HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW CHINA’S FIFTY CENT PARTY China’s Army of Mercenary Web Censors by Selina Wang
THE NFL IS LIKE THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY How Dangerous is Football Exactly? by Paul Schied
VOLUME I, ISSUE 1
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012
HPRONLINE.ORG
DISPATCH TECHNOCRATS TO THE RESCUE The Story of Cincinnatus and Europe by Matt Shuham
DREW FAUST GOES TO INDIA What Harvard Can Teach India by Zeenia Framroze
THE DEATH OF VIOLENCE Reviewing Pinker’s New Book by Caitlin Pendleton
GAY MARRIAGE NOW. Why Now Is Our Best Chance to Pass Gay Marriage by Ivel Posada
HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW A Nonpartisan Journal of Politics Established 1969
EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Jonathan Yip PUBLISHER: Andrew Seo MANAGING EDITOR: Neil Patel ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR: Alex Chen ONLINE EDITOR: Paul Schied
EDITOR’S NOTE Dear Readers, It’s my pleasure to present to you Dispatch, the Harvard Political Review’s new print showcase of student opinion. At the HPR, we firmly believe that politics goes far beyond the confines of the daily polling numbers and presidential horse race. Politics—broadly construed—intersects with our lives each and every day, from sweeping regulation in Washington to academia right here at Harvard. This inaugural issue runs that gamut, with our writers tackling Harvard in India, China’s cyber-censorship, Proposition 8, Steven Pinker, European technocracy, and, of course, the NFL. At our core, we’re dedicated to nurturing and publishing sharp student writing, and we think Dispatch will grow to be an integral part of that mission. We hope you enjoy it.
COVERS EDITOR: Beatrice Walton CAMPUS EDITOR: Tom Gaudett CAMPUS ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Medha Gargeya INTERVIEWS EDITOR: Alpkaan Celik U.S. SENIOR EDITOR: Caroline Cox U.S. ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Frank Mace U.S. ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Daniel Backman WORLD SENIOR EDITOR: Josh Lipson WORLD ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Arjun Mody WORLD ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Gram Slattery B&A SENIOR EDITOR: Christine Ann Hurd B&A ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Eli Kozminsky B&A ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Lena Bae HUMOR EDITOR: Sarah Siskind
Editor-in-Chief
Why the NFL Is Like the Cigarette Industry Paul Schied
STAFF DIRECTOR: Zeenia Framroze BUSINESS MANAGER: Olivia Zhu ASSISTANT BUSINESS MANAGER: Naji Filali CIRCULATION MANAGER: Ross Svenson DESIGN EDITOR: Sam Finegold GRAPHICS EDITOR: Gina Kim MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Eric Hendey WEBMASTER: Corinne Curcie WEBMASTER: Ben Shryock
SENIOR WRITERS Chris Danello, Kathy Lee, Paul Mathis, Max Novendstern, Jeremy Patashnik, Henry Shull, Simon Thompson, Jimmy Wu
STAFF
Jay Alver, Oreoluwa Babarinsa, Elizabeth Bloom, Humza Syed Bokhari, Peter Bozzo, Gabby Bryant, Samuel Coffin, Catherine Cook, Tyler Cusick, Jacob Drucker, Farha Faisal, Mikhaila Fogel, Harleen Gambhir, Aditi Ghai, Raphael Haro, Kaiyang Huang, Nur Ibrahim, Elsa Kania, Adam Kern, Sandra Korn, Ha Le, Ben Lopez, Jimmy Meixiong, Peyton Miller, Laura Mirviss, Chris Oppermann, Lily Ostrer, Samir Patel, Caitlin Pendleton, Mason Pesek, Heather Pickerell, John Prince, Matt Shuham, Martin Steinbauer, Alastair Su, Lucas Swisher, Rajiv Tarigopula, Pooja Venkatraman, Ben Wilcox, Danny Wilson, Jenny Ye, Benjamin Zhou
DESIGN STAFF
Sam Finegold, Nick Gavin, Caitlin Pendleton, Danielle Suh
ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Alter Richard L. Berke Carl Cannon E.J. Dionne, Jr. Walter Isaacson Whitney Patton Maralee Schwartz
Letters to the editor may be sent to: editor@hpronline.org.
