as countless data breaches in companies ranging from Estée Lauder to Wattpad, it is difficult to miss these stories. As technology infiltrates every aspect of a COVID-19 society, the amount and types of information that companies are collecting continue to expand. According to the Harvard Business Review, the growth of technology has given companies greater access to and control of their customers' material, to the point where 90 percent of the world’s data has been compiled within the last two years. This technological expansion gave Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, the ability to gather information from Facebook and use it to micro-target users in the 2016 Presidential Election, raising questions around data collection and

its role in undermining democratic processes. As a result, a Pew Research Center study found that 69 percent of the testing population has a lack of faith that companies and other data collecting entities will use their personal information in ways they would be comfortable with.

Events such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in conjunction with the exponential growth of digital surveillance and technological changes, have shaken the world and prompted some governments to employ strong legislative regulations on data collection. One such example is the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (G.D.P.R.). The G.D.P.R. limits data collection and storage, keeping data protected and holding companies accountable for their actions. The protections extend to all 28 E.U. states, even if the companies and data processors are located in other countries. The United States has fallen behind in creating similar legislation. While some states like California have begun to

implement their own standards, there is still no federal law regulating privacy. The lack of such regulation has the potential to seriously impact the economy. In fact, as a result of the United States' inadequate privacy standards, The European Union’s Court of Justice, has invalidated the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield, a framework designed to facilitate transatlantic data transfer. This decision prohibits data transfers between the E.U. and the U.S., jeopardizing companies’ ability to adequately comply with E.U. regulations and conduct business unless they adopt Standard Contractual Clauses (S.C.C.s), which are predicted to be

painstakingly difficult to implement. For some countries, like Germany, S.C.C.s require additional protection to competently secure personal data. As a result, the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington, has expressed that “it must be a top priority” for the Biden Administration to reach an agreement with the EU. A combination of Democrats and Republicans introduced four privacy legislation bills and two proposals in 2019 and 2020, but due to disagreements on COVID-19 measures, there was insufficient action on those

proposals. The 117th Congress will need to reintroduce them.

The invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield brings a new sense of urgency for lawmakers to pass federal privacy legislation. The key debates preventing the passage of enhanced privacy legislation are primarily focused on deciding whether the federal privacy bill should preempt state privacy laws and if individuals should have a private right of action to enforce the law. Based on the Democratic control of Congress and the presidency, a form of privacy legislation that favors the private right of action

while preempting state laws in direct conflicts will likely pass, although it will also include pathways for state laws to expand on existing legislation.

Existing U.S. privacy laws began with the United States Privacy Act of 1974 when Congress outlined important rights and limitations on data information held by US government agencies, such as the right to access the data, and the restricted sharing of data between different departments. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which regulates who gets to see protected health in-

Despite entering the third decade of the 21st century, the United States has yet to pass a comprehensive piece of federal privacy legislation. Photo by Peter Howell

formation. HIPAA also limits the market ing and selling of confidential health data. In the 1990s, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was intended to protect non-public personal information. Customers have the right to opt-out of banks sharing information with a “non-affiliated” third party. One caveat is that it does not extend to companies affiliated with the bank or insurance company, therefore opening a loophole for information sharing. Privacy legislation was also extended to children in the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which regulates personal information collected from minors and prohibits companies from asking for personal identifiable

information from children younger than 12 unless consented to by a parent. Nevertheless, as the dispute with the European Union makes apparent, United States privacy legislation has fallen far behind 21st century standards and technologies, particularly with regards to social media, the Internet, and data collection.

Unlike the E.U.’s G.D.P.R., which has evolved to modern standards and allows users to know, understand, and consent to the data collected about them, the United States relies solely on the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement mechanism. The United States isn’t standing in opposition to privacy reform; states across the Union have begun to implement

their own policies. California’s Consumer Privacy Act (C.C.P.A.) revolves around the individual’s right to be informed when their personal data is collected, to request to not have data collected, to delete information, and to opt-out of the sale of information. Though this policy is more extensive than those in other states, California still doesn’t go as far as the G.D.P.R. in allowing the user to correct false information. In addition, the C.C.P.A. only requires the inclusion of a notice of the right to opt-out of data collection while the G.D.P.R. needs explicit consent to collect personal data. Other states like Maine and Nevada have recently passed similar, but not as strong, privacy laws, while New York,

The CCPA was passed by the California state legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown on June 28, 2018. Photo by Charlie Kaijo.

Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Maryland, among others, are still pending.

While state coverage is a good first step into Internet-age regulations, Congress must pass a federal law mandating universal coverage for states that are yet to enact their own policies. Such a law would also establish clear guidance for businesses to follow while helping to repair trade relations with the European Union. The Congressional Research Services conducted a study of the proposed privacy legislation in 2020 and found that many contained the same components. Five out of the six proposals stipulated that regulation should allow individuals the right to control their personal information, that “defined class of entities”, meaning the person collecting the data, should take steps to respect those rights, and that legislation should create procedures to enforce those requirements. Lawmakers now wrestle over several questions: whether an existing federal agency would have the power of enforcement or if a new one should be created, whether individuals should have a private right of action, and whether this law would preempt state privacy laws.

The two competing bills in the previous Congress were the Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act (COPRA), led by Democrats, and the Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA), introduced by Republicans. These proposals differ in the basis of a private right of action and its place in regard to state laws. Democrats argue that a private right of action allows individuals the right to obtain monetary compensation for mistreatment of data aside from federal agency protection; Republicans argue

that private right of action will lead to an increase in frivolous lawsuits and a stifling of small businesses who would not be able to fight the litigation, as well as already being covered by F.T.C. and appropriate agencies. On the topic of federal supremacy, those in favor argue that the federal law would sufficiently protect consumers and the absence of this clause would create problems for companies trying to follow a patchwork of laws. On the other hand, many are concerned that a supreme federal law would negate the work done by states. Ideally, it would act as a floor rather than a ceiling.

