CAMPUS BLUEPRINT FALL 2015
IN THIS ISSUE: - Gun Control - Syrian Refugees - UNC’s Food for All Fall 2015 - 1
CONTENTS 4
FROM THE BLOG
6
GUN CONTROL: The Unsolvable Time Bomb
8
VOICES OF ZAATARI: Listening to Syrians during a Visit to Jordan’s Largest Refugee Camp
10 THE CASE FOR PHYSICIAN AID IN DYING 12
IS ISLAMAPHOBIA AN ACCEPTED FORM OF PREJUDICE?
14
UNC’S FOOD FOR ALL
16
SIX DORM DISHES TO TRANSFORM YOUR FALL
18
RETHINKING GOVERNMENT: Citizens Want a Representative Legislature, not Legislator
20
ON THE GROUND IN OCCUPIED PALESTINE
22
FRAGMENTATION vs. POLARIZATION
2 - Fall 2015
STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Caroline Woronoff EXECUTIVE EDITOR Tony Liu MANAGING EDITORS Sandy Alkoutami Sami Lachgar Cole Wihelmi PHOTOGRAPHY DIRECTOR Alex Clayton
STAFF WRITERS Claire Boyd David Lauzier Saif Mahyar Basel Quran PHOTOGRAPHERS Krista Bellamy Emelen Clemmons Rachel Greene Zhenwei Zhang Leo Zsembik
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Ashley Fox COVER PHOTO BY BASEL QURAN Fall 2015 - 3
FROM THE BLOG campusblueprint.org
Volkswagen: The Catalyst for Regulatory Change ANAMAY VISWANATHAN
N
o one could have anticipated Volkswagen’s audacity. It’s not often a company tricks its industry regulators, let alone for as long, and as well, as VW did. By designing software that could detect when a car was being emissions tested and then adjust its performance to improve results, VW was able to cheat US emissions tests for years – all to promote the apparent fuel efficiency of their diesel models. With over 11 million cars effected worldwide, across popular brands such as the Beetle, Golf and Jetta, VW is set for one of the largest clean-ups in automobile history. As with most clean-ups, Volkswagen has started internally – after the firing of CEO Martin Winterkorn, Matthias Mueller, formerly of Porsche, was drafted to lead the rebuilding process. VW’s stock has already fallen around 30% since the scandal broke out, and this slump is only set to continue. As Mueller prepares a $7.3 billion package to cover the cost of the 500,000 recalled cars in the US, he must also deal with potential legal action from the EPA (who are entitled
4 - Fall 2015
to fine up to $18 billion) and European regulators, along with the recall of 11 million remaining cars. As VW’s financial outlay doesn’t look to improve in the near future, it is fair to say investors won’t turn to VW stocks anytime soon. What’s particularly unfortunate is the effect this will have on Volkswagen’s workers. Mueller has already announced the need for 60,000 job cuts, and this trend is likely to continue into the following year. There is a sense of injustice within the corporation, as most workers did not even know that emissions rigging was occurring. This is perhaps one of the most pertinent examples of how a corrupt executive decision goes on to harm those at the foundation of the firm. As the dust settles, feelings of injustice from workers and consumers will snowball into greater awareness within the industry. More and more companies have already been called into question regarding their emission practices. EU regulators in particular, have finally realized how outdated their methods were. While one could not have predicted
the sheer amount of effort that went into cheating these tests, these tests were cheatable in the first place. With almost 90% of diesel vehicles in Europe operating above the emission limits on the road, it is clear something needs to change. Regulators need to better simulate on-road conditions and performance, as well as place greater emphasis on software testing (above and beyond current mechanical checks). Although the future does not look bright for Volkswagen, or the broader diesel car industry, this scandal could be the start of tougher regulations and a higher global standard for car emissions. It is saddening that this change will come at the expense of hundreds of VW workers, but it is a change we desperately need. It’s hard to see how our environmental problems can be taken seriously when the world’s largest car manufacturer produces vehicles emitting up to 40 times more nitrogen oxide pollutants than is allowed in the US, and gets away with it. So, while the call for change has always been around, VW’s conduct has made this call louder.
Why We All Need Trevor Noah To Be The Next Jon Stewart CAROLINE WORONOFF
I
t’s hard to imagine a Daily Show without Jon Stewart. He was a legend. He criticized politicians and made no apologies. He quietly supported veterans through his show. And, he launched the career of multiple comedians including Stephen Colbert, Ed Helms, Steve Carell, John Oliver, Jason Jones, Samantha Bee, Kristen Schaal, Rob Riggle, Rob Dorddry, Michael Che, and Larry Wilmore. Now we can add another comedian to the list: Trevor Noah. Noah, a South African native with a large international following, is the new host of The Daily Show. Noah was promoted from a correspondent to host after only appearing on the show three times. He was a big bet for The Daily Show, for its network Comedy Central, and for its parent company Viacom. Viacom is aware of the void is has to fill. When Stewart announced that he was stepping down, Viacom’s stock fell 1.5 percent, or the equivalent of $350 million dollars, the following day. Noah’s premiere show aired not only on Comedy Central, but also on other Viacom channels including MTV, VH1, BET, Spike, Logo, TV Land, Epix and Nickelodeon. But it’s not just Viacom that needs Noah to fill a void. Young people need him too. According to Pew Research Center, 74 percent of young people got their news from Jon Stewart. This statistic is important. In 2010, a midterm year, only 21 percent of 18-24 year olds voted. With so few young people voting, we need to make sure as many of them are informed as possible. I’m excited to see what Noah does with the Daily Show because I want to see how he keeps young peo-
ple engaged. I’ve seen Noah do standup, and one thing is apparent; he’s smart. He speaks six languages and incorporates them into his comedy, and even in his standup, he gets political. Plus, Noah was born in South Africa during the Apartheid. He went from a township to the host of the Daily Show. That’s something I want to watch. By the end of the week, I was convinced, Noah can do this job and he can do it well. However, I was skeptical in his first couple of shows. For someone tasked with defining himself against Stewart, I was surprised that they kept the same theme song and the famous “moment of Zen.” By the end of the week, they’d dropped Zen—which is a step towards Noah defining himself without the structure that Stewart left behind. One thing I was disappointed by was that the opening episode was decidedly apolitical. Noah opened the show by saying, “It’s my first day, let’s start off with something light: Syria. Just kidding, IT ’S THE POPE!” He went on to joke about “Popechella” and later commented on John Boehner, but there was not a lot of commentary. His guest was comedian Kevin Hart, so again, no politics. I laughed through the whole episode, but there wasn’t much editorial content. Wednesday night was what I was looking forward to most. Noah had his first political guest, and his only political guest of the week: presidential candidate Chris Christie. The problem was, the episode was boiled down to ten minutes of promotion for Christie. Noah gave Christie the chance to say anything he wanted. There was no grilling.