David Zweig of The Atlantic lays out an interesting argument as to why the NFL won’t release its coveted All-22 video footage. All-22, for the non-football fanatics among us, is a zoomed-out video angle that captures the whole field, showing all 22 players at once. Mostly, as NFL fans, we’re treated to close shots of the players near the ball. Zweig thinks that the reason the NFL insists on withholding the All22 footage is because they want to keep fans dependent on NFL experts for the types of strategic insight that can be gleaned from All-22. He also suggests that they don’t want to make watching the game too cerebral; they’d prefer to keep it dramatic by showing us the up-close athleticism of the players and the emotion and focus of their faces. WI have a different hypothesis as to why the NFL won’t release the footage: they don’t want us to realize
how truly violent the game is. Anyone who has played competitive football will tell you that the most violent collisions occur off of the ball: on things like kickoffs, punts, and plays in the open field. When a running back runs up the middle, everyone in the immediate vicinity is flying at the ball. That running back takes some vicious hits, to be sure, but—for the most part—he sees them coming. He’s prepared to absorb those blows, and his primary objective is avoiding getting his head knocked off. The type of off-the-ball hits, especially on special teams, that are visible on All-22 are much less controlled. Players are running full speed in open space, and when they collide, they often do so at awkward angles and when one of the players isn’t prepared to take a hit. Necks snap back, heads hit the turf. When the camera is trained on the ball,
nobody sees these hits. When the camera is watching the whole field, the brutality of the game is on full display. Football is wildly popular, and the NFL is the most profitable professional sports league in America. Youth football is booming, and while most of these kids will never play for money, the ones that do make the big time fill NFL rosters, and the ones that don’t still watch the games and buy the tickets and jerseys. To a certain degree, getting these kids hooked on football is hugely important to the NFL’s bottom line. The analogy is perhaps strained, but the NFL is not unlike the cigarette industry: an enormously profitable industry pedaling a product that is harmful. Now, watching the NFL isn’t harmful, and while playing football might give you joint damage, a bad back, and dementia, it won’t give you cancer. But there is no question that concussion-risk is a huge problem for the sport, and letting high school kids slam their brains together inevitably does something more than just “build character.” The NFL isn’t stupid. It realizes that the number one threat to its long-term profitability is people realizing the risks of playing football— and caring about them enough to stop letting their kids play. Releasing the All-22 footage would make the brutality of the sport that much more apparent. Cigarette companies want kids to think their product looks dangerous and cool. But they wouldn’t play up the true danger of their product if they could help it. The NFL is no different.
CHINA’S 50 CENT PARTY HOW A CHEAP MERCENARY ARMY IS CENSORING THE INTERNET Selina Wang
When Chinese citizens express their opinions through online outlets, they write in the presence of a state-appointed cyber police force. In a fairly recent development, the Communist Party has begun to employ professional web commentators to monitor online bulletins and blogs in order to ‘cleanse’ the internet of anti-party sentiments and to promote the party line. As minions of the Communist Party, these commentators steer online discussions with posts that reflect the CCP ideology while deleting any opposing posts. Paid fifty Chinese cents for every pro-party post, these commentators have earned the moniker, ‘Fifty Cent Party.’ In 2008, President Hu Jintao proposed a new policy in which he asked the state media to take an active role in shaping public opinion. Signaling a government commitment to harnessing the power of the internet, Hu made a point to “exercise supremacy over internet public opinion, master the technique of online ‘guidance’, and use new technology to amplify the effectiveness of ‘positive’ propaganda.” Although this cyber police method began as an experiment in 2005, the censorship force behind it now employs thousands of Chinese mercenary commentators. Some sources even estimate that there are as many as 280,000 to 300,000 commentators. The Ministry of Culture of the People’s Republic of China even conducts training sessions in which participants are required to pass an exam before they receive job certification to become an official commentator. Amateur censors come to this cyber police force from all walks of Chinese life. Some provinces have advertised the Fifty Cent Party with propaganda and catchy phrases such as “everyone can make fifty cents.” In a country with enormous income disparity, many citizens would take this opportunity to make quick money. However, other online commentators volunteer their time to the Chinese effort of censoring the web. Hu Yingying, a sophomore at Shanghai Normal University, volunteers several hours a week by assuming a false online identity and introducing politically correct discussions on