Democrats have taken control of both Congress and the White House. Both President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris have expressed interest in strong federal privacy legislation. The current administration is likely to favor a COPRA-like bill – strong private right of action would allow individuals to seek damages or sue companies that violate their privacy rights and state laws, but only in cases where they overlap. This would allow states to create additional protections on top of the federal law. While there may be technical compromises, Democrats have more power at the negotiating table. It may be enough to finally pass modern privacy legislation.

Democrats and Republicans agree that the privacy bill should include fundamental protections like the right of correction, which would give customers the ability to correct false information, the right of portability, which would allow customers a copy of their data, and the right of information, which would allow a customer to know the entity’s privacy policy. They also agree on clauses about notice and consent, which are

requirements on how companies could use the information as well as allow users to opt-out of data transfers and sales. The proposals include rules on ways entities could collect and protect data, stressing that it must be “no more than it reasonably needs to provide the product or service that an individual requested”.

The path to federal privacy legislation has been made clear by recent political shifts and near-consensus in both parties. However, it is the actions of the European Union that have finally brought this issue to a tipping point. Although Democrat and Republican camps cannot agree on right of action and state versus federal supremacy questions, the control of Congress and the presidency will sway the legislation in the direction of including both. Despite the debate, the fact that both parties have agreed to major data privacy protections, both to protect American citizens and resurrect data transfers with Europe, is a positive sign that the United States will soon, finally, enter the age of the Internet.

“

”

The invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield brings a new sense of urgency for lawmakers to pass federal privacy legislation.

POLICY 360

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Nelson Mandela stencil. Photo by John-Paul Henry.

AsimpleGooglesearchof“freespeech”returnscountlessarticlesabouttheAmericancommitmentto,andperspectiveon,freespeechandFirstAmendmentrights.However,therearefarmorecountriesgrapplingwithfreespeech policies,witheachconfrontinganexigentchallengethathasemergedinthepasttwodecades:howtoapproachthe regulationofspeechontheInternet,anintangiblevirtualspacethattranscendsgeopoliticalborders.

Thispiecefocusesonthepolicydecisionsmadeattheintersectionoftechnologyandfreespeech.Itaimstowalk readersthroughthedifferentpolicyapproachestowardstheregulationofonlinespeechinsixcountriesacrossthree continents:Germanystruggleswithpreservingcivillibertiesandpreventingviolence,andChinasimilarlystruggles withcontinuingcensorshipandexpandingeconomicgrowth;SouthAfrica’scensorshiphasshowntobedrivenlargelybythepandemic,whileIndiahasengagedinInternetshutdownstoquellagrarianprotestsdespitebeingtheworld’s largestdemocracy;finally,givenrecentpoliticalstrife,bothMyanmarandSyriahaveseenacrackdownondigital consent,whichhasprovokedquestionsonthepreservationoffundamentalhumanrights.

Admittedly,thedynamicoftechnologicaladvancementhascomplicatedfreespeechinmorecountriesthantheones coveredhere.However,thisarticleismeanttopromptreaderstoapproachimportantpoliticalissueswithamore diversified, international perspective—much like our six writers did when crafting their pieces—while offering a glimpseofthefreespeechpolicychallengessomecountriesfacetoday,pandemicandall.

INTERNET RESTRICTIONS AND CENSORSHIP DURING STATE OF DISASTER IN SOUTH AFRICA

James Hu // Columbia College '24

On March 15, 2020, the South African government, led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, issued a national state of disaster in response to the unprecedented public safety threat of COVID-19. Ramaphosa declared the action under the 2002 Disaster Management Act (DMA), which allows the government to place special restrictions on movement and information within disaster-stricken areas. Given the widespread impact of the novel coronavirus, that “area” was declared to be the entire nation.

South Africa’s state of disaster, recently extended until March 15, 2021, limits a host of rights, including free speech. The regulations indicate that

anyone who publishes misinformation intended to deceive the public about COVID-19 and government measures to address it is committing a criminal offense. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution guarantees the freedom of expression. Unfortunately, the vagueness of the new regulations, along with the government’s unceasing extension of the state of disaster, puts this hard-fought right at risk.

South Africa’s censorship is no anomaly. The International Press Institute reports that at least 17 countries passed some form of regulation intended to target coronavirus disinformation since March 2020. In comparison to other governments, South

Africa could even be commended for delegating the process of fact-checking to independent non-profits like Media Monitoring Africa, just one tenet of their genuine attempt to establish a multi-stakeholder monitoring program. However, the vagueness of the unprecedented regulations makes it difficult to apply the law consistently across many publications and internet users in the first place, diminishing the value of employing a third-party fact-checker. What constitutes an intention to deceive? To what extent is criticism of government measures allowed? These questions remain unanswered.

From 2009-2018, then-President Jacob Zuma cracked down on inde-

pendent media that viewed the government with a critical gaze. He effectively seized control of South Africa’s largest broadcasting corporation, encouraged the establishment of new pro-government media, and purchased huge swaths of critical newspapers. For Ramaphosa, who had thus far been dedicated to ridding South Africa of the corruption rampant under Zuma, the optics of totalizing censorship laws are detrimental to his credibility. Notably, Ramaphosa and Zuma are both members of the African National Congress.

Ramaphosa must lift the current free speech regulations to rebuild the party’s reputation and affirm South Africa’s commitment to free media. If he does not, Ramaphosa runs the additional risk of discrediting the launch of the Digital Platform for the Safety of Journalists in Africa, a recent initiative with the African Union Chair to end impunity for crimes against journalists across the continent.