Noah got a few jabs in, but not anything substantial. When Christie humbled a compliment by saying there is no requirement to lie your first week on the job, Noah replied, “I guess it’s different from your job.” Later, when Christie said, “Why would we trust the government?” Noah jumped in naively asking, “Who…who is the government? Are you? I’m so confused.” Christie backed down and quickly got the audience on his side by encouraging them to applaud for Noah’s bite. So, in the first three episodes I was skeptical, but on Thursday everything changed. Thursday I hopped right back on the Trevor Noah train, and it’s all thanks to Donald Trump. Instead of continuing to speculate why Trump is ahead in the polls like most news shows, Noah took the story in a new direction. This time, there was grilling. Noah compared Trump to African presidents, ranging from the President of South Africa to Gambia, Uganda, and even Libya. He pulled quotes from Trump and from African presidents to compare them side-byside. There were a shocking amount of similarities. For the first time, Noah didn’t just touch on the news or mock politicians. He made a point, and he made one that no one else has made before. He’s reaching his stride. (Watch the segment here-Donald Trump: America’s African President) Anyone would need time to adjust to life in the host’s chair, especially when the world is comparing you to Jon Stewart. Noah, like anyone, will need some runway to find his own voice, and Thursday night was a great start. Fall 2015 - 5
GUN CONTROL The Unsolvable Time Bomb SAMI LACHGAR
I
t happens to small children on the streets of Chicago, to families gathering to go to church and spend time in their sanctuary, to people going on dates in movie theaters, and honestly, it could happen to any one of us. This is the reality of gun violence in the United States, and this reality is incomparable to that in any other developed country. This article isn’t meant to shower you with mind-boggling facts about gun violence (that do exist) in order to make your jaw drop. This article is about human life, and its trivialized importance due to current gun control legislation. The most recent nationally broadcasted tragedy concerning gun violence occurred at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where 10 were killed. In the eyes of many, this was the last straw. The reaction to the disaster is comparable to the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, or any other mass shooting in the past decade for that matter. A sudden uproar rings throughout the nation as people take to social media and pay
their respects while denouncing existing gun laws, and then silence. People become silenced by time as the NRA and other lobbying bodies dismiss blame. Some pro-gun advocates point unconstructively to the second amendment, others claim it is a rare fact of life, and in the most undesirable cases, people are told to stop politicizing deaths of innocents. To address the first of those three points, it must be said that using the constitution as undeniable proof that a law should be followed is foolish. Our 228-year-old constitution is the oldest in the world, which brings us to the controversy of whether this should be a point of pride, or proof that our policies remain embedded in an outdated era. Laws are made as a result of circumstance and must be altered over time. The second amendment came as a direct consequence of American citizens having the need to protect themselves from the tyrannical Brits. We aren’t in a revolution anymore. The reason for the existence of that law has shifted enormously, and should therefore be reconsidered as
an entity before we blindly follow its rulings. After the Umpqua shooting, President Barack Obama gave a press conference in which he was absolutely livid. It was quite possibly the most emotional the President has been in front of a camera during his two terms, and it was for the wrong reasons. After taking a moment to honor the lives of those affected by the shooting, President Obama went on a tirade against those that continued to ignore the growing gun problem in our nation. He time and again singled out Congress as the most essential piece of the gun-control puzzle and pleaded for action. He got nothing. The plea fell on death ears as many in Congress shrugged the event off as a supernatural occurrence that had to do with mental disease. In an unprecedented move, President Obama faced the inevitable critics during his speech and accepted that he was politicizing the issue. After being chastised by proponents of gun control for being insensitive to the victims of the shootings, it
“Our 228-year-old constitution is the oldest in the world, which brings us to the controversy of whether this should be a point of pride, or proof that our policies remain embedded in an outdated era.” 6 - Fall 2015
PHOTO BY NOMADER (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
seemed as though the President had had enough. The President stated that he was politicizing the issue in order to attempt to spark a movement that would prevent future murders. With 300 million guns in a country with only a marginally higher population, it is easy to see why gun violence occurs as often as it does. When compared to Scandinavian countries or others from Western Europe, our rate of gun violence is tragic and disproves the concept that more guns equals more protection. In quite possibly the most thoughtless and unproductive move of the government, Congress passed a bill that eliminated federal spending for research about gun control. This NRA-supported policy has implications beyond creating a lack of information needed to make proper regulations. The government is essentially choosing to remain in the dark with regards to the safety of its own citizens and relying on private industries to produce biased results to polls. In the recent Democratic presidential primary debate, gun control was once again a hot topic. In what came as a surprising statement to most viewers, democratic socialist Bernie
Sanders took a more conservative approach to gun control in comparison to Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. He cited the needs of his rural state of Vermont as an explanation for his stance, but sounded oddly repetitive when he called for increased scrutiny in background checks for people buying guns. This statement was quite representative of the conservative stance on the issue, where the blame falls on mental health facilities and people who commit these atrocious crimes are dismissed as crazy individuals. We now stand at a crossroads where the gridlock in congress must finally be broken to settle this undeniable issue. The mobilization of politicians, however, won’t happen naturally and requires recurring public interest to show that it is a persistent problem that is not going away. For now, sincere and vigorous public interest only happens in the days following a mass shooting. People become furious and the story is heard in every publication or broadcast for the next week. As soon as the next big story hits, however, the public forgets and Congress is back to doing whatever it is our Congress does these
PHOTO BY SLOWKING4 (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
days. Our nation must create a recurring dialogue about what is best for a country that is suffering from senseless gun violence. Whether we create stringent gun laws or eliminate guns altogether, we must see an amount of change that isn’t as marginal as changes we have had in the past. We must keep politicizing the issue, and we must learn from the hundreds of thousands of beautiful lives we have lost as a result of current policies and gun culture.
Fall 2015 - 7
Listening to Syrians during a Visit to Jordan’s Largest Refugee Camp SANDY ALKOUTAMI
I
n northern Jordan, nearly 5,000 kilometers from Paris, lies a second Champs-Elsyée. It is the commercial hub for nearly Syrian in Zaatari, a “home” for over 80,000 registered Syrian refugees. A superficial stroll through this street, teeming with caravan shops and carts, almost distracts Syrians from their displaced reality. Almost. Opened in July 2012, Zaatari is the biggest of two refugee camps for Syrians in Jordan. The initially disordered resettlement space in the Jordanian desert has transformed into a makeshift city—the fourth largest in Jordan by population. Despite assistance from international aid, UN agencies, the Jordanian government, and Syrians’ obstinacy, Zaatari has failed to undergo camp-wide developments since its hasty establishment. Three years later, Zaatari still faces a crippling water supply, unorganized distribution of electricity, and substandard education system for Syrians. However, even the proper maintenance of these basic necessities will not redefine Syrians’ conception of home. For displaced Syrians, a refugeecamp is not home.