her university’s online bulletins. She is proud and happy to be a contributor towards creating a “harmonious society.” These opinion shapers are even speculated to work on foreign language websites. In attempts to sway discourse on foreign websites, commentators criticize Western notions of what is wrong with China and suggest considering the Chinese party line. The effects of the Fifty Cent Party have even reached popular U.S. websites—in 2010, an American blogger at the Huffington Post ascribed comments on her blog posts to members of the party. Not only have pro-state Chinese commentators made their presence felt far and wide, but they’ve also cultivated an extremely short pattern of response. After the riots in Guizhou province in June 2008, the Chinese Internet was inundated with posts that criticized party officials. However, the Fifty Cent Party quickly intervened, deleting posts within fifteen seconds of their publication. Despite the Big Brother-like control that the Communist Party wields, the effectiveness of China’s policies is questionable. Many comments left by these hired cyber police are often blatantly propagandist messages that are dismissed by increasing cynical Chinese netizens. The infiltration of official views very often disgusts ordinary Chinese citizens, who are reported to mock the Fifty Cent Party. Even Han Han, a famous Chinese celebrity, has posted a satirical training manual for Fifty Cent Party members – which has circulated widely alongside trenchant, critical cartoons. Furthermore, an increasing number of Internet-savvy citizens are able to sneak past censorship mechanisms users by bypassing firewalls and refraining from the use of ‘trigger’ keywords known to set off mercenary cyber police. Regardless of the long-term impact of the Fifty Cent Party, the entire strategy of mass censorship strives to deceive the Chinese citizens, instead of creating a much-needed open relationship. Given that the Chinese government already controls most media outlets and almost all news providers, the enlistment of anonymous commentators clearly displays the government’s fear of facing the truth. Although legions of amateur censors make it more difficult for Chinese citizens to express their opinions, this is a minor obstacle that Chinese citizens—internet-savvy, cynical, and determined—will waste no time in bypassing.
HOW TO PASS GAY MARRIAGE NOW Ivel Posada The judicial opinion issued last Tuesday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, has charted a new path forward for advocates of marriage equality. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, the Appeals Court ruled that Proposition 8 does not satisfy the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws because it irrationally takes away a right that gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed in the state of California: the right to marry. Tuesday’s narrow ruling, however, skirts the issue of whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage as a matter either of Due Process or Equal Protection. Although the invalidation of Proposition 8 is welcome news, gay rights activists should not settle for this narrow ruling; rather, they should press the judiciary for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
AN EXPLANATION OF THE RULING Bracketing the issue of whether the Constitution requires all states to allow for same-sex marriages, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instead chose to answer whether voters in California may, “…single out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry, and [whether] this action amounts to a distinct constitutional violation [since] the Equal Protection Clause [under Romer v. Evans] protects minority groups from being targeted for the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason.” Backers of Proposition 8 resisted this framing of the issue, insisting that the fact that gays and lesbians enjoyed the right to marry in California for a brief “143-day hiatus,” prior to the passage of Proposition 8, was an irrelevant fact. The Appeals Court disagreed: “Withdrawing from a disfavored group the right to obtain a designation with significant societal consequences is different from declining to extend the designation in the first place, regardless of whether the right was withdrawn after a week, a year, or a decade. The action of changing something suggests a more deliberate purpose than does the inaction of leaving it as it is.” The Court then proceeded to scrutinize the purpose and constitutionality of Proposition 8 under an extremely differential standard known as rational basis review, wherein the judges merely ask whether the law under consideration furthers any legitimate state interest. Proponents listed several “legitimate interests” advanced by Prop 8; the Court struck down every purported interest as irrational. At one point, backers of Prop 8
argued that the purpose of marriage is to reduce the “threat of unintended pregnancies out of wedlock” and so foster “responsible procreation.” Because same-sex couples are not at risk of accidental pregnancies, the argument continued, there is no need to offer them access to the institution of marriage. Further still, proponents also contended that prohibiting samesex marriage would strengthen “traditional” families. The Court’s response to this claim bordered mockery: “It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman. While deferential, the rational basis standard is not a toothless one. Even the standard of rationality must find some footing in reality.” Exhausting the list of interests offered by proponents, the Appeals Court concluded that Prop 8 was merely the product of animus and served only to “lessen the status and human dignity” of LGBT people.