All this is not to say that South Africa ought to let misinformation run rampant. Experts at the Free

INTERNET SHUTDOWNS IN INDIA AMIDST FARMER PROTESTS

Samuel Braun // Columbia College '24

The ongoing farmer protests unfolding across India and their subsequent Internet shutdowns illuminate the tension between India’s supposed democratic status and its burgeoning authoritarian tendencies. Long before the Internet became essential in organizing popular protests, Indian farmers faced a different crisis in the mid-twentieth century in the form of severe food insecurity. Such a threat was stymied partly by government regulation, yet as India’s economy underwent rapid growth and diversification in recent decades, the same regulations have hindered private economic activity in the broader Indian economy. Proposed solutions to this issue transferred India’s plight from the economic to the political: addressing India’s economic flaws prompted a political crisis.

In efforts to reform India’s agricultural policy, Prime Minister Modi’s government has repealed much mid-century regulation, including farmer subsidies and price controls. The livelihoods of farmers will suffer from such reforms, which have motivated hundreds of thousands of farmers to pour into Delhi and protest. As farmer-government violence intensifies, the Modi government has suspended Internet services in regions experiencing the greatest protest activity, quelling protesters’ ability to coordinate demonstrations. The Indian Internet has been shut down before; in fact, India is a world leader in targeted Internet shutdown as a government-sanctioned means of repression.

Authoritarian states across the world employ various tools to control the flow of speech and public opin-

Market Foundation recommend that the government post accurate and accessible information on their website to develop a strong counter-narrative strategy against misinformation. While this solution is not perfect, it is undoubtedly preferable to the censorship laws that run contradictory to Ramaphosa’s own goal of reestablishing faith in South Africa’s right to free speech.

ion, oftentimes resorting to forthright government-sponsored Internet and media censoring. Yet Prime Minister Modi’s increasingly undemocratic Indian government has seen similarly successful results in its tangent approach. Whereas effective censorship regimes like those seen in China and Syria require coordinated, long-term institutional support, Indian Internet shutdowns are by nature temporary. Thus, Modi’s actions can be understood as a middle way between freedom of expression and restricted speech.

In 2020, India utilized Internet shutdowns 109 times. Following a typical free speech restriction script, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs cited an “interest of maintaining public safety and averting public emergency” as justification for its technological attacks. The concern

of preserving peace, so commonly cited in free speech restrictions around the world, has dire consequences in Delhi. A leader of Samyukta Kisan Morcha, an umbrella body representing protesting farmers, believes the government “is fearful of the coordinated work of the farmers’ unions across different protest sites and is trying to cut off communication means between

them.”

Set against the global backdrop of heightened free speech abuse prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Modi government’s choice of Internet shutdown to stall free speech aligns with the global trend towards authoritarianism: as with the rest of the world, speech is but a frontier upon which authoritarian and populist forces compete in India.

Tarunabh

Khaitan, vice-dean of law at Oxford University and founding General Editor of the Indian Law Review, argues that “what we are getting is not quite a one-party state, but certainly a hegemonic state.” The Modi government’s response to the farmer protests reflects India’s avoidance of one-party-styled, institutionalized censorship, yet it certainly increases tension with its own democratic identity.

THE GREATEST THREAT OF MYANMAR’S COUP: CENSORSHIP AND INTERNET SHUTDOWN

Kaitlyn Saldanha // Barnard College '24

When Myanmar’s National League for Democracy (NLD) took office in 2016, many believed a new age of progressiveness would unfold, particularly regarding the protection of civil liberties. What followed instead was a continuation of the criminalization of nonviolent expression that has plagued Myanmar for decades. Myanmar’s present political crisis and history of domestic strife are directly and inextricably connected to the state-sanctioned attack on free speech, and civilian suffering will only—can only—worsen should this suppression of civil liberties persist. Besides the ongoing unjust persecution of journalists, two specific laws have enabled the government’s suppression of free speech in Myanmar.

In the Telecommunications Law of 2013, Section 66(d) effectively provides up to three years imprisonment for anyone who “extort[s], coerc[es],

restrain[s] wrongfully, defam[es], disturb[es], caus[es] undue influence or threaten[s] any person using a telecommunications network.” In other words, the law allows for criminal prosecution against one engaged in criticism of others on a telecommunications network. Section 66(d) is also a non-bailable charge that entails months in detainment for many of those charged (predominantly journalists).

To a similar effect, the Unlawful Associations Act of 1908 is most commonly used to “intimidate and arrest political activists” via presidential determination of an act as “unlawful.” What constitutes as “unlawful” has been left intentionally vague, essentially covering anything which “encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation.” Moreover, a conviction under Sections 17(1-2) could lead to punishments of up to five years of imprisonment, during

which many prisoners are subjected to extensive torture at the hands of Burmese officials.

These two pieces of legislation are not without consequences: on February 1, 2021, Myanmar collapsed into a full-blown crisis with the forceful removal of the de-facto civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her administration. An unstable military government means Myanmar’s two most threatening censorship laws could easily be invoked in the name of quelling dissent and restoring stability. This attack has already commenced: the military’s main strategy to stifle anti-coup protests is strict restrictions on online speech and internet usage. On February 14, in one of five all-out internet blackouts since the coup d’état, the military shut down the country’s internet in a blatant attempt to crush civilian opposition. In moments of national crisis, revolutionaries often depend upon the Internet to organize protests

and to capture and disseminate scenes of brutality to international news organizations. The Internet serves as an essential medium for the expression of civil liberties in the 21st century: between the right to assemble and the right to free speech, online censorship and internet shutdowns emerge as

tools of oppression and centralization of power, and signifiers of illiberalism regardless of government form. The military junta’s internet shutdown has invariably limited the organization of protests by the Myanmar populace.