Mariam, 40* We sat crossed-legged on the concrete ground of her caravan home. She unfolded a small stack of tissues from her dress pocket. “They look at us like we’re cockroaches. They put us in this desert.” She gestured outside the caravan walls. Her home was one of the more “elaborate” refugee houses. It was a concoction of three caravans, making three separate rooms. The main living space, where we sat, was crowded with 6 or 7 children. Two women were sitting in the corner of the room making makdous- pickled stuffed eggplant. “My daughter isn’t even old enough to understand her father’s absence, her father’s death. She asks me, ‘Why did God take him?’ “I tell her that God took her father to heaven. God wanted him because he is a good man. I tell her that we 8 - Fall 2015
will join him one day.” “What am I supposed to say?” “My daughter tells me that she doesn’t want to go to heaven; she doesn’t want to see God. God took her father, why would she want to see him? What am I supposed to tell her?” “If Syria returns like they say it will, they are wrong. How do I return without my husband? It will never return. Not for me.” “What am I supposed to say?” “He came with us to Zaatari a couple years ago. He tried to flee the camp to find work, so he was considered an illegal refugee. You can’t exit this camp without approval, but many Syrians were doing this to find jobs in Jordan. When he was caught, he was forced to go back to Daraa [southern Syrian city and location of the first protests in 2011]. I’ll never see him again. He died after returning. A government attack killed him without warning.” “What am I supposed to say?” “My oldest son, 14 years old, is still in Daraa. I tell people that I don’t want money, a house, or electricity. I just want my son. No one will help me bring him. I ask, but they don’t help. Maybe they will listen to you. You can say you’re American and they will help you. But who will help me?” “What am I supposed to say?”
PHOTO BY MOHAMMED KHALF
PHOTO BY MOHAMMED KHALF
VOICES OF ZAATARI
PHOTO BY MOHAMMED KHALF
Noor, 18* “We almost didn’t come to Zaatari. We were a big family in Daraa. My aunt, uncles, cousins… But living in Daraa was hard. At night, we would hear sounds shots, airstrikes, and fighting. The little children in our PHOTO BY MOHAMMED KHALF house would scream and cry until they got used to the sounds…” Noor had been living in Zaatari since late 2012. Ashraf, 28* She came with her mother and sisters until her father eventually joined them. Now, she lives in a four-section “I love journalism.” His camera hung across his caravan home with her family. torso the entire time we were together. “One night, the fighting was worse than we were “My brother would carry a gun and tell me I had used to. My family put mattresses against our windows the more dangerous weapon: a camera. He believed in to prevent the glass from shattering toward us during the the opposition. We all did. Whenever he fought, I would airstrikes. We heard a loud strike and then women and chil- go with him. From fear, the camera would shake. I couldn’t dren screaming in our neighborhood. My uncle decided to stop shaking. My shots were blurry, unclear. I only got picleave the house to see what was happening. I remember tures of rocks and trees from fear. The second time, I only my mother grabbing his jacket. She urged him not to go. took pictures of a few people around me. I was still scared. He insisted. He said those screaming people were family... The third time, I had to capture everything. I was able to He was killed after leaving. An airstrike landed near him. keep myself steady and take pictures. Eventually, I couldn’t When we looked outside, we saw him on the ground. We stop.” first thought he was injured.” “Sometimes, I let my video recorder keep rolling Her aunt, who sat across from us, added, “Even in on purpose. I want to catch everything I can. But I forgot his permanent sleep he was smiling. Even then.” to turn it off. It was attached to my waist. I came across a government checkpoint and accidentally kept my recorder on me. If they had stopped me, if they had searched me… Well…” He didn’t need to further explain.
They are displaced, they are refugees, they are living without a home, but they refuse to be voiceless. *ALL NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED Fall 2015 - 9
The Case for Physician Aid in Dying
PHOTO FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
DUNCAN YETMAN
E
nd of life decisions can be incredibly difficult, both for the patient and their loved ones. Whether it is hospice care, nursing homes, or the removal of life-support, the question of agency becomes a difficult moral and personal topic that often blurs the lines of legality. The problem is particularly acute in physician aid in dying, or PAD. Though definitions vary, PAD is generally defined as: “A practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient’s request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life.”
10 - Fall 2015
Terminology is important here. Many of the misconceptions of physician aid in dying (PAD) stem from its oft-mentioned alternative, assisted suicide. Unlike PAD, the term “assisted suicide” suggests irrational decision-making, and it implies criminality when in fact the process is overseen by both physicians and the state. According to the Death with Dignity National Center, five states --Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and recently California -- have approved PAD, either through court decisions or right-to-die laws passed in the legislature. Ten other states have right-to-die laws being considered -- North Carolina being one of
them. Similar to the first right-to-die law passed in Oregon, NC House Bill 611 allows a terminally ill patient to apply for a prescription for medication to end his or her life. Two physicians must first verify the patient’s condition, and at every point in the process there are safeguards to ensure that every decision being made is the patient’s, and the patient’s alone. The importance of these laws is best explained by the patients they are designed to help. In a viral op-ed posted to CNN last summer, Brittany Maynard, 29, explained why she wanted physician aid in dying. Recently married and looking to start a family, Brittany learned she had an aggres-
“Terminology is important here. Many of the misconceptions of physician aid in dying (PAD) stem from its often-mentioned alternative, assisted suicide. Unlike PAD, assisted suicide suggests irrational decision-making, and it implies that there is no verification of a physician nor are there procedural steps to ensure that the patient retains his or her agency.” sive form of brain cancer, and despite two surgeries was later given six months to live. In her own words: “After months of research, my family and I reached a heartbreaking conclusion: There is no treatment that would save my life, and the recommended treatments would have destroyed the time I had left…I quickly decided that death with dignity was the best option for me and my family.” In order to apply for the medication, however, Brittany and her family had to temporarily establish residency in Oregon – a sacrifice many families are unable to make. Lack of access to the medication causes immense emotional and financial pain for those involved, especially for older couples whose spouses are on a fixed income. The right-to-die laws set in place give her and many other patients information on end of life decisions, and the ability to obtain the medication in a timely fashion. This is not to say that the process is perfect. There have been many cases in which those given terminal diagnosis have recovered or were otherwise misdiagnosed, many of whom
have testified in states considering right-to-die legislation. The problem of misdiagnosis also speaks to a larger criticism of PAD. Many health professionals, as well as members of the general public, make the argument that actively aiding an individual’s death, regardless of context, betrays our responsibility to value human life. The difficulty in diagnosing a terminal condition, they say, the challenge of estimating recovery times, even our basic inability to clearly define life and death demonstrate our lack of authority in determining whose condition we can deem terminal, and whose we cannot. And though I agree with the main premise of the counter-argument, I take exception with its scope. PAD is not a widespread practice, and is only appropriate in a small number of cases. In the first three years following Oregon’s legalization of PAD, only 255 patients had received medication, 40 percent of whom never took the pills. The black-and-white counter argument, though attractive, is not an answer to the moral complexity of this topic.