WHAT THE RULING MEANS MOVING FORWARD Because of the operating structure of the Ninth Circuit, Tuesday’s opinion merely reflects the view of a panel of three judges who sit on the Appeals Court (the vote tally was 2-1, with Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins siding with marriage equality advocates while Judge Smith wrote in dissent). Prop 8 backers will almost certainly appeal their loss, though they have the choice of appealing either to a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit Court (on which sit 11 judges) or of proceeding straight to the Supreme Court. Commentators have speculated that proponents will most likely appeal to the larger panel before requesting review by the High Court. Once the case reaches the Supreme Court—something that is now almost a certainty—the Justices will have three choices available to them: 1) they can reverse the ruling of the lower Appeals Court and uphold Prop 8 as constitutional, something that is very unlikely given the current makeup of the Court; 2) they can employ the same narrow argument used by the Appeals Court to strike down Proposition 8; or 3) they can strike down Prop 8 with a broad ruling that simultaneously finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The choice of path will undoubtedly fall on the shoulders of the Court’s swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has written passionately in favor of LGBT people in the two landmark gay rights cases the Court has considered (Romer v. Evans 1996 and Lawrence v. Texas 2003). Although Kennedy showed restraint in Romer, his ruling
in Lawrence was exceptionally broad, overturning the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick and striking down anti-sodomy statues in 13 states. A broad ruling in the Prop 8 case by the Supreme Court, along the lines of Lawrence, could legalize same-sex marriage across the country, sticking down anti-gay marriage laws in 37 states and potentially invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act in one fell swoop. A narrow ruling along the lines of Tuesday’s Ninth Circuit opinion, by contrast, would only strike down Proposition 8 in California and, presumably, Amendment 1 in Maine—both of which stripped gay people of their right to marry after they had enjoyed the right for a brief interim period. Several factors will work to determine which path the Supreme Court will take. Perhaps the most significant, however, will be the amicus briefs submitted to the Court by marriage equality advocates. Such briefs assist the Court in reaching an opinion and are typically submitted by advocacy groups or prominent legal scholars. Concerned with a serious public backlash if
Although the invalidation of Proposition 8 is welcome news, gay rights activists should not settle for this narrow ruling; rather, they should press the judiciary for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
the Court rules broadly in favor of same-sex marriage, gay activists may purposefully submit briefs that push the Court to issue a narrow ruling. In the wake of the broadly reasoned Lawrence case, for example, state legislatures across the country moved with great speed to pass constitutional amendments and statutory enactments prohibiting same-sex marriage. For this reason, there is worry that another broadly reasoned ruling may do more harm than good and may lead the 37 states that currently reserve the designation of marriage for heterosexual couples to push for a federal constitutional amendment barring gay marriage across the country. I am hoping for a broadly reasoned ruling. The threat of amendment to the Federal Constitution is one that should not be taken seriously. Although the number of states that have already prohibited same-sex marriage, 37, is perilously close to meeting the threshold required for ratification of a constitutional amendment, 38, these are not the only votes that matter. Before such an amendment could be sent to the states, it would require the approval of two thirds of both chambers of Congress. The likelihood of securing such a large swath of votes in both chambers of Congress is a near impossibility. Moreover, the other track available for constitutional amendment, which bypasses Congress and instead calls for state constitutional conventions, has never been used in this nation’s 230-year history. There is no reason to suppose a federal marriage amendment would prove the exception. What is more, the idea that a state-by-state push for gay marriage represents a long-term strategy for equality is absolute nonsense. In a couple of years, campaigners for marriage equality will exhaust the list of states that have not amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Once this happens, the only option left to activists will be
to propose constitutional amendments that nullify the previously enacted anti-gay amendments (since courts and legislatures in states constitutionally prohibiting same-sex marriage are barred from taking up the issue). This cumbersome process will take decades, if not a generation. The reality is that, at some point, the Supreme Court will have to wield its power to strike down these state constitutional amendments if marriage equality is to be a reality across this nation in our lifetime. The question is whether that moment is now, or a couple of years from now.
WE CAN’T WAIT Waiting for a future case is risky business. There are essentially five votes on the Court right now sympathetic to marriage equality. These votes, however, are not the votes of young justices. In particular, gay activists may soon lose the vote of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is quickly approaching retirement. If a more conservative justice is appointed as her replacement, the opportunity to legalize same-sex marriage nationally will be lost for quite some time. Marriage equality is an issue that should be resolved now. To this end, lawyers in the Prop 8 case, as well as groups submitting amicus briefs, should press the Supreme Court for a broadly reasoned opinion. Suggesting we wait a few more decades before fully pressing the Court on this matter is a luxury only the young have. For the generation of gays and lesbians who rioted in front of Stonewall in 1969 and who have purchased progress with their blood and sweat, there is no more time. If marriage equality is to be a national reality in their lifetime, the Supreme Court must decide on the matter sooner rather than later. And if that means an intense public reaction, so be it.