At this moment, the world holds its breath in anticipation of the mili-

tary junta’s next move to stifle civilian outcry. Until safeguards for free speech reach legislative fruition, the military junta will be able to exploit the remnants of Myanmar’s flawed democracy, and innocent civilians will bear the burden of the ensuing violence.

WIDENING CRACKS IN THE “GREAT FIREWALL” OF CHINA

Rohil Sabherwal // Columbia College '24

On February 8, 2021, as millions of Chinese began preparations for the highly anticipated festivities of the Lunar New Year, many found themselves unable to access the audio-chat social networking app, Clubhouse. In the weeks leading up to its ban, the platform became a temporary haven for discussions on highly sensitive, anti-party topics like the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement and the Uighur Muslim concentration camps. Unsurprisingly, the app is now the most recent addition to a long list of such platforms that have been curtailed by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) heavy free speech restrictions.

Since 1978, China has undergone massive economic reforms, culminating in the country’s entrance into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and its establishment as the world’s second-largest economy in 2010. This rapid globalization has resulted in an enor -

mous influx of information and media technology, as attested by China’s burgeoning 5G market. Today, compared to the US, China has more 5G subscribers per capita, more 5G phones for sale, and significantly wider coverage.

This technological boom, however, has not come without cost to the CCP’s absolute political authority. In 2005, a seemingly harmless online Chinese petition to protest against Japan’s attempt to permanently join the UN Security Council rapidly gained popularity. After gathering more than 40 million signatures, protestors took to the streets in 20 different cities. However, nationalist fervor quickly turned into anti-party sentiment when the protests shifted focus towards the government over issues like pollution and labor representation. Within five years of the turn of the 21st century, media technology had become a powerful tool for domestic dissent. The government has since instituted far-reaching

online censorship, earning China the spot of last place on Freedom House’s ranking of countries’ internet freedom.

While the Chinese constitution includes freedom of speech and press clauses, its nebulous language allows for the prosecution of anything deemed threatening to the state’s security. Under the Golden Shield Project, the government has spent billions developing the “Great Firewall” and the “Great Cannon,” which can block traffic and replace content within milliseconds of being uploaded. In fact, the CCP’s obscure “information security” protection policy has allowed the Central Propaganda Department and other smaller, more specialized groups to not only review and surveil all information flowing in and out of the country but also limit access to Western media through the restriction of virtual private networks (VPNs). Despite such efforts, technological development, like the expansion of

5G coverage, will only make online content restrictions harder to enforce, as the recent Clubhouse ban shows. Beyond this, the government has increasingly turned to less rigid and conspicuous methods of censorship. According to a 2016 Harvard study, the Chinese government’s “cyber-army” creates around 448 million fake posts on social media annually—misinformation

has become a new mode of filling in cracks in the “Great Firewall.”

As China continues to develop economically and integrate into the broader world order with ambitious undertakings like the Belt and Road Initiative and its recent pledge to be a carbon-neutral country by 2060, its technological capacity will only continue to grow. In turn, its online censorship policies will only

become increasingly harder to enforce. The natural globalization that accompanies the CCP's grand strategy to assert Chinese global hegemony directly threatens its censorship efforts and in turn, political power. This contradictory dynamic, therefore, may soon force the party to choose between absolute authoritarianism and its long-term foreign policy goals.

FREE SPEECH AS A SAFEGUARD FOR THE SYRIAN PEOPLE UNDER A TIGHTLY CONTROLLED STATE?

Jenna Yuan // Columbia College '24

Amid a brutal civil war and displacement crisis, Syrian activists and civilians face their own fight: the right to free speech online. Once broadly recognized as a conduit of the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, technology’s role in facilitating free expression has seen a dramatic shift in recent years. Now, many of the warring political factions in Syria have found ways to crack down on dissent online, turning once-promising platforms into additional mechanisms to centralize their power.

Led by President Bashar al-Assad, the incumbent Syrian Arab Republic government has perhaps developed the most sophisticated infrastructure for suppressing online speech. During the Arab Spring, the Assad regime used force against peaceful protests, sparking the current civil war; since then, the Assad regime has only doubled down, implementing policies to

bring its harsh crackdowns on dissent online. In the regions it controls, the government has enacted strict internet rationing guidelines, permitting processes, and compliance monitoring which tightly controls access to cell and internet services and, in turn, drives up prices.

Not only has Assad’s incumbent government implemented formal policies to control speech, but it has also arbitrarily prevented the expression of anti-regime views online. In 2020 alone, they launched three distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on independent media organizations (and successfully booted one off of the internet), leveraged Facebook’s copyright claim process to take down videos of protests from the city Daraa, and arrested multiple human rights activists and journalists such as Nada Mashraki for reasons including “publishing false news to undermine the prestige of the state.”

The weaponization of the internet as a tool for suppressing free speech, not facilitating it, has not only been limited to Assad’s regime. Instead, many parties with stakes in the Syrian civil war have found ways to limit speech against their interests expressed on technological platforms. On two separate occasions in 2018 and 2019, after offensive operations against the U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Turkish forces and their allies cut off internet services for SDF-controlled areas, almost all of northern Syria. Like Assad’s regime, the militant group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham has also detained online activists and journalists without just cause.

Still, ongoing instability and conflict mean technology and internet access are still not widespread in Syria. Only about 34 percent of Syrians have internet access, and many are facing more immediate threats to their basic needs: 9.3 million Syrians are food

insecure, and the ongoing conflict has displaced almost 1 million. However, as the civil war rages with no end in sight, the fight for free speech online by activists, journalists, and civilians remains critically urgent. Against re-

pression from all different factions, especially the authoritarian Assad regime, and under the risk of great personal danger, expression on technology platforms represents a way for the Syrian people to fight for themselves,

launch coordinated action, and document human rights abuses. Through prioritizing technology access in humanitarian efforts and finding an end to the conflict, free speech must be protected at all costs.