Why do people ultimately use the medication? The reasons vary -- some want to be able to say goodbye to loved ones, some are struggling with intense pain from terminal illness, some simply want to die with a senseof-self intact. The purpose of right-todie legislation is to address all these concerns, and protect the personal freedom of patients to die with dignity. Brittany Maynard says it best: “I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?”
“Five states --Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and California -- have approved PAD, either through court decisions or “right to die” laws passed in the legislature. Ten other states have ‘right to die’ laws being considered -- North Carolina being one of them.” Fall 2015 - 11
Is Islamophobia an Accepted Form of Prejudice? SAIF MEHYAR
A
nother day, another politician attempts to enlighten the public about Islam. Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is attracting everyone’s attention after his NBC interview revealed his belief that being a Muslim and being a citizen who upholds “American values” is paradoxical. He later went on to state, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation, I absolutely would not agree with that”. Clearly for Dr. Carson, Islam is a problematic faith because of its incompatibility with the constitution. But wait, isn’t Christianity also incompatible with the constitution? I would love to know Dr. Carson’s hermeneutical methods of interpreting religious scripture because it seems like he obtained his “Dr.” title from a PhD. in Comparative Theology rather than neurosurgery. After the news of Carson’s comments became rampant throughout different mediums, Council of the American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) founder Nihad Awad publicly gave a speech in which he asked the neurosurgeon to withdraw from the race as a result of his inability to abide by Article VI of the holy constitution which states: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. In an immediate attempt to punish CAIR, Carson went on the offensive by asking the IRS to take away the organization’s tax exempt status. Unfortunately for Carson, his views about a Muslim being in the
12 - Fall 2015
oval office are at odds with the majority of Americans. 60 percent of all U.S. adults would vote for a qualified candidate who happened to be Muslim, according to a recent Gallup poll. But what better way could Carson’s message about Muslims in America be amplified than with a message of solidarity from Donald Trump? At a New Hampshire town hall Thursday, a questioner denounced Muslims as a “problem” in the U.S., said Obama is a member of the religion, and asked, “When can we get rid of them?” Trump replied casually by saying, “We are going to be looking at that and plenty of other things”. Unsurprisingly, I didn’t think much of Trump’s comments considering, you know, he’s Donald Trump. However, Carson seemed to jump to Trump’s defense almost immediately. When Carson was asked whether Trump should have corrected the questioner’s provocative statements, Carson replied, “I suspect that if [Trump] gets that question again, that’s exactly what he’ll do.” He also said he’d have corrected a question like that if asked. Oh, marvelous! Whenever someone makes a racially-motivated comment, one must try to internalize the comment and assume decent motives on the part of the racist before casually disagreeing with him. Why don’t we put this to a litmus test. Let’s replace the word “Muslim” with the word “Black”, “gay”, “Hispanic”, “Jewish” and see how it holds up: “We have a problem in this country and it’s called Black people.
We know our current president is one (irony). My question is when can we get rid of them? In this scenario, had a public figure not immediately denounced the questioner’s blatant bigotry, his political (or any other career for that fact) career would have ended in a heartbeat. But it’s not just political candidates who have a fear of Islam and Muslims being present in the U.S., a recent Public Policy Poll shows that 40 percent of North Carolinians believe that Islam should be banned outright- literally outlawed. Meanwhile, there are cries of a “war of Christianity.” For example, when Kim Davis was jailed for denying a same-sex couple a marriage license, there were outcries about her oppressed Christianity. What happened to the sacrosanct constitution and its clear stipulation that freedom of religious conscience is a human right? Oh I forgot, the constitution is only relevant when we want to talk about gun control. And it’s not just here in the U.S. where Islamophobia has been an accepted form of prejudice. Take a look at Western Europe and you’ll find that their governments don’t fare much better. The Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, is tackling extremism in schools with “muscular liberalism” as he promulgates the superiority of the ever so nebulous term“British values”. We constantly hear politicians using terms like “American values”, “Western values”, and “British values” to scapegoat communities
that do not adhere to the status quo. Promulgating such terms is often not so much about an invitation to coexist with others but as a way of garnering support for socially-conservative bills masqueraded as bills providing security. The UK has now imposed new policies in schools which seek to tackle extremism at its core by training teachers to look for signs of potential radicalization of their pupils after the Counter Terrorism and Security bill was passed. While some in the UK think this is an adequate measure to ensure greater protection, others find it parallel to spying on pupils-effectively making educators a new branch of the security services. What does the Counter Terrorism and Security bill have to do with Muslims? David Cameron believes that Islamic extremism is fostered not because of Western imperialism in the Middle East or the fact that Muslims in the West are more likely to be politically disenfranchised, unemployed, and living in poor housing conditions, but because the ideology itself is attractive to a few estranged individuals being groomed. Interestingly and counterfactually, some individuals who were caught trying to
PHOTO BY GAGE SKIDMORE (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
join Daesh (IS) had ordered books online titled, “Islam for Dummies”. Does this raise an issue over whether the people going to Iraq are religiously literate? I should hope one comes to that conclusion. However, the Prime Minister states that Islamic extremism can’t be a result of these things because 9/11 happened before the Iraq War, and those receiving a Western education sometimes go to places like Iraq and Syria to commit terrorist acts. While the Prime Minister might be right on this point to an extent that not all extremism is as a result of foreign policy, his strategy for countering extremism in schools is proving to be questionable. The “threat of extremism” is now a term that includes non-violent conservative beliefs which has effectively criminalized Muslim pupils as potential toddler-terrorists. Intrusive questionnaires have been handed out in mostly Muslim-majority schools where Muslim pupils are asked, “Which three words best describe you?” Options include: British, Student, Daughter, Artist, Athlete, Young, Muslim (wrong answer!), Hindu. Apparently, signs of radicalization now include ranking your re-
ligious convictions ahead of your national ones. Another question children are forced to answer is, “It is okay to marry someone from a different religion or race”. One not need expound on such a point given the fact that children are being asked to comment on such statements. The hapless reality is that speech tacitly demonizing Muslims is now guised as necessary for security and any attempt to question such speech is deemed a gratuitous, irritating display of political correctness. Have we not learned about the dangers of referring to any religious, ethnic, national or other community with demonizing speech? Just 20 years ago the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 Muslim men and boys took place on European soil, post World War 2, where we thought Europe progressed to an age of tolerance. So, let’s not get too comfortable about doublespeak on Islam and Muslims here in the U.S. There are those with their full liberties and assurance of protection, and those who are in constant fear of being ridiculed or attacked by virtue of their religious views.