THE DECLINE AND DEATH OF VIOLENCE Caitlin Pendleton The crowd in 1660 London was having a great time, according to the diary of refined Parliament member Samuel Pepys. At the festivity’s center was Major-General Thomas Harrison, who was “looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition.” Harrison’s condition, much to the crowd’s glee, consisted of being “partly strangled, disemboweled, castrated, and shown his organs being burned before being decapitated.” Pepys wasn’t particularly offended by the proceedings, seeing that his next move was to take a few friends to the local tavern for some oysters. But to modern readers, the crowd’s giddy reaction would be universally condemned as inhumane and unimaginably cruel. Such differences in reaction hint that we are less violent than our extreme torture-tolerant ancestors. But to those who dismiss such differences and point to the unparalleled carnage of the 20th century, Harvard psychologist and bestselling author Steven Pinker has a startling and controversial declaration: you have been deceived. Armed with statistics, studies, and—his greatest strength—stories, Pinker asserts in Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined that we currently enjoy the good fortune of living in the most peaceable era of our species’ existence. Pinker’s painstaking quest to prove such a debatable thesis spans 800 pages, but such length is unavoidable. Pinker is well aware that the majority of the general public disagrees with him. Converting these nonbelievers is a Herculean task—but one in which he succeeds, crafting a monumental and successful work that intertwines both history and psychology to create a valuable message.
A FOREIGN COUNTRY CALLED THE PAST Better Angels of Our Nature encapsulates so many developments in human history that it would have been overwhelming without Pinker’s meticulous categorization. He calls his book “a tale of six trends, five inner demons, four better angels, and five historical forces,” and it is these six trends that comprise the bulk of the book and are the most essential. They begin with the dramatic decline of violence associated with humanity’s early transition from anarchy to agricultural civilizations—dubbed the “Pacification Process”—and end with the present-day “Rights Revolutions” of civil and animal rights. The latter are so much farther down on the totem pole of violence that it’s easy to see how far humanity has
progressed. Where the world once had chronic carnage-filled raiding and a fivefold higher rate of violent death, we now have Switzerland’s 150 pages of regulation dictating how to be a proper dog owner. Throughout these thousands of years of history, Pinker manages to include multipage synopses of every violence-related issue to fortify his thesis: homophobia, racism, religion, misogyny, human sacrifice, animal rights, terrorism, sadism, empathy, anarchy, torture, dueling, honor, and the Enlightenment. And throughout, Pinker’s skillful storytelling keeps his audience engrossed, not only by succinctly describing harrowing anecdotes, but also by picking the right ones to describe in the first place. He is especially successful in dispelling our ironic nostalgia for the good old times, the days of chivalry and biblical altruism. But Pinker’s stories, usually no longer than a paragraph or two, reveal a past in which people not only tolerated torture, but also reveled in it. The graphic descriptions infused throughout the book exist for more than shock value. In what Pinker calls “the foreign country called the past,” it is all too easy and common to overlook the rampant violence. Pinker forces us to remember. Pinker’s sense of humor isn’t quite dark enough to match Pepys’s, but it easily pulls readers through what is inarguably morbid and dense material. “‘Bloody Mary’ did not get her nickname by putting tomato juice in her vodka,’” he quips early on. He then applauds the modern British monarchy for “not having a single relative decapitated, nor a single rival drawn and quartered.”
THE PROBLEM OF PROPORTIONS Pinker spends a disproportionate amount of time on the chapter “The Long Peace,” in which he as successfully as possible negates the cliché espoused by just about everyone: that the 20th century, with its two world wars and the Holocaust, was the bloodiest one in human history. Pinker doesn’t quite kill that cliché, but that’s only because it is impossible to do so. His argument hinges on the fact that although the sheer number of people killed in warfare in the 20th century is higher than any other century, the proportion of people killed compared to the human population is not. Whether or not absolute numbers matter more than proportions is an issue of opinion, and Pinker himself admits it. The numbers supporting Pinker’s conclusions are still ultimately supported by his storytelling.
Certain subsections like “The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels” are less riveting in comparison, and Pinker even throws in some mathematical probability for good measure. The mathematically and scientifically illiterate have nothing to fear. Pinker never delves deep enough into these areas to be too confusing or aloof, and readers who are convinced that violence has indeed declined can skim through what Pinker affectionately calls “the statistics of war” and still understand a majority of the more valuable points.