RESTRICTING “ILLEGAL” CONTENT: WELLINTENTIONED BUT FLAWED LEGISLATION IN GERMANY

Adam Szczepankowski// Columbia College '24

As Western nations try to balance longstanding speech protections with the newfound challenges of the digital era, Germany has made headlines with its passage of restrictions on several forms of free expression. While the country is wellknown for its strict enforcement of laws that ban Holocaust denial, more recent legislation that aims to combat online hate speech has ignited a debate on the merits and detriments of such censorship.

The Network Enforcement Act, known in Germany as NetzDG, first came into force in 2017 and requires social networks like Facebook and Twitter to remove hate speech, fake news, and any other “obviously illegal” posts within 24 hours, blocking access to the content within Germany. Failure to comply with the Act results in steep fines. Last year, Germany expanded the law’s scope by passing a provision that requires platforms to report alleged criminal content directly to Federal authorities.

The provision is part of a larger reform effort that aims to strengthen

restrictions to deter the spread of farright rhetoric. The number of politically motivated hate crimes rose by 14.2 percent in 2019, marking yet another year in which violence has increased. For many Germans, though, it was the murder of local politician Walter Lübcke in June 2019 which convinced them that new measures were necessary. Lübcke, whose defense of Germany’s open border policy towards refugees was widely shared on social media and right-wing online forums, was shot and killed by a neo-Nazi outside his own home, sparking a public outcry.

Despite its seemingly good intentions, NetzDG has not escaped criticism, either at home or abroad. Since it was first proposed in the Bundestag by members of the CDU/ CSU and Social Democratic Party, other groups including Germany’s Free Democratic (FDP), Green, and Left parties have all voiced vehement opposition to the online speech law and called for its repeal. Human Rights Watch has called the NetzDG a “flawed social media law,” and a major Danish think tank lik-

ened Germany’s online restrictions to those of countries with authoritarian regimes, among them Russia, Belarus, and Venezuela.

It is easy to see such pushback and believe that the country’s free speech debate is based on the controversial provisions of one law. The reality, though, is that Germany’s online speech restrictions predate 2017. One such example is the country’s prohibition of insults against a person’s character, both online and in public. In 2013 alone, German courts heard 26,757 cases related to criminal insults, which resulted in 21,454 convictions and 20,390 fines. While the criteria for a “criminal insult” is quite specific, the very existence of such a restriction is troubling for advocates of free expression. The distinction between insult and criticism can be a slippery slope, and the ease with which the former can be punished can stifle productive dialogue and critiques.

It appears the West remains at a crossroads in its pursuit of preserving civil liberties and curbing violence, perhaps more so than ever before.

Photo by Markus Spiske.

BRAZIL’S VACCINE FREE-FOR-ALL

Brazil’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout lags behind other countries due to the poor governance of President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration and the political dispute between expected candidates in the 2022 presidential election. Brazil, the largest economy of Latin America, has a world-renowned immunization program considered the best among developing countries; however, the federal government has neglected the population since the beginning of the pandemic. President Bolsonaro, who caught the virus in July, has undermined the threat of the virus and the importance of wearing masks and social distancing, and often uses anti-vaccination rhetoric. Brazil’s robust immunization program and manufacturing capacity presented a hopeful future, but the continuous government neglect has rendered Brazilians’ post-pandemic expectations quite negative. The vaccination plan presented is far from comprehensive and the choice of a nationwide vaccine is enmeshed in a political dispute between president Jair Bolsonaro and the Governor of Sao Paulo, João Doria. The

current political turmoil regarding the choice of a vaccine is further complicated by the unsettling rise of an anti-vaccination movement in Brazil.

Despite the high number of COVID-19 cases in Brazil, President Bolsonaro has continuously put thousands of lives at risk by pushing his anti-science response to the pandemic. The first cases of COVID-19 in Brazil were reported in February of 2020 and it took only three months for the country to lead Latin America as the epicenter of the pandemic. So far, over 200,000 Brazilians have died, and a new variant of the virus found in the Amazon State is expected to be more transmissible. Even amidst the current public health crisis, President Bolsonaro has continually pushed his anti-science agenda, undermined the seriousness of the pandemic by claiming the virus is “a little flu”, and made frequent public appearances without a face mask. In a span of just three months, Brazil changed health ministers three times. The government has been merciless toward any government official that has looked favorably upon science. The first minister,

Luiz Mandetta, resigned over disagreements with the president over social isolation measures and the country’s coronavirus response. The second minister, Nelson Teich, resigned less than a month following Mandetta’s resignation, seemingly for similar reasons. The current minister, Eduardo Pazuello, despite being an army general without health credentials, has maintained his position by keeping a low profile and staying in line with Bolsonaro.

Only on December 13, seven months after Brazil became the epicenter of the pandemic, did the federal government present a plan—one that was far from comprehensive. The plan focuses on priority groups, such as health care workers, elderly people, and indigenous people, and expects to begin vaccination in February 2021; however, it does not address the immunization of the population at large, which is especially concerning given that Brazil has a population of 211 million people. Additionally, the plan omits important information such as the start date of vaccination and details of operations to achieve its purported goal of immunizing

Julia Shimizu // Barnard College '23 February 7, 2021

70 percent of the population. The operational details are especially relevant given the difficult access to certain regions and the country’s continental dimensions. The government has not been clear about the distribution of medical supplies such as needles, gloves, and freezers, which are essential for the storage and application of the vaccine. Minister Pazuello claimed that Brazil had enough medical supplies for the month of January, but critics claim that the government has put little effort into purchasing more supplies.