PHOTO BY MICHAEL VANDON (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
Fall 2015 - 13
UNC’S FOOD FOR ALL ANAMAY VISWANATHAN our mouths. The University’s theme counters our haphazard consumption, challenging us to engage with our food again. This means more than just paying attention to what we’re eating, but rather looking at where our food comes from, how it is made, and how it makes us feel. It’s not often an institution as big as UNC Chapel-Hill takes on a challenge like this and I, for one, could not be more thrilled. From edible landscaping to farmers markets, our relationships and interactions with food are evolving. A large part of this initiative centers on acknowledging how crucial food is to our physical and mental well-being, as well as informing the campus about our food habits and the future of food itself. Over the years, our interaction with food has become more and more rigid. Most of us shop in highly sanitized supermarkets – food with homogenized color, no smell or tex-
“I began to realize that food was so much more than something that fills my stomach – it has the potential to evoke emotion and passion” 14 - Fall 2015
ture, just long, grey corridors stuffed to the brim with processed food. Most of us see our produce in shrinkwrapped packages. We rarely know where our produce has come from or the steps that have been taken to get it in the form we see on those supermarket shelves. Likewise, we rarely understand the impact our produce has on our environment. Having spent my whole life in a large, cosmopolitan city, my only interaction with food came via my local supermarket. Thus, the day I stumbled upon a farmers market in the Pit was
PHOTO BY ROD WAGGINGTON (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
A
s an oblivious first-year who does most of his grocery shopping at Walgreens, I was surprised to learn about the variety of food initiatives at Chapel Hill. Indeed, as I walked onto campus for the first time, I mentally prepared myself, perhaps naively, to have nothing in my fridge but milk, Gatorade, and maybe the smuggled apple from Lenoir. Since the beginning of the semester, there have been numerous events around The Pit and across Chapel Hill, all in the effort to promote food – its sourcing, cooking, innovation, and eating across the industry. UNC’s Food for All: Local and Global Perspectives academic theme for 2015-2017 encompasses far more than just providing 29,000 students with the occasional free meal. Food for All is about discourse and action. Too often we buy a burrito, place it beside our laptops and bite away at it passively, without even acknowledging what we’re putting in
“It creates a connection with the soil beneath our feet and, perhaps more importantly, it creates a connection with the people around us.”
PHOTO BY GABRIELA (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
a pretty eye-opening one. The colors, the smells, even the buzz of the large crowd gave the food a vibrancy I hadn’t seen before. ‘Food’, in that snapshot, went from being a necessary fuel, to an enjoyable moment in itself. I began to realize that food was so much more than something that fills the stomach – it has the potential to evoke emotion and passion. Food for All inherently emphasizes the link between the collective and food – food is a connector. It’s one of the few things that literally everyone on this planet can relate to in some way or form. While some cultures place a higher value on it than others, food still provides an excuse for people to get together and talk. No word sums this concept up better than “sobremesa”, a Spanish word which describes enriching conversation that ensues between family and friends after a meal has been eaten. In many ways, Food for All aims to guide such a conversation towards the theme of food itself.
PHOTO BY BERNAL SABORIO (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
There’s nothing better than eating in a group. Likewise, there’s nothing more impactful than working together as a group to improve the sustainability and quality of the produce we eat. With initiatives such as Carolina Community Garden, which grows vegetables to primarily help low-wage workers at UNC who may not otherwise be able to afford fresh produce, UNC’s Food for All looks to rally the whole campus community in a way that has never been done before. It’s an underrated feeling digging up something that you’ve grown from nothing but a seed, and giving that to someone who needs it more than oneself. It creates a connection with the soil beneath our feet and, perhaps more importantly, a connection with the people around us. Food strengthens bonds and UNC’s focus on food initiatives over the next couple of years will only help bring the campus community closer together. Going beyond, there is also
a push for innovations with our food practices. The Edible Campus initiative, challenges our narrow interactions with food by placing various edible products across the spaces we interact with in our daily lives. Can you imagine walking to class and, instead of rummaging into your backpack to dredge out that crushed Cliff Bar, simply plucking a few berries and nuts from the greenery around you? No wrapping to throw away or any crumbs over your sweatshirt, just a handful of antioxidants and vitamins. Through this, Food for All has the potential to make us more aware of the space around us, and how it can be used to sustain the growing appetite of the campus. It is hard to predict where this exploration of food will take us. But, it is fair to say that attitudes towards food are already beginning to change and, as new initiatives begin to take root and grow, the wider Carolina community is bound to prosper.
Fall 2015 - 15
6 DORM DISHES TO TRANSFORM YOUR FALL ANAMAY VISWANATHAN
Given the theme of Food for All, here are a few quick, completely foolproof ways to add a bit of je ne sais quoi to your dorm diet. MICROWAVE PUMPKIN CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE MUG CAKE A guilty pleasure made not-so-guilty, this creation is a delicious, seasonal way to end your week. Ingredients: · 4 tablespoons all-purpose flour · 1-1/2 tablespoons granulated sugar · 2 tablespoons canned pumpkin puree · 1 tablespoon melted butter · A pinch of cinnamon · 2 tablespoons chocolate chips Directions: 1. Combine all ingredients except chocolate chips into an oversized mug 2. Mix with a small whisk until batter is smooth 3. Stir in half of the chocolate chips 4. Line a large round plate with parchment paper 5. Pour sticky cookie batter onto plate 6. Shape it into a disc and add the rest of the chocolate chips on the surface 7. Cook in microwave for about 50 seconds 8. Let cookie cool for a few minutes before eating
16 - Fall 2015
FRENCH TOAST IN A CUP Perfect for those colder, lazy mornings. 2 minutes. No fuss. All the decadence. Ingredients: · 1-1/2 slices of any soft bread, even an old croissant or baguette. · A knob of butter · 1 egg · 3 tablespoons of milk · A dash of cinnamon · As much syrup as your heart desires
Directions: 1. Cube your bread 2. Get your cup ready. Rub butter all over the inside of the cup. 3. Place the bread in the cup. Squish it down but don’t compact it at the bottom of the cup – you want enough sponge to absorb the egg and milk. Now in a separate cup or ramekin do the following: 4. Crack the egg in it 5. Add milk 6. Sprinkle cinnamon 7. Mix it all together with a fork. 8. Pour the mixture into your cup. Press the bread and give it a minute to soak in the liquid. 9. Put your cup in the microwave. Start with one minute, then add ten seconds at a time until it’s cooked to your liking (no runny eggs). This should be around 1 minute 10-20 seconds in total. 10. Add syrup
MEXICAN STUFFED SWEET POTATOS
RICE-LESS RISOTTO
Hearty and full of flavor, this inexpensive lunch will keep you going for hours, whilst adding a bit of homemade Mexican to your life.
This satisfying Italian treat does well to warm your bones on a chilly fall evening. Rich yet healthy, you won’t feel guilty having a second helping.
Ingredients: · 1 medium sweet potato · 1 teaspoon lime juice · 2 tablespoons plain Greek yogurt · 1/3 cup black bean and corn salsa · 1/4 diced avocado · 1/4 shredded Cheddar cheese
Ingredients: Serves 4 · 1 cup old fashioned oats · 2 cups vegetable or chicken broth · 1-1/2 cups frozen peas · 2 tablespoons low fat cream cheese · 1 tablespoon fresh rosemary · 1/2 teaspoon salt · 1/2 teaspoon pepper
Directions: 1. Prick potato several times with a fork. 2. Place on a plate, and microwave on High for 7 to 8 minutes. 3. Split the potato, and fluff with a fork. 4. In a bowl (or mug), stir together Greek yogurt and lime juice. 5. Top potato with salsa, avocado, cheese and yogurt mixture.
Directions: 1. In a microwave bowl, mix the oats and broth together. 2. Heat the oats and broth in the microwave for 2 minutes, then remove it and stir. 3. Mix the peas and cream cheese into the oats. 4. Put the bowl back in the microwave and cook for another 2 minutes, watching the oats to make sure they don’t cook over the bowl. 5. Once the oats are as thick as you’d like, remove the bowl and stir in the rosemary, salt, and pepper before serving.
BLUEBERRY MAPLE OATMEAL
NUTELLA ENERGY BITES
Fast, filling and fresh, you can make this classic grab-and-go a couple of days in advance. Not only does it save you time, it also packs enough of a punch to get you going before your 8 am.
A burst of energy to keep you going during those late night study sessions, these Nutella bites fill you up and pump you up.
Ingredients • 1/3 cup skim milk • 1/4 cup uncooked old fashioned rolled oats • 1-1/2 teaspoons dried chia seeds • 1/4 cup low-fat Greek yogurt • 1/4 cup blueberries (or enough to fill jar) • 2 teaspoons maple syrup (more or less to taste)
Ingredients:
Directions 1. Add oats, milk, yogurt, chia seeds, and maple syrup to a half pint jar. 2. Put a lid on the jar and shake until well combined. 3. Remove lid, add blueberries and stir until mixed throughout. 4. Return lid to jar and refrigerate overnight or up to 2 days. Eat chilled.
Serves 4 · 2 cups quick oats · 1/4 cup chia seeds · 1/2 cup honey · 1 cup shredded coconut · 1/2 cup Nutella
Directions: 1. Mix the dry ingredients in a mixing bowl 2. Add the honey and Nutella 3. Use your hands to create small balls
Fall 2015 - 17
RETHINKING GOVERNMENT
Citizens Want a Representative Legislature, not Legislator
CLAIRE BOYD
N
ow, in a time of an evolving political landscape chalk full of charismatically polarized leaders and new-age social media campaigns, it is important to look at our political system with a critical eye. As college students, we are learning about government and forming our own opinions on large political issues that shape our everyday lives and choices. But, how do we express ourselves politically? How do we engage with and claim representation in our government given the chaos of information and systems that confuse us already? Many scholars agree that a representative government, a system in which people can elect their lawmakers and hold them accountable to their policies, is key to the success and happiness of nation. Though ideal in nature, in many ways representation is hard to measure because feelings of political assurance are pretty hard to quantify. But, one University of North Carolina professor took this challenge. UNC-Chapel Hill Professor Christopher J. Clark asked similar questions about representation and wondered how Americans considered these forms of support were working for citizens at large. With University of Colorado-Boulder Professor Jeffery J. Harden, Professor Clark published a research paper in American Politics Research this August uncovering citizen preferences for representation in government. Clark initially started his interest in Political Science as an undergraduate student at Saint Louis Uni-
18 - Fall 2015
versity and eventually joined the UNC faculty team in 2012 after receiving both his Master’s and Ph.D. in Political Science. His research is mainly specialized in black electoral representation in state legislatures and its influence on political processes. Though research has been done on whether different forms of representation are conducive to better policy making or behavior that reflects citizens’ interests, Clark and Harden argue, “less is known about the demand side of the relationship.” In other words, Clark and Harden wanted to know what voters want in their representatives. In an interview, Professor Clark explained, “As for the citizen-based research, for both Jeff and I, we wanted to ask people what they valued in representatives, instead of assuming that we knew what they wanted.” Instead of relying solely on academia for understanding the benefits of differing forms of representation, Clark and Harden realized that they should ask the people themselves about their inclinations. Their research was conducted in a novel way - a survey was given to national samples of Americans who were evaluated by their preferences for collective representation and dyadic representation with respect to race and political partisanship. Collective representation serves as a form of representation where constituents are represented by all legislators with whom they share a common trait. A simple example of this could be explained by a
population makeup of a certain area; the collective representation of a female population would constitute the same proportion of female legislators in office (i.e. if 45% of the population are female, 45% of legislature is similarly female). On the other hand, dyadic representation is a form of representation where constituents are represented by a specific legislator with whom they share a specific geographic district. This type of representation is used in the United States today – citizens are represented in government by voting on a singular person that represents their physical location in space (i.e. Congressman David Price represents the 4th District of North Carolina that encompasses Chapel Hill). This type of representation is dictated by popular vote, not necessarily the diverse political, economic, or racial makeup of a given location. The Study: Clark and Harden surveyed around 2,000 individuals and asked them to first read over short newspaper clippings that briefly describe results of four made-up elections. The clippings would describe the winner of a particular district, and comment on the context of the result. For example: Maurice Allen won in District 15 with 53% of the vote, becoming the first black candidate to win in that district. The fake election results had different levels of collective and dyadic representation, so Clark and Hayden
would ask each participant how represented they felt after each one and compare the results. In both versions of the experiment (race and partisanship), collective representation was favored over dyadic representation. The people tested highly rated the scenarios with elected representatives that reflected the population makeup of a region on a scale from 0 (not represented) to 100 (represented). According to this research, Americans actually value a representative legislature over a legislator. The people in this study purposefully chose the representation of a multitude of people that could more generally fight for their interests instead of a district-specific representation. Clark seemed to think this result made a lot of sense. He explains, “It seemed intuitive to us that having more representatives like you, that are group members, would be valued more than having fewer representatives like you. In other words, more of something is usually better than less of something.” Clark says that we have a desire to maximize our representation, and collective representation gives us just that. (A) Collective/Dyadic (B) Collective/No Dyadic
Mean Representation Scale Rating
100 90
(C) No Collective/Dyadic (D) No Collective/No Dyadic
80 70 60 50 40 30
A
A B
B
C D
20 10 0
The Implications: So what does this mean for current American politics? How does this change how we interact with our government or change what we expect from our representatives? Clark and Harden notice this leaning towards collective representation, but how does this change the institutions that exist in our world today? Clark explains that even though collective representation is favored in theory, there are many practical advantages of dyadic representation. Clark mentions, “I think that dyadic representation is quite important. When it comes to constituency service, it is the acts of individual elected officials that matter, not so much the activities of a group of legislators.” He highlights the attractive quality of dyadic representatives because they can more directly help with things like community centers, stoplights, and other specific regional issues. But, that said, Clark thinks dyadic representation limits minority representation. He explains, “Research shows that the best predictor of whether a black person will represent a district is the percentage of blacks that reside in that district. So, blacks living in majority white electoral districts have a slight chance of being represented by African Americans from a dyadic perspective.” According to Clark, dyadic C representation minimizes the presence of minorD ities in government and thus perpetuates certain political barriers for minority inclusion.
Although popular, collective representation may cause problems in practice. Clark mentions two main complications: (1) a loss of accountability to specific legislators for policy preferences and (2) a greater confusion and disconnect for citizens in politics. If there are only general representatives – say 120 legislators that represent all of North Carolina – then citizens lose agency to advocate and petition specific candidates for changes in legislation. Secondly, Clark are argues that a change to collective representation might create a greater ambiguity of thoughtful participation in elections. He says that if we held elections for a multitude of legislators – like the 120 legislators in North Carolina – it would be hard for voters to think critically and make informed choices for a wide slew of legislators. Clark said, “Even though I am a political scientist, I think I would struggle to make an informed vote choice in such a scenario.” Overall, it is important to keep in mind that collective representation is the desire of many despite the logistical limitations. This research challenges the existing democratic system based on regional elections and processes. It highlights the imperfections in managing preferences based on geographic identity instead of political or racial identity. Clark challenges students on UNC’s campus and learners in general to keep thinking about these issues and grapple with questions about the structure of electoral institutions in the United States and elsewhere. “ There are no perfect political institutions, but this fact should not stop us from trying to create institutions that are as close to perfect as possible.”
Experiment Fall 2015 - 19
PHOTO BY BASEL QURAN
ON THE GROUND IN OCCUPIED PALESTINE
BASEL QURAN
W
hen I traveled to occupied Palestine alone this summer, I decided that I was not going for vacation or a breath of fresh air. Instead of visiting historical religious sites, swimming in the Dead Sea (if Israel grants me a permit), or lounging in Ramallah cafes, I chose to expose the 48-year-long Israeli occupation in the West Bank. As a privileged Palestinian living in America who can only see his homeland for a couple of months a year, I sought to resist the occupation in any way I could during my time there. Palestinians who live in the occupied territories have no choice but to resist everyday; challenging the Israeli occupation of Palestine was the least I could do. While there, I constantly saw depressing stories on the local news stations of young Palestinian martyrs,
20 - Fall 2015
Israeli plans to expand settlements in the West Bank, and the violent repression of Israeli forces at Palestinian protests. A few weeks after arriving, I began volunteering with International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a Palestinian-led activist group stationed in the West Bank cities of Ramallah, Nablus, and Hebron. ISM’s work strengthens the Palestinian popular resistance by being immediately alongside Palestinians in olive groves, on school runs, at demonstrations, within villages being attacked, by houses being demolished, or where Palestinians are subject to constant harassment or attacks from soldiers and settlers as well as numerous other situations. The first demonstration I went to this summer was exactly a year after 16-year-old Palestinian Mohammed Abu Khdeir was murdered
by 3 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Abu Khdeir was abducted in the early hours of July 2, 2014 from the Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat, close to his home. He was driven to the Jerusalem Forest, where he was beaten and burned alive by his kidnappers. We chose to demonstrate on the street outside of the illegal Israeli settlement, Adam, where one of Abu Khdeir’s murderers lives. Fellow international activists, Palestinians, and myself chanted and held signs and flags in memory of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. We blocked the road and created a small traffic jam until the Israeli occupation forces showed up. Israeli occupation forces swiftly dispersed the non-violent crowd using stun grenades, pepper spray, and physical force. The demonstration was completely peaceful but several protest-
ers and reporters were hospitalized from the pepper spray. To this day, the settlers responsible for this horrific act have not been charged with any crime despite their confession. Trials have been postponed several times, and the murderers are very likely to avoid justice. One of the killers has pleaded insanity, while the other two are minors, giving them greater chances to dodge harsh punishment by the Israeli court. The culture of immunity in Israel is mind-boggling and it could explain why these gruesome crimes against Palestinians still continue today. In more recent news, the Palestinian flag was raised for the first time outside the United Nations Headquarters in New York City on September 30th. The motion passed with 119 votes in favor, while 45 countries
abstained and eight voted against, among them Israel, the US and Australia. Many see this as a historic victory for Palestinians and a step toward peace in the region. For some Palestinians, this move strengthens their hope for an independent, sovereign nation in the near future. Frankly, I see the gesture as meaningless and nothing but an empty symbolic act. If Palestinian leaders truly wanted justice for the citizens it represents, they need to let go of nationalism. The focus of the Palestinian struggle must shift from state recognition to human rights. The socalled Palestinian “leaders” must give up the nationalistic ideology and a flag that only represents a portion of Palestinians in a small fraction of Palestinian land. A flag being recognized by the United Nations will not change the current situation for Palestinians
living under the brutal military occupation in the West Bank, nor will the flag affect the Gazans under siege by the Israeli forces. The Palestinian people, all who have been victims of the decade-long occupation, are sick of their struggle being reduced to hollow symbolic acts such as a flag being raised at a building thousands of miles away from them. There needs to be actual action and pressure against Israel so it can be held accountable for its violations of human rights and illegal occupation. The US and European nations need to use their leverage and impose sanctions on Israel, or else the conflict will only exacerbate. By standing idly by, these nations are sending the message to Israel that is it acceptable continue its regime of oppression.
“The Palestinian people, all who have been victims of the decade-long occupation, are sick of their struggle being reduced to hollow symbolic acts such as a flag being raised at a building thousands of miles away from them.”
PHOTO BY BASEL QURAN
PHOTO BY BASEL QURAN
Fall 2015 - 21
FRAGMENTATION VS. POLARIZATION CAROLINE WORONOFF
W
hat’s wrong with British politics, and is the US headed in the same direction? Campaign victories are never easy to predict, but the United Kingdom saw one of the most surprising elections results this past year. Pundits claimed weeks in advance that the 2015 General Election was too close to call, yet the Conservative Party ended up winning the election with a large majority. Why did everyone get the predictions wrong? The answer has to do with political fragmentation. In the 1951 general election, 97 percent of people voted for one of the two major parties in the UK, Conservative or Labour. However, in 2015, only 67 percent of people did. The drop represents fragmentation in British politics. Voters were unhappy with historic choices, so they abandoned them for other options. The parties fragmented. The polls did a poor job capturing that shift. Fragmentation is not a new phenomenon in the UK. In the 2010 general election, no party won enough seats to form a majority government. The Conservatives and the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats, had to form a coalition government. Keeping in mind that the UK parliament has 650 seats, look at the numbers from the 2015 election. Conservatives increased from 302 seats to 330 seats (+28), Labour decreased from 256 seats to 232 seats (-26), the
22 - Fall 2015
Liberal Democrats decreased from 56 seats to 8 seats (-49), and the Scottish National Party increased from 6 seats to 56 seats (+50). To clarify, the Scottish National Party, or the SNP, did not take the Liberal Democrat’s seats. They took Labour’s. That is where polling went awry. In 2014, Scotland had a referendum to separate from the United Kingdom. After the referendum, Scottish nationalism gained momentum. The referendum ultimately resulted with Scotland remaining in the UK, with 55 percent of votes against independence and 45 percent for it. The campaign for independence highlighted Scottish issues that had been neglected by The House of Commons in London. Pro-Scots rallied around
the idea that Scotland should have control to limit England’s use of their oil reserves, and that Scottish troops should not have to participate in multiple wars engaged by the British military, including the Iraq War. The Scottish referendum campaign, while unsuccessful in its aims, made the Scottish population realize that they could bring more Scottish representation to Parliament by voting for the SNP instead of Labour. In the 2010 election, Labour won 41 seats in Scotland. In 2015, they won 1. On the other hand, the SNP increased from 6 to 56 seats in Scotland. In total, 50 of the 59 Scottish seats changed parties, and 49 of the seats were won by first time Members of Parliament. In short, Scotland became completely fragmented from Labour. PHOTO FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
“While in the UK unhappy voters abandon their party, US voters lean further into it.”
PHOTO FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
While the Scottish National Party had a huge surge in the 2015 election, the Liberal Democrats lost 49 seats and now sit with only 8 seats in the House of Commons. While expected to lose seats, the Liberal Democrats did not expect losses to this extent. The Liberal Democrats are generally considered to be the moderate party that leans left. However, during the last term, they were in a coalition to form a majority government with the Conservative party. Subsequently, they crafted policies with which their left leaning voters disagreed. Promising to eliminate tuition fees during their 2010 campaign, they actually helped the Conservatives pass legislation which increased fees. The Lib Dems made decisions that splintered their party, so as the threat of a shrinking party appeared in the polls, left leaning Lib Dems went Labour and right leaning Lib Dems went Conservative. In other words, the party fragmented. Labour also had a shocking election night. Even if they lost, it was supposed to be a close race. Many newspapers had predicted that they would win, but, no one saw Scotland’s abandonment of Labour coming.
So, after the election, Labour had to regroup. The party elected a new leader: Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn has been a controversial choice. He’s incredibly liberal. According to The New Yorker, “Corbyn makes Bernie Sanders look like Ted Cruz.” Corbyn has advocated to put a maximum wage cap on high earners, he would print more money to pump into the economy, and he invited Hezbollah and Hamas to visit Parliament and publically stated that Hamas could not attend because the Israelis would not allow Hamas members to travel to the UK. Corbyn has Labour members rallying around him in a sort of “Corbynmania,” but polls indicate that non-Labour supporters disapprove of him. As the UK election faced unpredictable results due to fragmentation, Labour’s reaction has been to combat fragmentation with polarization. They picked an extremely left-leaning leader instead of one who can bring Scottish voters back to their party. According to Amy Woff, a UNC student from London, England, “Labour elected Corbyn because they knew they had to move away from the Blairites. Corbyn became a clear choice. He had the young vote in the bag, which is increasingly important. Similarly, if Sanders wins in the US it will be because the young people come out.” In the US, there have been similar polarization trends in both parties. Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, is now
behind Hillary by only 7 percentage points in the Iowa Caucasus, according to Bloomberg Politics polls. On the right, the candidates have fragmented the party into 17 different presidential candidate choices. Over the past several years, a segment of the party has become more extreme and branched off into the Tea Party, further splintering the votes. The emergence of the Tea Party has created a system wherein more traditional Republicans are pushed to ideological extremes in the primary to win over their voting base. Nonetheless, they somehow have to flip and become more moderate to appease a larger pool of voters in the general election. With the emergence of candidates like Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and a range of Republican candidates from the Tea Party, a trend emerges. As voters become more discontent with their choices in the US, core supporters lean into their beliefs further and vote for the extremist candidates. American voters are polarizing the election by leaning into extreme ideological candidates. While in the UK unhappy voters abandon their party, US voters dig further into it. Labour is borrowing the United States’ strategy to rebuild their party. Instead of diversifying to appeal to a section of voters outside of their core supporters, they’ve dug deeper into liberal beliefs and elected Corbyn as their leader. It will be interesting to see which direction the United States goes in 2016. Fall 2015 - 23
Published with support from: Generation Progress, a division of the Center for American Progress. Generation Progress works to help young people — advocates, activists, journalists, artists — make their voices heard on issues that matter. Online at genprog.org. Also paid for in part by student fees.
Campus BluePrint is a non-partisan student publication that aims to provide a forum for open
dialogue on progressive ideals at UNC-Chapel Hill and in the greater community.
24 - Fall 2015