THE WESTERN WORLD AT CENTER STAGE For all Pinker’s storytelling prowess, one might easily decry Better Angels of Our Nature for its lingering sense of Eurocentrism. The vast majority of the anecdotes and figures are indeed devoted to medieval Europe and the Western world. For this flaw, however, the book can be forgiven. Pinker spends more time sifting through the Anglosphere than he does anywhere else because this is where the downward trek of violence is most pronounced. That is where he has the most to prove, and that is where most of his attention is accordingly directed. After all, the overarching question of the book is not why there is still violence, but why there is unparalleled peace. Regions of the world still seeped in this violence do not go entirely unmentioned. “The Muslim world, to all appearances, is sitting out the decline of violence,” Pinker observes in the chapter “The New Peace.” Indeed, a pocketful of countries still severely punish or kill homosexuals and adulterers. But, the fact that most of the world no longer does should be noted and applauded. Pinker never pretends that there is no more progress to be made. Violence may have declined, but it certainly has not yet died.
HANDS OFF THE FUTURE Despite the wide breadth of topics and adept writing in each of them, Pinker identifies promising trends without making many predictions. But for the future’s sake, Pinker implies that this most peaceable era is not one to take for granted. He evokes George Santayana’s famous quote toward the end of his book: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” As Pinker so skillfully warns us, that past we want to avoid—like a happy crowd in 1660s London—is much bloodier than we tend to remember.
THE APPEAL OF A
TECHNOCRAT Matt Shuham This past year has shown the true stretch of globalization. When Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia on December 17th, 2011, it started a revolution that sent aftershocks around the world, from Egypt to Syria, with plenty others in between. When the subprime mortgage bubble collapsed in the United States, it too affected much of the world, as we saw during the eerily similar crises that followed around Europe. Now, the world seeks to contain the European sovereign debt crisis. All over Europe, people are dissatisfied with the multi-party political systems that have been in place since World War II. The current frameworks are too divisive for times of such extreme economic distress, and political vitriol is destructive for the health of any nation, as the United States discovered when an argument over the debt ceiling forced its credit rating down to an “AA+”. In place of party politicians, so-called “Technocrats”—officials not linked to a career in politics, but rather to expertise in their given academic field—have provided beacons of hope for the European (and thus, the world) economy. In Italy, Mario Monti is pushing to rein in sovereign debt and make Italy a leaner competitor on the world stage. An economist by trade with experience in the European Union, Monti has been described as “competent,” and “gifted,” far cries from Italy’s previous PM, Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi, a media magnate with a wild personality and a history of scandals during his time in office, stepped down as economic conditions in Italy worsened. Last November, Greece saw the appointment of Lucas Papademos as interim Prime Minister. Papademos, with a background in banking and academia, is arguing for cuts to Greece’s pension system, as well as tax and benefit reform. More and more often, countries are looking for a scientific approach to solving fiscal dilemmas. Two European leaders throughout the current crisis, France and Germany, are working to keep the Eurozone afloat by insisting on tight budgets and lowered deficit spending. Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor and an austere star in the economics world during these past few months, has come out particularly strongly against irresponsible government and tax policies. Even in the United States, Republican presidential hopefuls have battled over their respective commands of business knowledge. In the end, it seems as if Mitt Romney—who holds business and law degrees from Harvard University—will be the party’s presumptive nominee to run against Barack Obama in the 2012 general election. So, why a push towards technocracy? In an economic age in which the complexity of problems is outweighed only by the difficulty of their solutions, leaders with strong academic foundations and little interest in lengthy careers in government offer answers outside of the day-to-day political battles that now seem so petty. One is reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer who, in a time of war, was called by his fellow citizens to take the role of dictator and save Rome from attack. They found him in his back yard, maintaining his fields. He exchanged his plow for a sword, and led Rome to victory. Sixteen days after assuming the dictatorship, he returned voluntarily to his farm. Cincinnatus’ story rings true with many around the world struck with the current sovereign debt crises. Politicians interested in short-term victories and long-term legacies aren’t what Europe is looking for, and the technocratic option has risen to become the most viable one. For now, the deft guidance of expertise will try its best to lead Europe through the storm.
In place of party politicians, so-called “Technocrats”—officials not linked to a career in politics, but rather to expertise in their given academic field— have provided beacons of hope for the European (and thus, the world) economy.
Mario Monti
Lucas Papademos
Angela Merkel
HARVARD SAYS “NAMASTE!”
China and India is made far too often, but it is important to note how India’s educational system is not your average Asian system. India, like China, does focus extensively on math and science. In my childhood, academic prowess was often measured based on mathematical and scientific aptitude, not creativity. Drama, art and music were not considered “real” classes. President Faust spoke to the need for balance in education; she emphasized the confluence of science and technology and the liberal arts. And here is where Harvard can play an important role. I would hope that Harvard’s interaction with India and its institutions of higher learning will allow the stray poet, artist or history student to eventually receive the same accolades as an IIT student.
WHAT’S IN IT FOR INDIA?
Zeenia Framroze My mother insisted I wear my Harvard sweatshirt on the flight home to Bombay. “If you get lost, people will know you’re a college student and help you!” she had said. So, clothed in crimson, I waited to disembark at the Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport. A boy about my age wearing a UCLA sweatshirt asked me the usual, “Where are you flying from? Do you live in Bombay? What school did you go to? (Everyone knows each other in Bombay).” I was more than a little confused when he responded to my collegiate chatter with, “What college do you go to?” I thought the massive white Harvard lettering would have sufficed, and mumbled, “Harvard.” His eyes widened: “Oh wow! Really? That’s awesome. I’ve never actually met an Indian kid wearing a Harvard shirt that actually goes to Harvard. Good for you.” That run-in at the airport demonstrates the prevalence of the Harvard name in India and part of the reason I feel so privileged to be here. Although there are countless excellent American colleges and universities, in India, it’s the H-bomb that will elicit those awed eyes or the offering of a business card. India is a country that values scholarship, and Harvard has earned the reputation of being at the very pinnacle of knowledge-acquirement. Perhaps it’s because Harvard accepts so few undergraduates from India (the class of 2015 has only six Indian students from
India) that its reputation has become so deeply ingrained in Indian society. College applications and acceptances in Indian high schools is a rat race; you compete against diligent, hard-working students with 2400 SAT scores, who fight for every mark on every test. It was into this kind of environment, and with this kind of reputation that President Faust made her entrance into Bombay and India in January. She attended a number of events, from a visit to the all-girls’ J.B. Petit School to a luncheon with the Asia Society chapter in Bombay. Harvard’s new focus on India makes for an extremely interesting strategic relationship, one that has extraordinary potential.
A GOOD CHOICE Harvard’s decision to pursue a relationship with India over a number of over Asian countries seems justified. The Indian economy will likely be the third largest in the world by 2030 and the country has the fastest growing middle class in the world; it makes economic sense that Harvard would want a stake in this rising powerhouse. The Indian education system is also a unique one, from the lack of schools in rural areas and outdated materials to the luck of being able to attract hard-working foreign teachers to urban international schools. The comparison between
Harvard can help steer India educationally as it grows economically. The Harvard Business Research Center in Bombay has been a success, and such initiatives can bring together intelligent minds from both countries. India can learn much about what college (and even high school) education should be like—more than memorization, with actual joy in learning (something my Marathi language class did not inculcate). Harvard’s relationship with India will open doors for more Indian students—in an unexpected way. Indian kids are stunningly bright and driven. At my high school, almost every student was worthy of going to an Ivy League school. But, given their current admittance rate of foreign Indian students, not everyone in India can get into Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Hopefully, Harvard’s interaction with India will expose students to the diversity of American universities and educational choices. As it is now, high school students choose one “school of the year,” that becomes the itschool: last year it was Columbia. In turn, perhaps Harvard will accept more students from these schools, giving them the chance to broaden their horizons beyond the unbalanced, grade-oriented Indian academic system.
ROOM FOR FAILURE However, there is the real possibility that students in India might reject the ideas of a liberal arts education. For every Anand Mahindra who gives back to his alma mater, there are a few Lakshmi Mittals who feel they are “too young for charity.” Harvard’s growing influence in India and its creation of a true relationship there could go wrong; Harvard-endorsed programs might become simple brand extensions lacking academic muscle. Despite these fears, however, Harvard’s growing relationship with India is undoubtedly positive. President Faust adroitly quoted a number of great Indian leaders, from the former Indian national cricket team captain, Rahul Dravid to the famous poet Rabindranath Tagore. With any luck, her speech will be just the beginning to a flourishing partnership.