What is more urgent is the question of which vaccine will be used for nationwide immunization. In late June, the federal government signed an agreement to produce the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine

in Brazil. In September, the state of Sao Paulo signed an agreement between Sinovac, from China, and the Butantan Institute to cooperate in research and to produce the vaccine in Brazil. However, President Bolsonaro opposes the nationwide use of the Sinovac vaccine. Many consider his position to be politically motivated, since the Sinovac vaccine was researched and produced in Sao Paulo, under Governor Joao Doria, who is expected to be an opposing candidate to Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential election. Bolsonaro claimed that Brazil would not buy “the Chinese vaccine of Doria,” hinting at the political disagreement with Governor Doria. Bolsonaro has recently mocked the vaccine’s effectiveness by asking a supporter "Is that 50% good?", de -

spite scientific evidence confirming it is above the universal threshold to be considered effective.

President Bolsonaro's politically motivated criticism of the Sinovac vaccine undermines the credibility of the Butantan Institute—an essential and central component of the country's vaccine production. Bolsonaro’s questioning of the Sinovac vaccine is baseless and threatens the vaccination rollout by suggesting that the Astra-Zeneca-Oxford vaccine is preferable to the Sinovac vaccine tested in the Butantan Institute. Brazil is one of the countries that offers the most vaccines for free, making the National Program for Immunization (PNI) a world-renowned program. The Butantan Institute provides 65 percent of the vaccines

Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro in a press briefing.. Photo by Agência Brasil.

used in the PNI and is the largest flu vaccine manufacturer in the Southern Hemisphere. The Institute also produces vaccines against rabies, tetanus, and hepatitis B, and is one of the main centers for the study and production of antivenoms, providing it to countries such as the UK, US, and Australia. The Institute’s production capability will be fundamental for the national production of the vaccine, and Bolsonaro’s dismissal of its credibility and importance is detrimental to the immunization efforts against COVID-19.

President Bolsonaro’s criticism of the effectiveness of the vaccine fuels anti-vaccination sentiment, which further threatens the immunization of the Brazilian population. Bolsonaro has widely employed anti-vaccination rhetoric disguised as promoting individual freedom. Similar to the United States, Brazil’s political polarization

reduces public trust in the vaccine.

President Bolsonaro's opposition to social isolation measures, his denial of the virus, and the underlying anti-vaccination tone in his speeches can cost many more Brazilian lives. The government's

the city’s health system in early January. As the vaccine rollout is painfully slow, and anti-vaccination sentiments rise, Brazil’s post-pandemic future seems nowhere close.

has affected people’s behavior regarding the pandemic. A study conducted by the University of Brasilia in late September 2020 showed that government sympathizers are less worried about the virus and less willing to be vaccinated compared to those that are more critical of the government. Additionally, Bolsonaro’s refusal to take any COVID-19 vaccine himself sets a bad standard for the rest of the country and

disastrous mishandling of the pandemic has revealed how poor governance and lack of leadership has a direct impact on lives. Brazil’s main newspapers’ editorials have accused Bolsonaro of being “homicidally negligent” and containing “lethal incompetence.” Bolsonaro’s chosen health minister, Pazuello, is under investigation for ignoring an alert for oxygen shortages in the city of Manaus, which led to a collapse in

And yet, the negligent and disastrous handling of the pandemic by Bolsonaro’s administration does not come as a surprise. In fact, Bolsonaro was elected on the very principles that fated his governance to failure: anti-science, denialist, and, most importantly, polarizing. A highly unqualified administration that based its rhetoric on false promises and fake news was doomed to handle a public health emergency from the start. An effective plan to fight the COVID-19 pandemic would require careful planning, working with, and not against, the scientific community, and international cooperation. Once again, President Bolsonaro has let down the Brazilian people— only this time, the implications are far more severe.

Bolsonaro has been a huge roadblock for getting the country vaccinated. Image by Brynn Hansen.

"In fact, Bolsonaro was elected on the very principles that fated his governance to failure: antiscience, denialist, and, most importantly, polarizing."

U.S. TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM SOMALIA AND THE NEW COLD WAR IN AFRICA

Kaitlyn Saldanha // Barnard College '24 January 20, 2021

Central to President Trump’s foreign policy platform is the withdrawal of troops from various foreign battlegrounds. From Afghanistan to Syria to Iraq, Trump upheld his promises from the 2016 election to oversee the removal of U.S. troops from “endless foreign wars.” Latest in this line of troop withdrawals is his announcement in early December, which ordered the removal of all American troops—of which there are approximately 700—from Somalia by January 15, 2021. The premature departure of U.S. troops from Mogadishu raises questions about the terrorist threat to Somalia and Africa’s increasing role as a battlefield for a power struggle between the major global powers.

In the latter half of the Cold War (the late 1970s), the Horn of Africa became a region of great interest to the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly because of its location, which provided key naval access. The U.S. sought to establish Somalia as a Cold War ally to solidify dominance in The Horn. To achieve this goal, the U.S. poured money and resources into a puppet government that would play out the American foreign policy agenda abroad. The

chosen leader of this government was Mohamed Siad Barre, who led the state from 1978 until 1991. During Barre’s time in office, President Ronald Reagan invested $100 million USD in economic and military aid and personally met with Somali leaders to reimagine U.S.-Somali relations. Reagan even constructed a luxurious $50 million USD embassy in Mogadishu, equipped with three massive swimming pools and a maintenance staff surpassing 430 employees. But if American interference across Central America and the Middle East proved anything, it is that puppet governments tend to be a recipe for disaster. The inevitable outcome eventually arrived in 1991, when Barre’s opponents, namely the major rebel group United Somali Congress, toppled the government.

With a complete lack of centralized government, Somalia came to be known as a failed state as the devolution into sectarian violence, poverty, clan warfare, famine, dire human rights status, and economic destruction ensued. U.S. involvement in Somalia, however, did not conclude with the collapse of its puppet government under Barre. While the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu closed in 1991, the U.S. contin-

ued to intervene in the state’s affairs. In the following year, the U.S. embarked on a military intervention in Somalia to fight alongside the United Nations peacekeeping force.

The U.N. entered the conflict in Somalia on the grounds of humanitarian need, citing malnutrition, disease, and children in conflict zones as main priorities. What began as a strictly apolitical cause, however, later developed into an investment into the negotiation process for a new government. In other words, the U.N. implicated itself in the messy process of state-building: a tragic mistake. There are many reasons as to why both U.N. peacekeeping missions in Somalia—UNOSOM

"A new Cold War plays out on Africa’s soil, and there is no path of action for Trump which will not be met with an equal reaction from China and Russia."

I and UNOSOM II—failed, but what matters is this: these missions are widely regarded as two of the most appalling failures of the U.N. since its inception. Most of the supplies and equipment shipments to U.N. troops and officials ended up in the hands of rebel organizations or terrorists like al-Shabab, only to be weaponized against innocent civilians. The pipeline of money and donations was not coupled with the necessary distribution strategies to successfully deliver aid to those in need. Instead, the ironic result was that the U.N. ended up providing extensive support to the very terrorist organizations it intended to counteract.

The cooperation of U.N. and U.S. forces characterized a period of intense foreign involvement in the civil war, which unfortunately yielded minimal progress. It also did not last long. Just a year later came the Battle of Mogadishu, otherwise known as Black Hawk Down. On October 3-4, 1993, Somali forces ambushed a U.S. ordered raid attack on militia leader Mohamed Farrah Aidid, resulting in some of the deadliest urban combat for U.S. troops since Vietnam. Ultimately, Somali forces shot down two American helicopters; civilians dragged the mutilated corpses of the pilots through the streets. The battle inflicted 18 American casualties and 73 injuries.

The Battle of Mogadishu marked

a critical turning point for international intervention in Somalia. American foreign policy shifted dramatically as the Clinton administration responded to the public outcry. President Clinton addressed the nation on October 7, 1993, with a televised announcement that U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994, including troops assigned to the U.S. peacekeeping force by the Department of Defense. Accordingly, just one year after the devastating Black Hawk Down incident, all but 90 American governmental officials moved from Mogadishu to Mombasa, Kenya, via ship, and subsequently airlifted to the U.S.. Clinton also enacted a significant cutback in humanitarian aid efforts in Somalia.

At the time of the 1994 troop withdrawal, the U.S. Department of Defense claimed to be “confident that UNOSOM II [would be] able to carry out its mandate at current troop levels,” but that “rapidly deteriorating security conditions[s] caused by inter-clan fighting could put the successful execution of the mandate beyond the reach of UNOSOM II.” Evidently, the American officials were right to second-guess the efficacy of U.N. forces acting alone: circumstances only worsened. Despite the numerous efforts to reach a settlement between stakeholders, including the Addis Ababa Agreement and the Nairobi Declara-

tion, the bloodshed only continued.

Eventually, the U.N. arrived at the conclusion that “UNOSOM II’s goal of assisting the process of political reconciliation was becoming ever more elusive,” particularly in consideration of the high troop and equipment levels, which came at a great cost to the U.N. On November 4, 1994, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to pass Resolution 954, which effectively withdrew all forces.

International efforts to force an end to the Somali Civil War and guide a process of peace-building constituted a devastating and expensive failure. Despite this outcome, the decision to cease U.S. intervention in Somalia was not final. The aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001 entailed brand new American counterterrorism efforts in several countries. So, once again, American troops in growing numbers reentered Somali territory and joined with forces from neighboring countries like Uganda and Kenya. The central purpose for re-establishing a U.S. military presence in Somalia was to combat al-Shabab, a jihadist terrorist group that announced an affiliation with Al-Qaeda in 2012. Al-Shabab’s massive presence in the country presents the single most urgent threat to the livelihood of the collective Somali populace.

American strategic interest in Somalia originates with the Cold

"There are many reasons as to why both U.N. peacekeeping missions in Somalia—UNOSOM I and II—failed, but what matters is this: these missions are widely regarded as two of the most appalling failures of the U.N. since its inception."

War of the 20th century; now, in the 21st century, we see the dawn of a new Cold War in Africa. The competitive nature of this geopolitical trend is identical to the bipolar world order that followed the conclusion of the Second World War; all that differs now is the motive. This time, the threat is not a communist insurgency but challenges to American dominance abroad from Beijing and Moscow. China’s Belt and Road Initiative aims to proliferate a global presence through infrastructural projects, which only cements the importance of Africa in Chinese foreign policy. Similarly, for Russia, strategic naval interest in The Port of Aden plays a key role in Putin’s foreign policy agenda. This

is traceable through the uptick in Russian trade, arms deals, and military training programs across Africa over recent years. The politics between the United States, Russia, and China are deeply nuanced, but on the topic of Africa, the dynamic is quite clear. We are witnessing a race between the U.S. and its enemies to get in on the radical economic development observed across the African continent: one that can yield but one winner.

Ergo, President Trump’s announcement in December to remove all troops from Somalia does more than resurface a murky history of failed intervention and puppet governments; it evokes a major proxy war of the 21st century. A new Cold

War plays out on Africa’s soil, and there is no path of action for Trump which will not be met with an equal reaction from China and Russia. Certainly, the presence of U.S. troops is no guarantor of peace nor stability: but the departure of al-Shabab’s greatest enemy from the battlefield can only fare poorly for those who lie in the crossfire. At stake in this proxy war for dominance in The Horn are the lives of innocent civilians already suffering from severe drought and a raging separatist movement.

Tread carefully, President Trump; Somalia is a powder keg. One wrong move risks not only a dramatic reshuffling of power between the U.S. and its enemies, but the national survival of Somalia, too.

United Nation soldiers during UNOSOM II in 1993. Image by Staff SGT. Jeffrey T. Brady.

POLITICS AND THE POLARITY IN THE KOREAN REAL ESTATE MARKETS

Korea’s real estate market is spiraling out of control, and the staggering house prices in Seoul have spoiled the middle-class dreams President Moon once vowed to uphold in his inauguration. Moon implemented a series of seemingly remedial policies––notably higher taxes to curb real estate speculation––but the problem persists: prices have increased by more than 58% since 2017 and the median apartment price in Seoul as of January this year is 1.04 billion won (or $1.24 million). Inequalities have spiked in recent years, and the pursuit of home-ownership in Seoul is quickly becoming a farfetched reality.

With less risk and a history of high returns, the flow of wealth towards real estate is among the most common investment practices in South Korea. Real estate investments are made possible by

a unique jeonse rental system: the tenant places a deposit––typically around 70% home’s market value––for the lease duration, and the landlord returns the entire deposit at the end of the lease interest-free.

The landlord uses the interest-free, borrowed deposit for investments, thereby generating profit.

The practice known as ‘gap investment’ that cleverly generates returns based on the jeonse system

Jason Park // Columbia School of General Studies '24 March 7, 2021

has become an enterprising process for landlords. For example, a landlord could buy a condominium worth $450,000 with $150,000 through a prior deal with a renter who would put down $300,000 in

deposit. Accounting for Seoul’s approximate rate of appreciation, the landlord could sell the condo two years later for almost $600,000. After paying back the deposit to the renter and subtracting the initial

investment,

the landlord profits

$150,000. Recently, Seoul has seen a rise in landlords seeking to capitalize on the distinctive real estate contract system.

Aggressive gap investments

Cityscape in Seoul, South Korea. Photo by Mathew Schwartz.

Everyday

create an incredibly vulnerable and unregulated financial ecosystem whereby a downturn in the real estate market and a landlord’s bankruptcy could immediately wipe out millions in jeonse deposits. Gap investment would thus act as a harbinger to higher prices of real estate. The central bank’s response to COVID-19 with an unusually low-interest rate has only exacerbated the practice, increasing capital flow into assets and driving prices upward.

The surge in house prices has also pushed young, first-time job holders out of the city with ensuing burdens such as transportation costs and loans for inflated jeonse deposits. After earning a majori -

ty in the April parliamentary elections, the Moon administration and Democratic Party have announced a host of laws concerning the real estate market. The revisions raised taxes for non-residential real estate investors, restrained gap investment to remove excess liquidity, and devised strategies to divert the flow of cash away from real estate, such as the “New Deal Fund” which promotes investment for governmental projects.

The ambitious goal to offer affordable housing has ushered in punitive taxation and regulatory measures as President Moon’s foremost real estate policy prescription, but they have failed to materialize. This failure is rather unsurprising as

it defies the very basic market principles of supply and demand. The government’s relentless attempts to decrease demand for homes have not been supplemented by an increased supply of houses, distorting the market with frozen trade and fueling increases in long-term house prices. In addition, the massive flow of liquidity into the real estate market in tandem with continued low-interest rates would indubitably cause a housing market bubble.

Yonsei University Economist Taeyun Sung has voiced a more “market-friendly” approach in controlling supply and demand in lieu of the pre-existing regulation-centric real estate policies. The current

life in Seoul. Photo by Luke Paris.

Despite the Ministry of Economy and Finance stating their intent to supply more than 830,000 housing units by raising height restrictions and the maximum floor area ratio, Moon faces a ‘third rail’ political issue hindering the practical realization of the proposals.

set of regulations and its de facto implications pertain to the inability to obtain mortgages. The government has supported the steps as necessary to bring stability to a market shaken by speculators. Sung has repeatedly refuted this policy as young people living in rented apartments cannot purchase their own homes. A tighter mortgage policy with lower loan-to-value ratios is a contributor to higher rents. The very citizens the government has promised to protect are now falling victim to the real estate policies.

Despite the Ministry of Economy and Finance stating their intent to supply more than 830,000 housing units by raising height restrictions and the maximum floor area ratio, Moon faces a ‘third rail’ political issue hindering the practical realization of the proposals. Lowering the wealth tied to a significant portion of Korean households has proven to be difficult to overcome politically. Politics and electoral interests are at the centrality of the real estate crisis.

With political endeavors taking precedence, President Moon is receiving criticism for playing a game of short-term populous politics––continually exploiting housing policies as a means to rally supporters. Several liberal lawmakers have also been accused of owning multiple

homes, shedding light on double standards within the government. A hot mic moment caught Democratic Party assembly member Jin Seong-jun claiming that “house prices are not going to fall,” after a debate arguing in favor of government policies.

Buying a house has become an extremely stressful process for South Koreans, especially in Seoul––the epicenter of business, education, and multicultural diversity. Residential ownership has never been easy in the capital city, but the prospect of starting a family in a stable household has become even more elusive under the Moon administration. In 2021, South Korea’s population fell for the first time in history with a crude birth rate of 0.84. It is of utmost importance that the administration act in the interest of middle-income families––particularly those who fail to qualify for public rental housing. President Moon must swiftly adopt an easing of real estate regulations while simultaneously endorsing policies to increase the supply of affordable housing in and around Seoul.

Moon’s approval rating has recently dipped significantly from 71% to 39%––the lowest of his presidency. While the Korean housing market’s trajectory is hard to

predict, we know Moon’s future housing policies may make or break the legacy of his presidency. More importantly, the next generation’s prospect of life in Korea is in the hands of policymakers and President Moon.

Finding the right policy solution puts President Moon in a difficult situation.

Photo courtesy of Korean Culture and Information Service.

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW