Spring 2020: The Politics of Protest by The Harvard Political Review

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW

CULTURE JAMMING

ASEAN BEATS THE ODDS

TOURISTS TO TRAVELERS

VOLUME LI NO. 1, SPRING 2020 HARVARDPOLITICS.COM

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1

HARVARDPOLITICS.COM/REDLINE

2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST This issue’s cover topic was originally proposed by Marian Bothner.

Good Protestor, Bad Protestor Swathi Kella

Revolutionizing Harvard Ilana Cohen

Culture Jamming Joseph Winters

CAMPUS 14 “Broke Kids Don’t Go to Harvard” Jaden Deal 16 Make Harvard Grade Again Grace Greason 30 Huawei or the Highway Amy Zhou

19 The University as a Battleground Ria Modak

Saving Singapore’s Civil Society John Chua

The Majesté of the Tsar Zehan Zhou

CULTURE 39

Cuban-American Cultural Diversity Kendrick Foster

Performance Art as an Activist Tool Jessica Morandi

Tourists to Travelers Andy Wang

UNITED STATES 22

Iowa Remains Inaccessible Chloe Levine

24 A Constitutional Check-Up Clay Oxford 36 The Majesté of the Tsar Zehan Zhou

Breaking News Connor Chung

WORLD

44 Tourists to Travelers Andy Wang

Huawei or the Highway Amy Zhou

ASEAN Beats the Odds Ryan Zhang

12 Lasers: The Future of Protests Jeremiah Kim

INTERVIEWS 46

The Future of Leftist Politics: An Interview with Meagan Day Joseph Winters & Winona Guo

ENDPAPER 48

A Cloud Over Cambridge Katie Weiner

Email: president@harvardpolitics.com. ISSN 0090-1032. Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved. Image Credits: Crimson: 19. Flickr: 14,15- pmckee. The Noun Project: 26- shashank singh; 21- Claire Jones; 48- James Kopina. Unsplash: TP- Md Mahdi; 1,3- Isaiah Rustad; 3- Dulcey Lima; 3- T. Chick McClure; 3- Maria Oswalt; 3- oakie; 3- The All-Nite Images; 3- chloe s.; 3- Jose Moreno; 3- Nicole Adams; 3- Johnny Silvercloud; 6- Su puloo; 3,6- Heather Mount; 6- Natalie Chaney; 6- Brandon Erlinger-Ford; 6- History in HD; 6- Sybylla Climate; 6- Phil Hearing; 6- Library of Congress; 9- Pawel Czerwinski; 16- Jean Colet; 16,17Florian Klauer; 22- Tanner Van Dera; 22- Element5 Digital; 24,25- Daryan Shamkali; 1,30,31- Anastasia Dulgier; 34- Bankum Desai; 35- Gary Bendig; 1,36,37,38- Michael Parulava; 39- Diego Gennaro; 41- Jessica Knowlden; 42- Chris Barbalis; 1,44,45- Nik Shuliahin; 46- Charisse Kenion; 48- Micah Giszack. Creative Commons: 32- Zero - CC0. Wikimedia Commons: 29- Anthony Quintano. Design by: Tosca Langbert, Trina Lilja, Will Polster, and Kendall Rideout.

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1

FROM THE PRESIDENT

HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW

The Politics of Protest

A Nonpartisan Undergraduate Journal of Politics, Est. 1969—Vol. LI, No. 1

EDITORIAL BOARD

PRESIDENT: Alexis Mealey PUBLISHER: Wyatt Hurt MANAGING EDITOR: Marian Bothner ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Ilana Cohen ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Clay Oxford STAFF DIRECTOR: Cate Brock SENIOR COVERS EDITOR: Kendrick Foster ASSOCIATE COVERS EDITOR: Kate Gundersen SENIOR U.S. EDITOR: Joseph Winters ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Swathi Kella ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Chloe Levine SENIOR WORLD EDITOR: Kelsey Chen ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Ruhi Nayak ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Ajay Sarma SENIOR CULTURE EDITOR: Jacob Blair ASSOCIATE CULTURE EDITOR: Christine Mui SENIOR CAMPUS EDITOR: Winona Guo ASSOCIATE CAMPUS EDITOR: Jaden Deal INTERVIEWS EDITOR: George Dalianis BUSINESS MANAGER: Duncan Glew ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER: Victoriah Verna SENIOR DESIGN EDITOR: Trina Lilja ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Tosca Langbert ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Kendall Rideout SENIOR MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Jacob Heberle ASSOCIATE MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Nicolas Medrano ASSOCIATE MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Annelisa Kingsbury Lee SENIOR TECH DIRECTOR: Kodi Obika ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: Yaodong Yu ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: David Hacker COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DIRECTOR: Alexandra Diggs

STAFF

Alex Tam, Alienor Manteau, Alisha Ukani, Alison Chen, Allison Piper, Amy Danoff, Amy Wang, Annelisa Kingsbury Lee, Audrey Sheehy, Ava Salzman, Ben Roberts, Benjamin Firester, Brammy Rajakumar, Bridger Gordon, Byron Hurlbut, Campbell Erickson, Caroline Yun, Carter Nakamoto, Charles Xu, Chloe Lemmel-Hay, Chris Sun, Christian Browder, Clara Bates, Clara Nevins, Colton Carpenter, Connor Brown, Connor Schoen, Daniel Friedman, David Hacker, DJ Kranchalk, Eleonore Evans, Eli Berlin, Emily Malpass, Emily Moss, Emmet Halm, Enrique Sanchez, Esha Chaudhuri, Ethan Schultz, Fatima Taj, Gabrielle Landry, Garrett O’Brien, Graham Walter, Hadley DeBello, Hafsa Muse, Hope Kudo, Isabel Cole, Isabel Isselbacher, Jacob Kern, Jake McIntyre, Jamal Nimer, James Blanchfield, James Coleman, Jamie Bikales, Jamie Weisenberg, Jay Gopalan, Jerrica Li, Jerry Huang, Johannes Lang, John Ball, Jon Riege, Jordan Barton, Jose Larios, Joseph Minatel, Josh Berry, Katharine Heintz, Katherine Ho, Katie Miao, Kevin Bi, Lainey Newman, Lauren Baehr, Lauren Fadiman, Leila Wass, Libby Palanza, Lindsey Bouldin, Lu Shao, Manuel Abecasis, Marcus Trenfield, Matthew Hatfield, Matthew Shaw, Max Snyder, Maya Bharara, Meena Venkataramanan, Melissa Kwan, Mfundo Radebe, Michael Montella, Michael Wornow, Mikael Tessema, Mimi Alphonsus, Miyu Imai, Mustafa Ansari, Natalie Dabkowski, Nicholas Sleeper, Nick Danby, Nidal Morrison, Nikole Naloy, Noah Knopf, Noah Redlich, Otto Barenberg, Pawel Rybacki, Peyton Dunham, Roger Cawdette, Rumi Khan, Ryan Chung, Ryan Golemme, Sam Meyerson, Samantha FrenkelPopell, Sandy Koenig, Sanika Mahajan, Sarah Deonarain, Sarah Tisdall, Satish Wasti, Sophie Dicara, Tamara Shamir, Tom Slack, Vanessa Ruales, Will Finigan, Will Polster, William Boggs, Yash Kumbhat, Yashaar Hafizka, Yuri-Grace Ohashi, Zachary Buttenwieser, Zehan Zhou SENIOR WRITERS: Akshaya Annapragada, Alicia Zhang, Amir Siraj, Andrew Zucker, Anirudh Suresh, Beverly Brown, Chad Borgman, Corbin Duncan, Darwin Peng, Drew Pendergrass, Eve Driver, Gordan Kamer, Hank Sparks, Jessica Boutchie, Katie Weiner, Keshav Rastogi, Lauren Anderson, Matthew Rossi , May Wang, Nicolas Yan, Perry Arrasmith, Russell Reed, Sarah Shamoon, Savitri Fouda, Waseem Nabulsi, Will Imbrie-Moore.

ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Alter Richard L. Berke E.J. Dionne, Jr. Ron Fournier

Walter Isaacson Whitney Patton Maralee Schwartz

2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

When the HPR gathered in November 2019 to select a topic for the spring magazine cycle, we faced a unique challenge. Amidst the usual happy chaos of choosing a topic for our magazine, there hung a quiet solemnity brought on by the understanding that the issue would be our first of the 2020s. As a consequence, we found ourselves debating not just what pitch would create an interesting set of articles, but also what subject would be appropriate to set the tone for another decade of political journalism. After tireless debate, we emerged with an answer: protest. Protest is an act of reclamation of one’s political identity, a decision to rise against the status quo to assert one’s agency as a citizen. The rise of the internet has introduced ubiquitous global access to news alongside massive platforms for political organizing, galvanizing generations young and old to exercise their political voices. The increased accessibility of protest in the digital era has brought about its own challenges, from the spread of false information to the growing threat of cyber crime. Across the globe, people and institutions alike are turning a critical eye to protest, examining both its immense power to provoke positive social change and its potentially damaging, often unintended consequences. 2020 marks the beginning of a new age of activism. On New Year’s Eve, the world welcomed the decade with celebration, but underneath the revelry, the pulsing current of political unrest continued to rush forward. From Hong Kong to Iran and France to Brazil, global streets have erupted into protests. Greta Thunberg and young climate activists around the world are building coalitions and organizing powerful demonstrations for climate action, taking the reins of global politics and guiding us towards a sustainable future. In the United States, a large, powerful cohort of voters is coming of age, demanding answers to challenges the world has never before been asked to face. As we continue into this new decade, we can nonetheless remain certain that protest will continue to shape our

political reality. In “The Politics of Protest,” four writers consider the implications of a new era of protest at Harvard, in the United States, and across the globe. In “Good Protestor, Bad Protestor,” Swathi Kella explores the effects of identity on public perceptions of protest legitimacy, highlighting a history of disenfranchisement of minority groups in American protest. Ilana Cohen’s “Revolutionizing Harvard” evaluates the history of radical activism on Harvard University’s campus, demonstrating the ways in which contemporary protestors are adapting old tactics in service of new causes. In “Culture Jamming,” Joseph Winters tackles the use of adapted corporate logos in protests, with activists harnessing the power of corporate advertising against the very power structures it is designed to uphold. Finally, Jeremiah Kim considers the use of lasers as tools for peaceful protesters to make a statement in “Lasers: The Future of Protests.” It is with immense pride that I present to you the first magazine produced by the HPR’s 52nd masthead. 2020 is a pivotal year in politics, but it is also a critical year for the HPR as we welcome the organization’s first ever majority-female leadership team. We remain firm in our commitment to empower and give voice to hundreds of writers, regardless of background, identity, or political affiliation, while continuing to build a more inclusive, representative community. As we enter a new decade of political uncertainty, we find stability in our belief in the power of rigorous, analytical journalism to fuel change and shape our political moment. Thank you for continuing to support us as we pursue this goal for another decade.

Alexis Mealey President

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

GOOD PROTESTER, BAD PROTESTER Swathi Kella

“S

how me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!” Anyone who has attended a protest will be quick to recognize those lines as a fixed feature of any demonstration, whether it be the Women’s March or Black Lives Matter. “The right of the people peaceably to assemble” is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution as a central tenet of free expression; protesting is emblematic of democracy. However, protest and democracy do not always march alongside one another — society is selective with which protestors it supports, mostly granting its approval exclusively to white Americans. Meanwhile, when advocates of minority backgrounds protest and critique social norms, they are disproportionately targeted by the public, the media, and the government, impeding their ability to vocalize their concerns. In the United States, this phenomenon most visibly affects

African-American and Muslim-American protestors. In 2015, the Public Religion Research Institute found that 67 percent of white Americans believed the protest of unfair treatment “always makes our country better.” However, this figure dropped to 45 percent when the protestors were presented as “Black Americans,” illuminating a harsh double standard that exists for protestors of a racial minority. With regard to the Muslim-American experience, National Deputy Director Edward Mitchell of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the largest Islamic civil rights organization within the United States, stated in an interview with the HPR that activists of this religious background face “disparaging claims” and accusations that diminish the gravity of their message. Such negative reception is disproportionately targeted at

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 3

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

protestors from a minority background, while white activists largely escape the same criticism. In an interview with the HPR, Colin Wayne Leach, a professor of psychology and Africana studies at Columbia University, considered why society might be selective. “From a democracy-rights point of view, … [protest is] something that we should all embrace,” he said, but he continued that “protest also means to some people, ‘Oh, these people are criticizing my society. They’re criticizing my government. They’re criticizing the country that I love.’” Protest is frequently viewed as unjustified criticism when those speaking out are of marginalized backgrounds, forcing these activists to defend not only the cause for which they are advocating, but also their ability to protest at all. Ultimately, these exclusionary attitudes serve to disenfranchise minorities of their ability to exercise their right to protest within the United States, perpetuating a longstanding hierarchy of inequality. A HISTORY OF INEQUALITY To understand the experiences of minority protestors, it is crucial to evaluate the reception of past protest movements, which cemented many of the exclusionary attitudes seen today. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s is a prime example. According to a Gallup poll conducted in 1961, 57 percent of Americans reported that tactics such as peaceful demonstrations during the Civil Rights movement hurt chances of racial integration. This figure rose to 60 percent in 1963 as the Civil Rights Movement gained more steam, displaying how negative perceptions of demonstrations increased when protest began to pose a legitimate threat to the social order. Such antagonistic sentiments towards black movements were targeted at professional advocacy organizations as well. The NAACP came under numerous charges of affiliating with communists, charges that discredited the organization and thus the Civil Rights Movement, allowing opponents to impede lasting civil rights reform. Muslim-Americans have similarly shared in a difficult history of protest, facing challenges to advocacy from the government. In 1987, federal agents stormed into the homes of eight Pro-Palestinian activists without any official charges to arrest them on. Over 100 law enforcement officers were involved, and while the government soon dropped criminal charges, it tried to deport the eight activists by alleging ties to a communist organization. The incident, which became known as the L.A. Eight, serves as another example of how protestors themselves have been attacked in order to erode the legitimacy of the underlying concern. This antagonism towards minority protest and advocacy movements can be attributed to an underlying desire to preserve a social hierarchy within the United States. Specific to the African-American experience, Harvard University professor Lawrence Bobo wrote in the Social Psychology Quarterly in 1988 that black protestors presented “an unwanted threat to an accepted social order and to a privileged group position,” and as a result, those in the racial majority felt that these protestors “should elicit negative evaluation.” Further, the antagonism is only amplified when onlookers do not understand the issues that demonstrators face. Leach remarked that, “If the people seeing [protestors] don’t think they have anything to complain about, then being out in the street is illegitimate and dangerous.” Often, differences in whether there is “anything to complain about” are

4 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

drawn along racial lines, and protest becomes “dangerous” when these complaints undermine the existing social order. PROBLEMS IN THE PRESENT DAY Attitudes towards protest movements in the 21st century are informed by this legacy of discrimination, as racial divisions have persisted and continue to influence the reception of minority activism today. Such divisions are evident in the experiences of African-American advocates protesting police brutality. According to the 2017 study “Race and Reaction” from the Journal of Social Issues, white participants had a more negative view of protests against police brutality than black participants and understood the causes of them less. Leach, a co-author of the study, conducted the experiment by showing African-American and white participants pictures of black protest scenes, which he said were “very typical, … [and] very peaceful.” However, the reactions he received were unexpectedly intense, as he “was surprised by how many of the white participants especially found it really unpleasant, aversive, and … threatening.” This reception conforms with underlying stereotypes of African-American criminality and deviance, perpetuating the negative images surrounding minority groups. These negative perceptions of black activism have had great effects on the reception of Black Lives Matter, a protest movement founded in 2013 to challenge police brutality and racial profiling by law enforcement. Mirroring the historical reception of black protest movements, the organization has been labeled as “dangerous” and “terrorist” by the public and the media. In an interview with the HPR, Angela Waters Austin, founder of Black Lives Matter Michigan and Lansing, said these negative reactions perpetuate “a constant narrative that the fight for peace and anti-violence and anti-racism is somehow a threat to America.” This is the same narrative that opponents to the Civil Rights movement perpetuated in the 1960s; despite the progress made with regard to racial equality since then, it is as if nothing has changed at all. Muslim-Americans activists have had to confront this same narrative, a narrative that seeks to diminish their message by attacking their identity. Mitchell sees a direct connection between the attacks the organization receives now — accusations of terrorist affiliations and anti-Semitism — and the charges of communist ties that were levied against Muslim-Americans in the 1980s. “It’s just history repeating itself,” he said. “It’s something that racists and bigots have done before, and they’ll keep doing it. Because they don’t want to address the substance of the message, they just want to tar the messenger.” When the messenger gets tarred, the message gets lost, impeding the activism efforts of minority protestors. BROADER CONSEQUENCES The perceptions that individuals carry towards protestors have consequences that permeate society on a structural level. In the 2010s, this manifested itself in the targeting of Black Lives Matter activists. Following the wrongful and fatal shooting of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin and acquittal of gunman George Zimmerman in 2013, protestors took to the streets to express discontent with law enforcement. In an intelligence assessment report released four years later, the

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

FBI created the term “Black Identity Extremists” to identify African-Americans who retaliated against law enforcement with “premeditated, retaliatory lethal violence” due to “perceptions of police brutality.” Austin responded, “It’s a problem. It is an attempt to create a narrative to justify surveillance that is rooted in absolutely zero fact.” Austin remarked that this label of “Black Identity Extremists” has dangerous impacts on American liberties as a whole: “It threatens the freedom and the liberty of every American when groups can be classified to justify surveillance and targeting.” Leach agreed, stating that public perceptions of protest movements have immense consequences on the roles that institutions such as law enforcement play in society; when the public, the government, and federal agencies deem minority movements illegitimate, it serves to uphold a system that disproportionately targets and punishes particular racial groups. Ultimately, targeting these protestors suppresses the discontent of minority groups in order to preserve a structurally racist establishment. A similar suppression of discontent has been aimed at Muslim-American protestors, with many of the charges levied against the NAACP and the L.A. Eight in the 20th century brought up once again in the guise of 21st century fears regarding terrorism. In 2014, when Edward Snowden released documents from the National Security Agency, he revealed that the NSA and the FBI had been investigating numerous MuslimAmerican leaders, including politicians, academics, and civil rights activists. One of the Muslim-Americans investigated was Nihad Awad, the executive director of CAIR. The organization, which has been labeled as “militant” and “terrorist,” was even denounced as a front for the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. However, as Mitchell pointed out, the U.S. federal government has not designated CAIR as terrorist, and the organization has on multiple occasions denounced terrorism and violent extremism. The constant threats of targeting and surveillance serve to take away from the ability of these protest groups to advocate for their causes and other important issues. Mitchell said, “In CAIR’s instance, it’s not only that we have to defend Muslims but we end up having to defend ourselves because we are a Muslim organization.” Mitchell stated that this drew energy away from fixing societal issues that Muslim-Americans could comment on with a unique voice. This differential treatment of minority activists also carries severe consequences in the sphere of political lawmaking, where the concerns of protestors translate to substantial policy changes. Basheer Jones, the first Muslim councilmember in the city of Cleveland, said in an interview with the HPR that he felt “a triple conscious[ness] of being Black, American, and Muslim.” As a political activist, Jones faces the stigma that both Black Lives Matter and CAIR face, which has led to challenges within the arena of public office: within the first four months after his election, Jones faced two recall petitions. Jones elaborated, “That didn’t have anything to do with my work. … That had to do with some of my differences, being Muslim.” Jones’ identities were weaponized against him, an act which would have politically disenfranchised the people he represents. This political representation is crucial because it is the government that constitutes the formal response to protest; when lawmakers do not understand the cause for protest, it enables the perpetuation of structural racism.

A WAY FORWARD Despite the discrimination that minority protestors face, they still look to the future with optimism, seeking a way to end the prejudicial treatment they have undergone. Many advocacy groups see a solution in the increasingly politically active youth. For this reason, CAIR has created many opportunities for youth to get involved, from internships to lobbying to spreading CAIR’s message, according to Mitchell. Black Lives Matter has taken a similar approach, recognizing that young people are greatly impacted by the issues the movement addresses and that they want to become involved. Austin told the HPR, “Black Lives Matter overall is very much driven by an intergenerational framework, so that means really reaching and supporting our young people in middle and high school.” By focusing on the next generation, Black Lives Matter and CAIR hope to preserve their progress and counteract stereotypes regarding minority protest participation at a young age. Black Lives Matter in Michigan is also focusing on electoral issues by expanding the right to vote, educating candidates on issues facing minority communities, and promoting diversity in government. This form of political activism is geared towards ensuring that all people are properly represented in places where laws are being made. Increased minority representation in turn leads to an even greater awareness of racial issues at the governmental level and greater empathy with those on the streets. Jones encapsulated this racial awareness as he said, “That is my goal, to go through this system in Cleveland and stomp out structural racism wherever I find it.” This activism — both on the streets and in the legislative chambers — works to ensure that one day, protestors will no longer be divided into categories of “good” or “bad” based on their identity. However, it is hardly enough; inequality still exists, having not so much disappeared as adapted to modern times. It will take a tremendous but necessary effort, on both an interpersonal and structural level, in order to create a society that is more equitable for all of its participants. Until then, free expression will continue to be a right that is only selectively granted. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 5

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

Revolutionizing Harvard Ilana Cohen

hen about 50 students occupied Harvard’s Office of Admissions and Financial Aid on December 12, 2019, they carried the legacy of a nearly half-century-long call for Harvard to create an Ethnic Studies department. The occupation represented one of several recent actions that have gripped campus and jarred the administration. From Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard’s sit-in at the 136th Harvard-Yale football game to office occupations by the Ethnic Studies Coalition and the strike by members of the Harvard Graduate Student UnionUnited Automobile Workers, a new era of more radical student activism seems to be dawning on campus. Yet such activism is not unprecedented; rather, it invokes a long legacy of student protest. In response to these new protests, the administration tends to portray campus activism as uninformed and contrary to civil discourse, reluctant to appear as if it is conceding to student demands. This dismissiveness has only fueled the perception that without disruptive action, Harvard will never meaningfully respond to critical disparities between its espoused principles and actual practices. Now, with new tools at their disposal and a focus on building collective power, students activists are ramping up their organizing in the hope that by posing a sufficient threat to Harvard’s prestigious public image, they can motivate institutional change.

6 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

THE EVOLUTION OF STUDENT ACTIVISM ON CAMPUS Early campus activism centered around student living conditions, ranging from physical abuse by administrators to poor food and commons quality. Only a few years after Harvard’s 1636 founding came a series of student petitions, protests, and minirebellions — including the Bread and Butter, Cabbage, and Great Rebellions — which provoked new fury and disciplinary action by the administration, leading to its banning “illegal combinations,” or unauthorized assemblies of students, in 1809. For Dr. Zachary Nowak, a Harvard College fellow who teaches a course on Harvard history, the debate over slavery’s abolition in the 1850s represents a critical turning point in Harvard student activism. After the administration and faculty worked to hamper public debate over slavery on campus, students went from “mainly being activists about things on campus and their own quality of life to being political in a broader sense,” sparking a lasting engagement with national and world politics, Nowak told the HPR. Over a century later, April 1969 marked another turning point in student activism: the occupation of University Hall by antiwar student activists. The students had six demands, including

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

ending Harvard’s Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program. Although the organizers, members of Students for a Democratic Society, initially represented a radical minority on campus, Harvard President Nathan M. Pusey’s response to the occupation — making an unprecedented call for Cambridge City and Massachusetts state police to remove students from University Hall — shifted public perception in favor of the student protestors. For many skeptical of the claims of Harvard’s complicity in the Vietnam War, the violent scenery of 400 city and state troopers armed with mace dragging students outside, beating them with billy clubs, and arresting them seemed to expose the administration’s villainy. According to Nowak, the aftermath of this decision made Harvard recognize that it had committed a “huge tactical error,” which it would never again repeat. Rutgers Law School professor Richard Hyland ‘69, who participated in the occupation, told the HPR that it represented a “dramatic shift” in the history of student activism on Harvard’s campus. For Hyland, the occupation “happened at a particular moment when Harvard was ripe for change … [It] crystallized the evolution that was underground at the time” when Harvard was a “totally dysfunctional educational institution,” very different than the Harvard known to students today. As Harvard College had yet to integrate with Radcliffe College — remaining all-male until it began merging its admissions process with Radcliffe in 1975 — and had a predominantly white and affluent student body, the education it provided was far less interdisciplinary. The intersectional nature of the anti-war movement on campus not only heightened the efficacy of student protest but set a lasting precedent for building student power. Overlapping with the anti-war movement was a powerful push, led primarily by black students in the Harvard-Radcliffe Association for African and Afro-American Students for what became Harvard’s Department of African and African American Studies. After SDS supported and even formally adopted black students’ demand for this department, the campaigns organized several actions together. Only a few days after the University Hall occupation, they held a rally at Soldiers Field Stadium calling for change from the University that helped prompt a vote by Harvard faculty the following week to establish an Afro-American Studies department, with student participation in its development. Such activism laid the groundwork for what emerged in the ensuing decades. From the 1980s campaign for divestment from apartheid South Africa to the 2001 Living Wage campaign, the collaboration between student movements has grown dramatically. Today, student campaigns draw from this legacy to challenge the power dynamics of the University. Movements from fossil fuel and prison divestment to the ongoing push for an Ethnic Studies department have galvanized support from students, faculty and alumni and garnered national media attention. Meanwhile, the official formation of HGSUUAW in 2018 after years of organizing augmented the potential for student-worker solidarity, made visible in striking graduate students’ collaboration with campus groups including the Harvard TPS Coalition, Student Labor Action Movement, fossil fuel and prison divestment campaigns, and Ethnic Studies Coalition.

AN OLD STRATEGY WITH NEW TACTICS Today, the Harvard administration appears far less eager to

employ direct force against its students or to shut down student protest and take disciplinary action against student organizers. This change, indicative that the University learned from the outrage sparked by its response to the 1969 occupation, may also reflect Harvard’s greater sense of public accountability in the digital era. Especially with social media, students can quickly turn campus actions into national news stories. Alternatively, the University may see less need for direct force, as Hyland speculates that students now seem generally less willing to jeopardize their academic and future careers for activism than in his era. Instead, the Harvard administration now largely seeks to preempt student protest by emphasizing the importance of “civil discourse.” President Bacow has repeatedly called for open “conversation” about contentious campus issues and claimed that he responds to “reason, not pressure” amidst student activism for fossil fuel and prison divestment. Student organizers have argued that such rhetoric dismisses the legitimacy and historical legacy of protest as a form of dialogue, as well as noting its racially charged implications when applied to organizers of color. They have also called out the hypocrisy of such rhetoric given their perception of the administration’s persistent refusal to engage in substantive conversation about schisms between its espoused principles and actual practices. Language around civility also drives Harvard’s media and public relations machine. The university’s official news source, the Harvard Gazette — a division of Harvard Public Affairs and Communications — covers student activism with a palpably pro-administration slant. Striking a similar tone, the nominally independent Harvard Magazine published a piece in late 2019 contrasting the peaceful disruption of an FAS faculty meeting by a student calling for an Ethnic Studies department with a faculty discussion of divestment that “was completely civil, and on a high intellectual plane.” Yet even with a change in tactics, Nowak sees a strong historical continuity in the administration’s strategy for responding to student activism — namely, in the reality that the administration “does not want student organizing” or student voice in decisionmaking when it might threaten institutional norms. The administration’s response to the more direct and intersectional organizing occurring on campus now supports Nowak’s point. As students increasingly frame themselves as part of broader political moments for action on issues such as climate change, the Harvard administration has only intensified its efforts to control the public narrative of actions on campus and quell student unrest. According to Nowak, the administration has two primary means of doing so: First, it tries to “run out the clock,” taking only superficial or bureaucratic actions such as forming subcommittees to investigate issues in the hopes of indefinitely prolonging a fulfillment of student demands until the most vocal student organizers graduate. When such movements garner too much momentum to reach this more natural conclusion, Nowak explained, the administration tries to “divide and conquer” student activists, working more subtly to undermine the solidarity between movements. At its most extreme, the administration has gone so far as to break the law, as with its illegal interference in the HGSU-UAW 2016 election and recently, its potential violation of labor law in suggesting that hiring prospective teaching staff be contingent on their refusal to participate in a strike continuing during their employment.

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 7

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

Recently, Harvard has also employed more visible forms of intimidation. Farah Afify ‘22, an organizer with the Ethnic Studies Coalition, told the HPR that in the wake of recent student activism, she has noticed a heightened police presence on campus, as well as the installation of new security cameras in Harvard Yard. For the first two weeks of the HGSU-UAW strike alone, Harvard was billed about $185,0000 in security fees by the Cambridge Police Department after it requested additional security. Afify finds this reaction by the administration to students’ nonviolent escalation telling: for her, it reveals the insincerity of claims by administrators that they aim to more deeply understand student sentiments. Furthermore, Afify finds that the administration responds differently to various student groups. As a result, the Ethnic Studies Coalition, which is comprised largely of students of color, has remained highly cognizant of how the administration’s uneven response to student protests may fall along racial lines. For Afify, this disparity reflects a broader issue of non-white activists’ demands being seen as less legitimate.

LOOKING BACK TO LOOK FORWARD With tensions rising on campus, the stakes for both students and administrators remain high. While the administration prioritizes Harvard’s image among alumni and the broader public, Nowak also emphasizes that the administration is not a monolith but is instead comprised of many stakeholders aiming to work efficiently while balancing their own interests, which makes sharing decision-making power with students — whom administrators may view as ill-informed — difficult. For Harvard Law School student and HGSU-UAW Bargaining Committee member Rachel Sandalow, campus activism forces a greater question about the democratization of the University and how Harvard defines itself as an institution. “You can’t project one image into the world in your advertising materials and then maintain a separate reality for the people who actually study and work here,” she told the HPR. Sandalow views HGSU-UAW’s work as about “building [students and workers’] power to have a real sustainable voice at the table … to hold the University up to the values that it claims to promote” in its treatment of those on campus, who are most directly affected by its policies, and in its broader societal influence. While there is no clear path to success for student campaigns, certain tactics have proven highly effective. Both Sandalow and Afify noted the importance of receiving support from public figures — as with the signing of an open letter by over 200 prominent Ethnic Studies scholars criticizing Harvard’s denial of tenure to Latina associate professor Lorgia García Peña — which catalyzes national media attention, intensifying public pressure on the University to change its practices. Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard’s sit-in at the Harvard-Yale game demonstrated this potential, as its endorsement by public figures from actress Alyssa Milano to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) helped spark international news headlines. “I think we underestimate the media of the past … but at the same time, there’s no comparison to the reach that media has today,” said Nowak, affirming the power of activists’ media strategy to pressure the University. He also cited dining hall workers’ ability to leverage media attention when striking for improved working conditions in 2016. For Sandalow, the dining hall work-

8 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

ers’ success also testifies to the value of uniting students and workers for institutional change. To this end, coalition-building is also crucial for effective organizing. Afify finds that intersectional actions more often provoke a response from the administration, even if they do not change its stance. Such actions can also garner greater public participation by having a broader appeal, helping student activists meet the challenge of “making the University feel like they can’t get away with [ignoring students].” Sandalow similarly stresses the value of joint organizing, viewing HGSU-UAW’s fight to “build a more just and equitable campus community” as inherently intersecting with other campaigns. She also highlighted the value of outside groups’ support in building public pressure, such as when UPS stopped delivering packages to the University in solidarity with the HGSU-UAW strike. Knowing when to escalate is also critical. While disruptive actions tend to garner greater criticism, Afify holds that disruption uniquely challenges the status quo and often proves necessary given the historical intransigence of the administration amidst more tame organizing. “Without disruption, no one really recognizes what’s wrong,” Afify explained, invoking the power of the Harvard-Yale sit-in. As Harvard’s administration and students take lessons from the University’s history, they simultaneously set new precedents for future activism on campus. For Afify, activists are “always implicitly learning from other movements” and “inheriting a legacy” from organizers past. Likewise, the legacy of today’s activism and the University’s responses to it will carry forward, shaping generations more of student protest for institutional change still to come. 

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

Joseph Winters

any of today’s most urgent political struggles are defined not by citizen-government conflict, but by tension between consumers and corporations. The pharmaceutical industry’s opioid epidemic, Big Food’s obesity crisis, and a climate emergency created by the fossil fuel industry all point to industry’s pervasive influence in the modern world order. In 2018, 157 of the world’s richest 200 entities were private companies. Behemoth firms like Royal Dutch Shell and Wal-Mart have net yearly earnings that outstrip most countries’ GDPs. As Canadian writer John Ralston Saul put it, wealthy CEOs are writing their own rules for the international economy, engaging in a “coup d’état in slow motion.” Politics, however, is not the sole fountainhead of power – as corporations have fought to write the rules of trade, they have cemented their power with the mortar of culture. For the private sector, the citizen’s primary public role is the consumer, and the dominant mode of communication is the advertisement, broadly defined. Corporate imagery — logos, slogans, mascots, jingles, and more — has long been more recognizable than the face of Jesus Christ. This presents a problem for activists looking to challenge the status quo. As cultural critic Mark Dery puts it, dissenters face manifold challenges as they try to “box with shadows” and target the slippery, intangible specter of imagery, “the empire of signs.” If advertisement and image are the main ways that corporations engage with the public, these outward-facing facets

of their identities also represent the chinks in their armor. Activists — who are often relatively disempowered due to their lack of resources to amplify their movements’ messaging — can utilize the vast resources that have been poured into corporate logos and imaging for their own benefit. This strategy is called “culture jamming”: By using the corporate tools of advertisement for their own purposes, jammers piggyback off of the power structures they hope to target. In this way, as Saul Alinsky writes in Rules for Radicals, “the superior strength of the Haves becomes their own undoing.”

THE LANGUAGE OF MEMES Coined in 1984 by the alternative band Negativland, “culture jamming” originally referred to the alteration of existing imagery in order to amplify jammers’ own, alternative messages. It was the year of Reagan’s reelection, in the middle of a decade when the government seemed to be in retreat. “Man is not free unless government is limited,” the 40th president said in his 1989 Farewell Address. Privatization policies that reduced corporate taxes and snubbed the public sector set the stage for an explosion of public-private partnerships, blurring the lines between cultural and commercial. As the state receded and corporations gained greater political power, corporate advertising rapidly encroached on public space — it was in public universities, on public transit, in public libraries. Even public space in the broadest sense was saturated with advertisements;

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 9

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

between the airwaves (TV), the soundwaves (radio), and the visual environment (billboards), corporate influence was virtually inescapable. Objections to this new, corporate world order fomented a resistance that was often explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist. These themes laid the foundation for the culture jamming movement of the ’80s and ’90s, when activists frequently sought to expose hypocrisies or injustices underlying seductive corporate advertisement. Through the lens of the culture jammer, “Joe Camel” became “Joe Chemo.” Absolut brand vodka was jammed as “Absolut Nonsense.” The genius of culture jamming was that it allowed activists to leverage an extensive, pre-existing groundwork of brandbuilding. Near the turn of the century, anti-corporate activists lacked the resources or connections to amplify their critiques of labor practices, environmental affronts, and other malfeasances. Industry, on the other hand, was investing millions of dollars in iconography that distilled its entire persona into a single image, phrase, or idea: iconic representations on which culture jammers could easily capitalize. By hijacking this self-promotion machine, culture jammers forced the corporations in question to foot the bill for their own opposition campaigns. Culture jammers’ other epiphany was that image, rather than text, had become the prevailing form of public address. The meme — defined by Richard Dawkins as “condensed images that stimulate visual, verbal, musical, or behavioral associations” — was being used by big industry to assert its influence over popular culture. Many of these associations are so familiar they have become trite: Coca-Cola and youthful energy; Nike and athletic excellence; and Apple and creativity. The careful cultivation and dissemination of memes enabled rapid, passive communication from big industry to the consumer, commodifying culture as a means for greater market control. But if these simulacra served corporations, they were also a tool for activists seeking to criticize complex power structures. By communicating visually, culture jammers became activistartists. They supplanted the written manifesto with their chosen mode of discourse, speaking volumes about their opponents more rapidly, more efficiently, and — arguably — more compellingly than through text.

BEYOND PRANKING: CULTURE JAMMING AS “MEME WARFARE” Culture jams connote humor; they are commonly viewed, and belittled, as the antics of a prankster. There is certainly something laughable about jams like “Virginia Slime” and “Utter Fool” (rather than Ultra Kool) brand cigarettes, which turn corporate messaging on its head. But humor is just one part of the grand strategy of what Kalle Lasn, chief editor of AdBusters Magazine, has called “meme warfare,” which pits culture manufacturers — big industry — against the dissenting voice of the culture jammer. Nowhere has the spectrum of humor been used to greater success than in the anti-tobacco activism of the late 20th century. For example, in 1997 the New York anti-tobacco lobby bought hundreds of taxi ads for “Cancer Country” brand cigarettes. Other activists pretended to peddle “Scramel” cigarettes, which they reported to be “so fresh they’re insulting!” But at the same time that culture jammers were portraying the Philip Morris

10 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

camel’s phallic nose as a flaccid, impotent penis, other protestors were speaking out against Big Tobacco with angrier, more explicit voices. For example, there was New York City priest and activist Rodriguez de Gerada, who took to the streets of New York City in the 1990s with a mission. On tobacco billboards, he amended the standard surgeon general’s warning with his own, more combative message: “Struggle General’s Warning: Blacks and Latinos are the prime scapegoats for illegal drugs, and the prime targets for legal ones.” The best culture jams are able to navigate and reconcile this apparent divide between antics and political protest by operating on two levels simultaneously. On the surface, they are highly specific, seeking to puncture the seductions of a target advertisement. But on a deeper level, they fit into a broader framework that seeks to challenge larger cultural norms and political agendas. The anti-tobacco ads, for example, called out a panoply of the industry’s specific misdemeanors, from deceptions about the risks of smoking, to irresponsible advertising to minors, to the manufactured association between cultural capital and their deadly product. The movement’s overarching demand, however, was more sweeping: the culture jammers exhorted corporations like Philip Morris to take responsibility for the damage they had knowingly caused to public health. And it worked. Although Big Tobacco was toppled by a coalition of legal, academic, and nongovernmental forces, culture jams helped create an impetus for change by reimagining cultural norms around smoking and tobacco. By 1990, tobacco advertising had been expelled from television and radio, smoking had been banned on commercial airplanes, and it was mandated that cigarettes must be packaged with explicit health warnings and images that represented some of smoking’s most gruesome health consequences. By 2010, the tobacco industry was decimated. Not only had it lost capital in a monetary sense, it had lost cultural capital, never again to regain the influence it wielded in the early 1900s, the days of its supremacy. This is the incredible, radically democratic power of the culture jam. As Lasn told the HPR, every corporation operates on an implicit charter granted by the people — the public grants them permission to exist. In this way, Lasn argued that “we the people” can alter corporate charters by adding our own clauses. And in the most extreme cases, the public deserves the right to “unplug” bad actors: “We have to have the power of killing off corporations that have betrayed the public trust.”

MODERN RESISTANCE: JAMMING LIKE IT’S JAZZ In the ’80s and ’90s, culture jamming had a stick-it-to-theman kind of mentality that allowed activists to imagine themselves outside the systems they were protesting. For this era’s anti-corporate culture jammers, there was a notion that they operated from a realm outside of capitalism, and commerce of any kind tainted one’s politics. Today, however, it is much harder to reject outright the influence of large corporations, and — as some social scientists note — Millennials and Gen-Zers may not even want to. Modern activists express their discontent through branding, by choosing (or starting) indie labels or socially- or environmentally-conscious businesses. Even the tools of modern activism — social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter —

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

are decidedly corporate. Or, in a bizarre twist, the corporations preempt public criticism by becoming activists themselves – at least nominally. So-called “corporate responsibility” schemes have boomed since 2010, decorated with the vernacular of environmental sustainability and social justice. Today, 85 percent of the companies listed in the S&P 500 file their own sustainability reports, for example. “This is both good and bad,” Lance Bennett, director of the Center for Communication and Civic Engagement at the University of Washington, told the HPR. Good because corporate responsibility has become more institutionalized, but bad because it allows corporations to purchase a social license through advertising. “The trend is to spend money on advertising and not change,” ClientEarth lawyer Sophie Marjanac said in an interview with the HPR, speaking of the fossil fuel industry. Marjanac’s firm is currently involved in a complaint against BP for ads that claim BP is “working to get energy that’s cleaner and better,” despite 96 percent of its annual spending going towards oil and gas. In general, the public’s interactions with the media have gotten much more complex since the turn of the century. At that time, many activists focused on the unidirectional nature of cultural communication. This was most apparent when television was still the dominant form of corporation-to-consumer information dissemination; purely passive, with virtually no mode of recourse (or discourse) for those who disagreed. But today’s interactive media environment is multidirectional. While corporations still have disproportionate access to channels of mass communication, the rise of grassroots, alternative, and social media has, in a way, democratized communication. It is now easier for a culture jammer to talk back to corporate advertisement, but a cluttered media landscape makes it harder for them to cut through the noise. The “post-truth” nature of modern media has also complicated the role of culture jamming. “We’re in an age when actual news is being brought under the microscope,” said Christine Harold, a professor of Communications at the University of Washington, in an interview with the HPR. “There are legitimate disinformation campaigns out there … being used to oppress people, to suppress voters, to sway public opinion.” Even if culture jammers’ primary tools — parody, prank, satire — are used for different ends, Harold warned that the cultural moment has changed; it is worth interrogating the role of a tactic based on distortion. At the same time, activists note that it is not only the media environment that has shifted; the stakes have also changed. Lasn argued that the urgency of modern crises — of climate, of public health, of corruption in government — calls for responses far deeper than parody in order to challenge the political and economic paradigms at their heart. “We need radical surgery at the guts of our global system, to start veering this human experiment in some sort of new direction,” Lasn said. Specifically, both Lasn and Harold task modern culture jammers with building positive alternatives through their culture jams. As author and activist Naomi Klein has put it, “No is not enough.” Early anti-corporate protests may have been understood as brute sabotage — “jamming” in the sense of blockage, of literally jamming the cogs of a globalist machinery. But more recently, theorists like Mark LeVine have offered a different definition: “jamming” as if activists were a troupe of jazz

musicians riffing on a standard piece of music, experimenting and expanding on it, making it do things it was never originally intended to do. “It’s collaborative, it’s more impromptu,” Harold explained. “It says, ‘I’m going to learn the tools [of corporate America] and use them toward my own ends.’” This generous construction of culture jamming speaks to activist-artist coalitions, who can simultaneously criticize existing systems while offering a way forward, into a different future.

FURY — BUT MAKE IT SEXY The cultural moment has certainly changed since 1984, the Orwellian year when Negativland inadvertently introduced the vernacular of culture jamming to the public. Neither scholars nor activists talk much about memes (in the traditional sense) or “mimetics” (the study of memes) anymore. But this does not mean that their underlying concepts have faded or become irrelevant; corporate imagery — signs, logos, slogans, etc. — has become more sophisticated and more intrinsic to every aspect of daily life. Corporations’ control over culture — and, by proxy, over the political environment — is stronger than ever, calling for a forceful, decisive, vibrant resistance, even if that resistance looks different than the culture jams of decades past. Corporate marketing remains highly alluring — and dangerous. Through greenwashing, for example, the fossil fuel industry continues to delay meaningful climate action. Through sophisticated PR campaigns, pharmaceutical companies perpetuate drug addiction. Through highly-personalized advertising, food companies weaken efforts to address childhood obesity. When fighting back, Lasn calls for an opposition that utilizes the full spectrum of human emotion, from parodic humor to “F it all anger.” But culture jamming continues to be unified by a common theme of reproduction, a reflective quality that mirrors the bewitchment of big advertisers. As activists challenge the corporate coup d’état, their vision of the world must be at once cynical, furious, and hilarious but also just as seductive as the market world they seek to dismantle. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 11

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

Lasers Lasers The Future of Protests Jeremiah Kim

asers were once considered to be tools of the future. While movies like Star Wars and James Bond have traditionally depicted them as science fiction, the days of thinking about lasers as a futuristic tool have come to an end. Protesters around the globe are now using cheap, commercial lasers to confront police, cause disorder, and protect themselves from harm. In Chile and Hong Kong, thousands of protesters have begun using high-powered laser pointers in order to fight back against police forces who openly use rubber bullets and tear gas. Although lasers are used in a similar manner to weapons of warfare, they are justified as novel tools for self-defense because they present a low risk to physical objects and garner media attention. In the United States, the international trend of using lasers has not caught on and large protest movements have yet to systematically use them for a specific purpose. But, should lasers be considered as a future tool for peaceful protesters to use? There is evidence to suggest that lasers could revolutionize protesting around the world, but the final decision to use a laser or not is fundamentally a personal choice all protesters need to consider.

WHY LASERS? Peaceful movements are often hailed as the best way for citizens to make their voices heard, with the venerated legacies of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi as the gold standard for modern protesters. Peaceful initiatives have proliferated across the United States, throughout Latin America, and more recently, in Hong Kong, especially in the early days of the region’s protests. Yet the oppressive regimes and conditions that protesters are railing against routinely respond to protesters with violence. In the 2019 Hong Kong extradition protests, police forces began to use rubber bullets and tear gas to terrorize and control the movement. Moreover, protesters were assaulted with pepper spray, pepper balls, bean-bag rounds, and sponge grenades. In response, lasers were

12 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

distributed to protesters en masse for protection. Lasers are unique because they are deceptively harmless compared to rocks, broken glass, or firearms. For protesters who care more about protecting their identity and defending themselves rather than actively confronting police, a laser seems to be the perfect tool. When an average commercial laser is shined on clothing, nothing happens, but when directed at camera lenses or eyes, lasers become remarkably dangerous because of their concentrated energy. According to opthamologists, they use the same amount of power as a regular incandescent bulb but are immensely more damaging to the eye. Beyond their ability to distort vision and temporarily blind police, lasers strong enough to create tangible distractions are becoming cheaper and cheaper online. There are an increasing number of websites dedicated to selling high-powered lasers, some for under $20. Although lasers are legally “limited to five milliwatts output power in the visible wavelength range from 400 to 710 nanometers” according to the Food and Drug Administration, lasers with an output power of 3,500 milliwatts, enough to burn through paper, can be found online for $200. By using lasers against police forces, Hong Kong protesters are building on the precedent set by protesters in the Arab Spring demonstrations. The Arab Spring was a massive protest movement across the Middle East in response to oppressive governance and low standards of living. In 2013, protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square used lasers to light up helicopters, buildings, and the night sky in celebration of their protesting. One BBC report even found that the lasers were being sold by street vendors “just for fun.” The use of lasers in Cairo inspired protesters around the world to incorporate lasers into their own protests. In the summer of 2019, Hong Kong protesters used lasers to protect their identity from the government and blind police officers. Similarly to how they were used in Cairo, Hong Kong protesters also used lasers to celebrate. Later in the year, Chilean protesters took to the streets in response to an increased public transportation fee,

THE POLITICS OF PROTEST

massive social inequality, and higher living costs. Akin to Hong Kong, Chilean protesters used lasers to to take down a police drone, blind armed patrol officers, and protect themselves from the use of force by police.

THE HAZARDS OF LASERS Unlike the average 60 milliwatt lightbulb, which emits light in all directions at varying wavelengths, handheld lasers fire at a single wavelength and in a single direction, meaning their power is entirely concentrated into a single beam on a single point. Handheld lasers are particularly dangerous to the retina, the portion of the eye that translates light information into nervous signals the brain can understand. When shined directly onto the eye, the cornea focuses the laser beam onto the retina and the victim may be temporarily blinded. This can also cause headaches and general disorientation. In the most extreme cases, laser pointers may seriously burn the retina, causing permanent blindness. Dr. Julia Sein, a vitreoretinal specialist from Johns Hopkins hospital, confirmed the medical risks of using lasers in an interview with the HPR. Because the retina contains all of the photoreceptor cells in the eye, which are extremely sensitive to photons and thermal energy, much of the damage that lasers can cause is concentrated in the retina. According to Sein, some of the biggest hazards associated with increased exposure to lasers are long-term blindness, retinal hemorrhages, acute swelling of the retina, and penetration of Bruch’s membrane. However, Sein stressed that even temporary exposure can cause decreased visual acuity and distortion of the central visual field. “I feel like it’s an underdiagnosed problem,” she said in regards to retinal damage caused by lasers. Dr. Sein also expressed reluctance to say that UV protectant glasses are enough to fully protect the eye. “I don’t think there has been a study of people with glasses having lasers shined at them because that would not be ethical … [but] it’s my speculation that [eye protection] does somewhat mitigate the effects of the laser if you were to wear tinted glasses or sunglasses.” The damage that laser pointers can cause is well known to the Federal Aviation Administration because of the risk lasers present to airline pilots. Since the number of pilots being assaulted by lasers continued to rise in the early 2000s, lawmakers made shining a laser at a commercial plane a federal crime in 2012, and the FBI reported in 2014 that a man was sentenced to 14 years in prison for shining a laser pointer at an emergency transport helicopter. According to a report released by the FAA in January, there were 5,487 documented cases of pilots being assaulted by laser pointers in 2019, and 29 of those incidents resulted in a pilot needing medical attention.

PITFALLS AND UNCERTAINTIES Although lasers garner attention, their downfall in the United States lies in their ambiguous legality and how police are trained to respond to protest situations and potential threats. Many protesters are unsure if handheld lasers are legal in public settings, and few are willing to risk being arrested or detained for using a laser, especially when police can use force for perceived threats in certain states. The legality of handheld lasers is further complicated by disparities in legislation between municipalities,

states, and the federal government. When asked how police would respond to the hypothetical use of lasers in protests, Officer Robert Rueca, a spokesperson for the San Francisco Police Department, said that police are trained to respond to certain threats, but that their response depends on the nature of the threat. If protesters began to use lasers to blind police or create disorder, patrol officers would likely respond by treating lasers as a dangerous weapon. Rueca likened lasers to water, saying that police are at liberty to respond to any perceived threats, including water if it is being used in a threatening way. Since the onus to label something as a “threat” falls onto individual police officers, Rueca made it clear that police response to lasers would be subjective and could potentially lead to further police action. Similarly, Jeremy Warnick, the director of communications and media relations for the Cambridge Police Force, said that officers are trained to investigate the source of things that cause bright lights or loud noises, and a police officer could respond forcefully to any protester with a laser if others are being harmed. Ultimately, the way police respond to all threats depends on the current circumstances, the environment, and the officer’s own experience. In a protest situation, a police response to lasers would depend on how lasers are being used, leaving open the potential for escalation.

THE FUTURE OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE Peaceful civil disobedience grants power to the powerless and emboldens the meek. Regarding the power of protestors, professor Timothy Patrick McCarthy of the Harvard Kennedy School, a well known advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and member of President Obama’s National LGBT Leadership Council, said, “Whenever we talk about ‘peaceful civil disobedience,’ we need to be clear about what protesters are up against in any given context. In recent cases in both Chile and Hong Kong, that means reckoning with the real violence of increasingly repressive states that police those who are fighting for democracy. This is one of the things that makes ‘peaceful civil disobedience’ so powerful as a tool of protest: the people are disobeying state practices that are neither peaceful nor civil.” For massive social movements, lasers are the ultimate tool: they cause distractions, they are capable of interfering with police drones, and they provide self-defense. As for the danger they present to human eyes, protesters naturally acknowledge and assume responsibility for the risks of using a laser. However, lasers are not always necessary for peaceful protesters who want social change. Both the San Francisco Police Department and the Cambridge Police Department stressed that lasers can easily incite a police reaction, and Sein confirmed that lasers are incredibly dangerous when used improperly. Moreover, lasers can take away from the solidarity that social movements fundamentally rely on. Ultimately, the power of civil disobedience lies in a group of people standing together in absolute unity, not from any tool or weapon. Although lasers are remarkably powerful tools, they inherently leave room for irresponsible actors, accidents, and distractions. If the goal of a movement is tangible social change, protesters need to consider if the benefits of using a laser outweigh the potential costs. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 13

CAMPUS

“

Broke Kids Don’t G To Harvard

”

Jaden Deal

ast month, I made a joke on social media about wanting a discount on a product because I’m a “broke college student,” as the expression goes. By the next time I checked my phone, I had received several replies: “broke kids don’t go to Harvard,” “you look like you’ve never worked a day in your life,” and “daddy’s money pays for your college.” I attend Harvard on full financial aid. This experience forced me to reckon with my first-generation, low-income identity and the privilege of attending Harvard. In my case, being FGLI means that I have to navigate Harvard without the help of my family, that I come from a background of working to pay bills, and that I identify with a community on campus that has its own particular challenges. Many of my peers have similar experiences, often much less privileged than my own. On campus, FGLI students struggle with pressure to conform, challenges with their families, and even changes in their own identities over time. Attending a school as prestigious and elite as Harvard means that we are forced to address a new tension in our lives: the hardships of our past and the relative privilege of our present.

DEFINING “THE HARVARD ELITE” As students walk through the gates of Harvard Yard on their first day of freshman year, many are introduced to a culture that

14 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

is not like what they experienced at home. Feeling the pressure to fit in, students who wear casual clothing or hold themselves differently in their hometowns may adjust their demeanor to conform. At least, that is how Will Dey ’23 describes it. In an interview with the HPR, he said, “I feel like I’m out of place, or posing, because that’s not really who I am. I feel like there’s a pressure to try and be a part of the Harvard elite.” What defines said “Harvard elite?” Though Harvard meets the full financial need of all its students, and 20 percent of Harvard families pay nothing for their students’ educations, only 55 percent of Harvard students receive any financial aid, which means that 45 percent of students live in homes with an annual income above $200,000. For some students who come from wealthy backgrounds, their spending habits differ, whether it be spending large amounts of money on furnishings for their dorm’s common room, eating out in the Square, or taking expensive vacations. Regardless of students’ financial statuses coming into Harvard, by living in this community, all students have access to this lifestyle’s mentality. Whether it be subscribing to wealth as a value and aim, or acquiring the resources to attain more wealth in the future, FGLI students may also choose to join the Harvard elite. In the meantime, however, they must face the fact that their backgrounds are often less privileged than those of many of their peers.

CAMPUS

FGLI LIFE ON CAMPUS: THE PRICE OF WEALTH When they arrive on campus, FGLI students are thrust into a culture of wealth that most of them have never experienced before. This culture extends to the classroom, where many wealthy students have attended private school, received tutoring, and overall have more academic preparation than their FGLI counterparts. As Tabitha Escalante ’23 said, “There was a certain expectation of knowledge that [wealthier students] were coming in with and even sitting in section, the students would be popping off about knowledge that I had never even come across in my high school career. I remember sitting there at least once a week and thinking to myself, ‘I do not belong in this space.’” Escalante’s sentiment is one with which Dan Lobo, an advisor at the Harvard Office of Career Services and founder of Primus (formerly known as the First-Generation Student Union) would also be familiar. He told the HPR that when he attended Harvard as an FGLI undergraduate, he felt like he “needed to start rejecting parts of my identity to fit in.” Those parts of his identity, the parts that did not match the image of eliteness at Harvard, were hidden away and replaced by perceived upper-class values. To better fit in, Lobo started listening to NPR and paid more attention to his eating and exercise habits. Studies find that lowincome communities have a higher density of tobacco retailers and fast food restaurants, less access to fresh foods, and built environments that often prohibit physical activity. Demographic reports also reveal that NPR listeners tend to be more affluent, and a majority have attended college. Thus, some FGLI students would consider NPR, healthy eating, and physical activity to be upper class privileges. While having access to more academic resources, healthier food, and athletic facilities is not a bad thing, it is important to consider some of the sacrifices that FGLI students make when they feel pressure to conform to certain activities or behaviors. That pressure can extend beyond positive behavioral changes and have more adverse consequences. If all your friends eat out in the square every night or are planning an extravagant vacation to Europe for spring break, it’s natural to want to fit in. FGLI students are faced with a choice: conform to the Harvard elite, even at the risk of going into debt with reckless spending, or not participate, possibly isolating themselves from their friends.

FGLI LIFE OFF CAMPUS “I remember going out with my parents, and all they were talking about was how annoying or upsetting the latest thing that our next door neighbor had done [was],” said Lobo. “I remember having this super dramatic, existential realization like, I am never going to be able to have an intellectual conversation with my parents. And that was depressing for me as an intellectual, realizing that I was just changing so much. Every day, I had something that I wanted to talk to my parents about, but it was like hitting this wall. … And so that caused a bit of a wedge of me feeling like my family didn’t have much value to add to my growth and development at Harvard.” Gaps in academic experience with family quickly become a real problem for FGLI students. What may be a conversation intended to convey excitement for learning can easily turn into something that further distances students from their families.

The wedge that Lobo talks about is real, and it starts when firstgeneration students leave for college. In his book, The FirstGeneration Student Experience, author Jeff Davis writes, “Many first-generation student families see college attendance as a place where a child leaves the family behind, for good or bad. … Non-first-generation students leave their families, too, of course, but because leaving for college has become incorporated into the family mythology, part of becoming a full member of the family, separation anxiety does not hit them nearly as hard.” Even after college, this wedge can continue to grow. Lobo described a story in which he asked his sister whether she believed that he perceived himself as superior to her in light of his going to Harvard. She said that for a long time, she did. Lobo attributed this to having escaped the hardships of poverty while his family continues to face those issues. It may be the case that at some point, family members of FGLI students think they are not good enough for their Harvard student, widening the perceived gap in family experience. Lobo’s experience at Harvard has changed, too: “It is fundamentally harder for me to relate to FGLI students,” he said, “because I don’t have the day-to-day pressures of being lowincome anymore.” While Harvard alone cannot fix all of the challenges that FGLI students face, the institution can help lessen the burden. Ultimately, when all students come to Harvard, they want to find a space where they can belong without sacrificing their own identity to fit in. To make this vision a reality, Harvard needs to address issues surrounding income diversity, and the first step is to candidly acknowledge the problems. Furthermore, Harvard should fully fund and expand the First-Year Retreat and Experience pre-orientation program, which aims to ease the transition for low-income and/or first-generation students. For FGLI students themselves, an important step could be to acknowledge any family challenges that they may face, and prepare to put the work into nourishing their relationships. Though FGLI students experience changes at this institution, what doesn’t change is the persistence and grit that led us to Harvard in the first place. In high school, I worked to pay bills; at Harvard, I work to break the cycle of inequality that separates us from our peers. For myself and other FGLI students on campus, Harvard is a game-changing opportunity to create a better future. But we carry the weight of our entire communities, and the pressure to succeed accompanies every grade, every internship, and everything else that we do. Persistence and grit define FGLI students, even as we hide behind a facade of easy success. Harvard is incredibly diverse, both in privilege and lived experience, and we deserve an institution that is more responsive to our concerns and the unique challenges we face. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 15

CAMPUS

MAKE HARVARD GRADE AGAIN

C B-

16 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

B-

Grace Greason

CAMPUS

arvard University’s motto has a long history: It began in 1650 as In Christi Gloriam (“for the glory of God”), briefly morphed into Christo et Ecclesiae (“for Christ in the Church”), and finally secularized into the familiar Veritas (“truth”). As far as I know, the school is not trying to crowdsource a fourth version, but the internet recently offered a suggestion anyway: “The only thing harder than getting in is failing out.” Yes, the academic reputation of what is arguably the world’s most prestigious university is the subject of mockery in online forums like Reddit and College Confidential. Yet these sites have a point about Harvard’s grading system. In 2013, former Dean of Undergraduate Education Jay Harris confirmed rumors — and caused an uproar — when he announced the median grade at Harvard College was an A-, and the most common was a straight A. Academics call this grade inflation, or awarding students higher grades than they deserve, especially in comparison to historic performance. Grade inflation is certainly not unique to Harvard, but considering its harmful effects — cheapening excellence, masking disparities in performance, skewing the expectations of employers — it is especially worrying that it occurs to such an extent at a school that serves as an example for the rest of academia. Several of Harvard’s peer institutions have independently piloted policies that set quotas for A-range grades, but all have folded amidst student backlash, suggesting that normalizing grade distributions will require a coordinated movement of elite schools. In the meantime, the College must brainstorm ways to distinguish relative student performance, increase transparency around its grading distributions, and provide students with the honest evaluation of their performance that they deserve.

IS HARVARD UP TO GRADE? Grades have been on the rise across the country at least since 1960, when the average GPA in the United States was a 2.4. The first major uptick began at the onset of the Vietnam War and is largely ascribed to faculty efforts to keep male students eligible for student draft deferments. Throughout the 1990s, grades rose again with the emergence of the “student as consumer” model of higher education that demands a transcript that can justify a $250,000 tuition bill. Today, the mean GPA is around a 3.15, and it is even higher at private colleges and universities. Harris’ 2013 announcement offered a rare glimpse into the grading machinery at Harvard, as the College does not publicly release data on grades. Yet according to The Harvard Crimson’s annual survey of graduating seniors, the class of 2017’s average GPA was 3.65, half a grade higher than the nationwide average and among the highest in the Ivy League. With a 2019 acceptance rate of 4.5 percent, Harvard carefully selects from a pool of the brightest and most accomplished high school students. Are high GPAs to be expected at a school filled with the world’s top performers, or does Harvard just grade easier? This is not an easy question to answer. Harvard’s average GPA has been rising since grades were first recorded, but some attribute this climb to factors other than grade inflation. David Laibson, a Harvard professor of economics, said that rising GPAs are in part a product of a student body which includes talent that was untapped only a generation ago. “I started teaching in ’94, but my Harvard experience goes back to ’84,” Laibson said. “I feel that the students of 2019 are remarkable in their achievements and

in their capabilities, and my instinct is that to curve them on the 1984 curve would be unfair.” In contrast, Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield denies that today’s students are any more capable than those he encountered when he began teaching at the College in 1962. A vocal opponent of grade inflation, he believes the ’60s-era spike in GPAs was at least partly driven by affirmative action. “Nobody wanted to give a black student a C. That meant they wouldn’t give the white students Cs either, so C became a nongrade pretty much,” he said. “For a student today to receive a C would be like a sword in your vitals. It would be like death.” Whatever the reasons for its ever-climbing GPAs, the College has developed a reputation for grade inflation, and the current administration has done little to address the issue. According to Karen Pearce, director of Harvard College Institutional Research, at Harvard all data on grading is kept confidential — a stark contrast to schools like the University of California, Berkeley, which publishes detailed information about GPAs by major and course. The College tweaked its grading system in 2002, switching from a 15-point to a 4-point grading scale and capping at 60 percent the number of students graduating with honors — a feat that was achieved by nearly 90 percent of the class of 2001. In the past two decades, however, GPAs have continued to climb, jumping 0.2 points from 2005 to 2017 alone, per Crimson surveys. Additionally, little is known about how grading may vary across majors or departments. In an email to the HPR, Harvard Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh wrote that “it’s really hard to create a good grading system because we rely on grades to achieve three distinct ends (maybe more!).” These ends include to motivate students to engage with courses, provide students with feedback about their performance, and rank students relative to one another. “Each of these ends would be best served by a different grading system, which makes it hard to create one that serves all three,” she wrote. However, it is not clear how the College’s current grading system meets any of these goals: a glut of top grades does not highlight areas of strength and weakness or differentiate students in a course. And an easy A is unlikely to motivate students to engage with anything except the snooze button. Whatever grading system Harvard employs, it does more than just boost GPAs. Matt Saunders, a professor and the director of undergraduate studies in Art, Film, and Visual Studies, said that even theses are not immune to the “A for effort” mindset that has permeated the campus. His department struggles to keep reasonable grade distributions for theses in part because it recruits outside readers to grade them. “We’re going to do some work in the formula to actually reduce some of the value of the thesis in final honors, because it’s really inflated right now,” he said. It does not take a straight-A student to see why grade inflation persists at Harvard, or anywhere: In short, “it’s very agreeable to everyone,” said Mansfield. “Students like it, and professors like it because nobody complains about a grade anymore.” But giving every student a stellar transcript does not mean they are all excelling. Instead, awarding grades from only the top of the distribution masks disparities in performance that could be improved by altering curricula, increasing department funding, or hiring support staff. It also skews employer expectations of student performance, punishing students from schools that adhere to traditional grading patterns.

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 17

CAMPUS

PEER POLICIES Though Harvard has never explicitly addressed these issues, several of its peer institutions have tested a variety of strategies to keep “A” from meaning average. In 2004, Princeton began limiting the percent of A-range grades doled out until it overturned this policy in 2014, citing concerns about “psychological factors and campus atmosphere.” At Wellesley, faculty became concerned that inflated grades at the women’s college could perpetuate widespread sexism that casts doubt on the legitimacy of its degrees, said Ann Velenchik, Wellesley’s dean of academic affairs, in an interview with the HPR. This fear, combined with a significant discrepancy between grades in humanities and science courses, led the college to develop guidelines that set mean grades in introductory and intermediate level courses at no higher than a B+. The policy was immediately effective, reducing A and Agrades by 18 percent in courses that had mean grades above the B+ target. However, the policy was ultimately overturned in the spring of 2019, for reasons similar to Princeton’s. “We were experiencing many of the negative consequences of having that policy … and very few of the benefits. The gap between grades in the humanities and grades in the sciences had gone back to where it had been,” Velenchik said. “So we decided last spring, after a lot of campus conversation, that we would rather have no grading policy at all than continue to have one that was different on paper than it was in practice.” One of the most widespread criticisms of policies with socalled “grade ceilings” is the alleged disadvantage they give students applying to graduate schools and jobs relative to their peers from colleges with more lenient grading approaches. Velenchik stresses that many graduate programs, such as medical schools, care mostly about grades in students’ majors or courses whose grade distributions were largely unaffected by the policy. However, she did acknowledge that there are employers who will not allow candidates below a certain GPA threshold to apply, and studies have confirmed that recruiters and admission committees are more likely to select applicants with higher GPAs without accounting for differences in grading distributions among schools.

RISING ABOVE GRADE INFLATION Princeton and Wellesley’s policies successfully lowered their mean GPAs, but both schools ultimately caved to internal and external pressures to revert to more favorable grading distributions. An effective and enduring counter to grade inflation will likely require a coordinated movement of influential colleges to adopt similar policies. Schools like Harvard and Stanford — who each receive over 40,000 applicants and boast matriculation rates above 80 percent — are likely better positioned to pioneer such a reform than smaller colleges like Wellesley. According to Velenchik, the negative response to grade deflation from prospective students, combined with Wellesley’s need to maintain its edge in the competitive market for college-bound high school seniors, contributed to the decision to reverse its grading policy. Grade reform across the entire Ivy League, for example, would rewrite grading expectations nationwide and keep any individual college from becoming the target of students’ fears or employers’ biases. As the oldest and wealthiest university in the United States, Harvard is uniquely situated to lead such a movement.

18 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

Another solution to rising grades at Harvard could involve an overhaul of the entire liberal arts system. The discrepancy between grades in humanities and sciences courses that plagues many colleges has eluded UC Berkeley, for example. Bob Jacobsen, dean of undergraduate studies at UC Berkeley’s College of Letters & Science, told the HPR that Berkeley’s generally large class sizes and “relentlessly interdisciplinary” requirements — in contrast to Harvard’s mandated general education courses — keep grade variation in any given course high. “If you’re a physics major, you’re taking a philosophy class, and it’s a real philosophy class and we’re grading you like everybody else,” he said. “The distribution of people is, some people are doing much better in that class than others. It leads to a desire to have that reflected in the grades, not between an A and an A-, but between a C and an A.” Not too many students received Cs in Harvard’s gen-ed courses. Their easy reputation, as described by the College in a 2015 report, was one of many reasons it restructured its entire general education program last fall. Consider the perennially popular course “Hebrew Bible,” which included this professor’s note on its course evaluation in 2018: “I hope that you will take the course not only because it is ‘easy’ but also because the material is interesting and important.” Many of the gen-eds offered this year, including “Hebrew Bible,” are rebooted versions of their former selves, so it is too early to tell if their new and improved curricula will be enough to normalize grade distributions. But the urgency among administrators to revive the courses that are the foundation of Harvard’s liberal arts education is there: Saunders recounted that at a recent faculty orientation, administrators exhorted those teaching geneds to reevaluate their approaches to grading. “We’ve been asked to take the lead in trying to be very mindful of ways to beat back grade inflation [and] to make the gen-eds rigorous,” he said. Other ways to offset grade inflation need not even change grading itself. Laibson had one suggestion to simultaneously provide information about variation and achievement: keep the grading distribution as it currently stands, but add a percentile score to each grade to illustrate relative student performance. However, he acknowledged that he would be reluctant to embrace such a system himself if it would “undermine some of the cooperative learning that I often try to encourage in my own classes.” If school- or system-wide grade reform remains a few years off, the least Harvard can do in the meantime is increase transparency around what kinds of grades it is allotting, and to whom — a demand that echoes a campus-wide call to action for increased visibility around other administrative affairs, including investments and hiring practices. A public database of grading distributions by major and course — similar to UC Berkeley’s — would likely also pressure departments and professors to correct their grading patterns, lest individual courses become the target of ridicule. When considering grade inflation, it is important to return to Harvard’s motto: truth. Grade inflation may placate students and faculty, but it is not an honest reflection of student performance, and the secrecy surrounding Harvard’s grading process only perpetuates the issue. Harvard needs to be a leader in the rectification of grading to bring value — and bring veritas — back to academics. 

CAMPUS

The University as a Battleground Ria Modak

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 19

CAMPUS

n December 3, thousands of graduate and undergraduate student-workers represented by the Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers went on strike. Bundled in winter coats and sporting “UAW On Strike” signs, strikers picketed, marched, and rallied in falling snow and pouring rain. For nearly four weeks, HGSU-UAW withheld grading, research, and teaching; disrupted deliveries, trash collection, and construction; and built worker power with local and national unions to show the university administration that student-workers would continue to organize and fight until they won a fair contract. However, their historic fight for economic justice transcends personal gain; the strike holds extraordinary potential to interrogate the culture of academia itself. Through a bold reimagining of labor and work in the university context, a call for widespread political education, and the mobilization of community allies, HGSU-UAW ’s strike has proven that collective action can change university structures. Though the fight is not over, at Harvard, a student-worker strike has the power to challenge the institution’s status-quo.

WHY STRIKE? Before HGSU-UAW authorized the strike in late October 2019, the union and the University’s bargaining teams had met for 28 negotiating sessions since bargaining began in October 2018. From petition deliveries to rallies and work-ins to occupations, the union tried every escalatory tactic before calling for a strike authorization vote in the hopes of reaching an agreement. When the University refused to hear the union’s demands, thousands of student-workers were forced to strike, forgoing weeks of pay. While student-workers felt that a strike was necessary to win a fair contract, the Harvard administration believed that the strike was “unnecessary.” In a university-wide email, Provost Alan Garber insisted that “strikes are adversarial by design.” Meanwhile, the University declined to negotiate further before the December 3 strike deadline, only met with the union once during the duration of the strike, and continues to stonewall HGSU-UAW’s main demands. The three biggest concerns that have framed HGSU-UAW’s fight for an equitable contract are protections from discrimination and harassment, affordable healthcare, and fair pay. On the first issue, student-workers are calling for a fair mechanism to address issues of discrimination and harassment: a neutral third-party grievance procedure. This grievance procedure would eliminate the conflicts of interest in the university-controlled Title IX and Office of Dispute Resolution processes, which often fail survivors of sexual assault and students of color experiencing unfair treatment and abuse. This is timely: according to the 2019 climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct, disclosures of sexual and gender-based harassment increased by 55 percent over the previous year. In addition, unlike in university-controlled offices, it would apply unambiguously to all types of discrimination and harassment, including complaints on the basis of race, ethnicity, disability and other marginalized identities. While the administration may imply that a grievance procedure would replace existing Title IX processes, this is not true; it would uphold and surpass federal Title IX regulations. In an interview with the HPR, Ege Yumusak ’16, a third-year Ph.D. student in philosophy at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and a member of the HGSU-UAW Bargaining Commit-

20 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

tee, spoke to the urgency of these demands. “A third party grievance procedure has proven to give survivors a lifeline to stay in their programs in other universities. ... When the administration says, ‘We care about sexual harassment’ and can’t agree to a fair optional process, it makes manifest a dire situation: This university is not willing to protect those of us whose existence in the academic workplace is the most precarious. For many, that’s what our strike was about.” In addition to demanding just recourse for discrimination and harassment, HGSU-UAW is calling on the University to provide better healthcare and wages. As it stands, many student-workers are unable to afford specialist and mental healthcare as well as dependent care for their families. Some are unable to afford their rent and are barely paid minimum wage. Yet instead of working to reach a fair agreement on these vital issues, throughout the strike, the administration spent thousands of dollars on police details, sacrificed educational quality by canceling exams and replacing finals with scantrons, and threatened student workers with retaliation. While tensions between HGSU-UAW and the administration continued to escalate throughout the strike, the strike had undeniable consequences on the ongoing struggle for a contract: both sides signed six new tentative agreements that will protect student-workers’ rights. In addition, the University committed to begin federal mediation on January 7 to attempt to reach an agreement within the month. Citing these victories, HGSU-UAW ended the strike on January 1 and returned to work with hopes of not only winning a fair contract but also changing the culture of academia as a whole, both through the power of the strike and the material gains of a contract.

BECOMING CLASS CONSCIOUS According to federal law, graduate and undergraduate studentworkers occupy a contentious space as workers. In September 2019, the National Labor Relations Board proposed a rule that would revoke the employee status of students undertaking academic work. The NLRB’s justification for this rule hinges on the belief that, since graduate and undergraduate student-workers are primarily on campus to learn and not to work, they should not be classified as employees. This rationalization obscures the consequences brought on by the rapid corporatization of the University and the reality of student-workers’ lives: increased workloads, financial difficulties, and poor job opportunities after graduation. By striking, HGSU’s members reaffirmed themselves as workers who deserve workers’ rights. At the heart of HGSU’s fight for a fair contract, then, is a call to action, a reckoning, and a recognition that Harvard works because its student-workers do. The strike kindled these flames of class consciousness by drawing HGSU-UAW workers into the larger labor community, both inside and outside Harvard. Throughout the strike, workers from all of Harvard’s unions — UNITE HERE Local 26, Service Employees International Union 32BJ, and the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers — joined HGSU-UAW on the picket line. On the first day of the strike, union representatives and shop stewards from those unions spoke at a mid-day rally, voicing their support for HGSU-UAW as fellow Harvard workers. Through the sense of solidarity forged by the strike, the lineage of labor struggle at Harvard became clear, from the 2001 occupation of Massachusetts Hall to call for a living wage to the 2016 dining

CAMPUS

hall workers strike. HGSU-UAW’s strike is a continuation of this rich history. In addition to building labor power at Harvard, the strike mobilized student-workers by connecting them to the wider labor movement. With the help of Teamsters Local 25 and unionsupporting truck drivers, HGSU-UAW was able to delay deliveries across campus, affecting BorrowDirect and mail and package deliveries. In addition, the strike disrupted construction projects at Harvard’s Longwood Campus. The solidarity displayed by Boston workers made HGSU-UAW workers keenly aware of their own power. Eliot Fenton, a second-year Ph.D. student in physics, described to the HPR the personal effect of the strike on his class consciousness: “I had never really witnessed a labor struggle before. The strike definitely made me more supportive of unionization, more aware of labor movements, about crossing picket lines.” The radicalizing effect of the strike, particularly through delivery disruptions and coalition-building, was transformative for HGSU’s membership. For Fenton, picket lines “built a sense of community” and gave him “faces to fight for.”

STRIKES AS POLITICAL EDUCATION Beyond class consciousness, the HGSU-UAW strike also served as a valuable source of political education for the wider Harvard and greater Boston communities. For undergraduate students, for example, the strike provided necessary insight into the hierarchies and power structures embedded within the academic world. Teaching fellows, course assistants, and research assistants often discussed their decision to withhold labor with their undergraduate students in an attempt to make clear the stakes and motives behind striking. When explaining to the HPR why she marched with HGSU-UAW on the picket line, Farah Afify ‘22 said, “One TF had a very frank and open conversation with us during section one day, explaining why she was personally going to join the picket line. Every TF I’ve had at Harvard has always been very supportive and part of the reason I’m interested in what I’m learning. To see them put in a vulnerable situation like that, where they’re struggling to have basic living conditions, is disheartening.” This disenchantment with the University translated into solidarity actions for hundreds of other undergraduate students as well, who walked out of class on the first day of the strike and continued to show support for studentworkers by joining the picket line for the following weeks. The political education initiated by the strike reached far beyond Harvard’s gates by garnering support among Cambridge and Boston community members. Members of the Jewish Labor Committee, spiritual leaders from all over Boston, and climate organizers joined the picket lines. Alumni in four cities staged a joint action at the offices of members of the Harvard Corporation calling for the Harvard administration to negotiate fairly. Esperanza Spalding played at a solidarity concert and union members put on a three-act dramatization of bargaining. The strike drew the attention of elected officials at the state and national level, too. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent fruit and bagels to the strike’s headquarters, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) invited HGSU-UAW to a labor dinner and dance party, and Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) marched with strikers in the rain. Twenty-two members of the House of Representatives, all Harvard alumni, sent a letter to President Bacow in support of HGSU’s fight for a fair contract and urging Harvard to “negoti-

ate much, much more intensively.” The strike brought together organizations and individuals in a collective reimagining of what Harvard could look like for its workers. Through a program of radical political education, the strike informed and agitated the Harvard and greater Boston community.

THE FUTURE OF ACADEMIA For many student-workers participating in the strike, the future of academia is jarring and scary. The culture of academia today prioritizes productivity over quality of life for student-workers. Instead of addressing the high incidence of mental health disorders among graduate students, for example, the University chooses to maximize its profits by overworking and underpaying its student-workers. The cut-throat academic culture leads to perverse power dynamics between student-workers and professors, dwindling career prospects, and toxic stress, all without job security or optimistic financial prospects. For decades, universities have been turning to contingent, adjunct labor, dramatically reducing the number of full-time, tenuretrack positions. While the number of Ph.D. students is on the rise, there is a profound scarcity of faculty positions. In addition to the untenable wages, inadequate healthcare, and lack of redress for discrimination and harassment, the future prospects of studentworkers in academia are bleak. These tensions are reflected in HGSU’s fight for labor rights and protections. Collective student-worker action has the ability to disrupt business as usual at the University, both in the literal sense and in the abstract. While the strike may not have immediately won a contract, it did give Harvard a sense of student-worker power. It won six new tentative agreements that will protect student-workers’ rights. It forced the University to take seriously its commitment to reaching an agreement through mediation. Most importantly, it brought the Harvard and Boston community together in solidarity with student-workers. When thousands show up to demand justice for all, Harvard has no choice but to listen. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 21

Iowa Remains Inaccessible

n Iowa, the first stop on the presidential campaign trail, finding a candidate is easy. Registering a preference for one is harder. Instead of casting ballots at primaries, Iowans attend precinct caucuses, which will be held this year at 7 p.m. on Monday, February 3. At these lengthy, crowded meetings, political party members gather to discuss platforms, elect local officials, and select delegates to represent the group’s candidate preferences at the county level. Caucuses demand a voter’s in-person presence for a specific block of time, usually at least two hours. Historically, there have been no exceptions — Iowans not present at their caucuses when they begin were not allowed to participate. If they were able to get to their caucus sites, attendees then had to stand for several hours in an abrasively loud environment, among other requirements. Understandably, not all Iowans had the ability to do so. So, at the urging of the Democratic National Committee, the Iowa Democratic Party developed a plan to make the 2020 nomination process more accessible with virtual caucuses, a form of absentee participation by phone. However, the DNC rejected the plan in late summer due to hacking concerns. As a replacement, the IDP expanded the role of satellite caucuses, meetings held at alternate times and locations to accommodate Iowans unable to attend a precinct caucus. These confusing and little-researched satellite caucuses increase accessibility, but they do so insufficiently. Party resources should instead be spent supporting Democratic voters nationwide in primary systems the DNC already knows how to navigate, rather than narrowly focusing on new systems in a small, overwhelmingly white state. In order to live up to its democratic values, the IDP will eventually need to bite the bullet and transition to a presidential primary.

UNDERSTANDING THE CAUCUS PROCESS Iowa caucuses have been a fixture of presidential election cycles for well over a century. The rules which govern the littleknown events are both arcane and somewhat archaic. Traditionally, Iowans had one day, one time, and one place to caucus. Although the introduction of satellite caucuses has expanded these options, the rules of caucusing remain largely the same. During the Democratic contests, attendees form groups in support of each candidate, hoping to exceed the viability threshold of 15 percent of those caucusing, which would then allow them to possibly send delegates to countywide meetings. Supporters then try to convince friends and neighbors, especially those whose first choices are not viable, to “realign” and switch to their team. Not all Iowans have been able to participate, however. “Obviously, if a person is tremendously determined, they can probably find a way to caucus,” Rod Sullivan, former chair of the Johnson County Democratic Party and current county supervisor, explained to the HPR. “But it shouldn’t have to require extraordinary effort in our country to have your voice heard.” In Iowa, it often does. Second shift workers, elderly voters facing transportation difficulties, and families who cannot afford childcare are a few of the groups who struggle to attend caucuses. College students, too, are disproportionately affected. “That’s kind of a big money thing, to get a flight home just for that,” Allie Ollila, an Iowa native and current student at Washington University in St.

22 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

Chloe Levine

Louis, told the HPR. These undue financial barriers limit civic engagement across many demographic groups. The caucuses also often fail to adequately consider the needs of Iowans with disabilities. In an interview with the HPR, Executive Director of Disability Rights Iowa Jane Hudson cited limited handicapped parking, the lack of ASL interpreters or captioning, and the absence of seating as some of the numerous challenges faced by the 20 percent of Iowans with a disability. In primary systems, by contrast, voters arriving at various times throughout the day keeps parking lots less full, accessible voting machines replace live interpreters, and voting does not require prolonged physical activity. Hudson also pointed out caucus cacophony as a problem for people with psychiatric issues or autism. Her colleague, Voting Outreach Coordinator Anne Matte, explained to the HPR, “If you had PTSD or anxiety or sense issues, [caucusing] would have been extremely overwhelming.” The noise, crowds, and chaos are a problem that continues to worsen as overall voter turnout increases due to high enthusiasm in recent presidential cycles. Logistical concerns make caucusing onerous, too. Unexpected obstacles like heavy snow or stomach flu can keep Iowans home. As Drake University political science professor Dr. Dennis J. Goldford told the HPR, “You have to hope that you’re not sick, the car starts, there’s no flat tire, the baby’s not sick, the babysitter shows up.” Whereas these spur-of-the-moment hurdles are difficult to plan around, day-long voting in primaries gives participants more flexibility to adapt to circumstances. Combined, the challenges posed by the caucus system reduce participation in the nomination process, especially for specific demographics. Consequently, the exalted caucus results are not necessarily an accurate reflection of all eligible Iowans’ preferences.

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE VIRTUAL CAUCUS While it is unclear whether the IDP is legally obligated to ensure caucus accessibility, the DNC’s Unity Reform Commission and Rules and Bylaws Committee required caucus states to provide absentee participation options in 2020. Other caucus states used early voting and mailed ballots, but Iowa eschewed any such hallmarks of primary contests to avoid challenging New Hampshire’s legally protected first-in-the-nation primary. Instead, the state planned virtual telephone caucuses. Voters would have called into any of six virtual caucuses in the days preceding February 3, entered PINs, and recorded preferences, without negotiation or realignment. Twenty-eight percent of likely voters expressed an intention to caucus virtually. The system would have promoted caucus participation for Iowans who are young and/or economically disadvantaged, lack a college education, do not speak English as their first language, and have disabilities, as well as many others unable to get to their precinct caucus. Though virtual caucuses initially seemed an effective solution, the DNC determined that they were insufficiently secure after cybersecurity experts hacked a DNC conference call in August. A memo from Chief Security Officer Bob Lord and Chief Technology Officer Nellwynn Thomas stated, “We base our recommendation in significant part on the current cybersecurity climate,” referencing the 2016 Russian hack of DNC emails and

UNITED STATES

recent warnings of further meddling from former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Iowa Democrats pushed back against the memo, claiming that their partially developed system was different from that of the hacked call and in some cases accusing the DNC of purposely sabotaging caucus accessibility to encourage Iowa to switch to a better-attended primary contest. However, Dr. Herb Lin, a cybersecurity fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, noted in an interview with the HPR that if hacking concerns weaken faith in caucus results, they have already made the system unviable: “The purpose of an election is to persuade the loser that he lost fair and square,” said Lin. “People are saying, ‘No, no, it’s not realistic, it’s not a fair test,’ and so on, but that still doesn’t inspire confidence.” The concerns’ validity, then, matters less than their psychological effect on the electorate. While the IDP promises to rectify its plan in 2024, experts doubt that four years will be enough time to secure virtual caucuses. As Princeton University computer science professor Dr. Jonathan Mayer, a former technological advisor to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), told the HPR in an emailed statement, “There is, at present, no technical means of adequately addressing the security risks associated with remote electronic voting. There would need to be breakthroughs in multiple areas of information security [which] do not appear to be forthcoming.” Even if Democrats succeed, Hudson doubts that virtual caucuses are a silver bullet: “People with dexterity impairments may not be able to use their phones to vote. People with short-term memories may not be able to go through all [the] steps [of a caucus].” For now, at least, the IDP and DNC must develop alternatives for caucus accessibility.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE SATELLITE CAUCUSES To meet DNC requirements by the September deadline, the IDP replaced virtual caucuses with a plan for satellite caucuses, official meetings run with standard procedures but held at alternate times and/or locations for workers, students, and other Iowans unable to attend their precinct caucuses. Democrats first tested the system in 2016 for four locations with “a clear need” for satellite sites. They expanded it this cycle, approving 99 satellites including more than 20 out-of-state sites and three international sites. Yet satellites are far from a complete solution. “Color me skeptical,” Goldford said of the idea that these changes will significantly impact voter turnout. Insufficient follow-through on accessibility measures from the IDP is an exacerbating factor. The IDP and DNC announced this fall that they would bring in an accessibility director and two accessibility organizers. However, these positions remained unfilled until roughly a month before caucus day. Also, according to Matte and Hudson, site applicants needed to measure their proposed location’s dimensions, a task impossible for some Iowans with physical disabilities. If the IDP wants to improve accessibility, Matte said, “they have to talk to the community … and not just be like, ‘Well, we’re trying.’ Well, you could reach out to us.” The release of satellite locations in late December also reduced the chance of a meaningful increase in voter turnout because it provided limited time to publicize the new system. Iowa resident and frequent caucus-goer Nikki Herbst, who spends half the year in Florida for mental health reasons and was un-

able to travel home to caucus, told the HPR that she contacted Florida’s Democratic Party and asked for updates about remote caucusing. Herbst reported that no one followed up with her. “I haven’t seen anything in the media about it recently,” she added, unaware that by that time, the four satellite locations in Florida had been announced more than a week earlier. Timing was also a challenge for Kevin Drahos, a first-year student at the University of Iowa and executive team member for its civic engagement initiative Hawk the Vote, which organized a campus satellite caucus. “The Democratic Party, to be honest, is taking a while to release details,” he explained to the HPR. “We’re still trying to hash out … how we’re going to market this [caucus] when we only have two weeks once school starts to let students know about [it].” Drahos and other organizers feel that they lack adequate time to implement the voter education needed to make the complicated system accessible to youth. Notably, some groups’ caucus woes are not addressed by the satellite system at all. Offering more caucusing time and location options does not necessarily help families who are unable to secure childcare or workers who cannot afford to find a few hours of free time in their schedules. Undoubtedly, satellites are a step in the right direction, but they fall short of making voting accessible to all Iowa voters.

THE ACCESSIBLE PATH FORWARD Despite the difficulties, Iowans like their caucuses. “I don’t think Iowans are somehow ordained by God to have to be first,” Sullivan admitted. “I do, however, feel like Iowa does a very good job.” The need for grassroots organizing and the affordability of campaigning in the Hawkeye State allow relatively unknown candidates to make an impression. Additionally, the caucuses are crucial for Iowa’s economy, with campaign workers and political tourists spending large amounts on transportation, lodging, food, media, and more. “I’ve heard figures of up to thirty million dollars,” said Goldford of this spending. He also noted that the caucuses give Iowa national relevance. “The day after the caucuses, Iowa falls off the face of the earth, as far as the rest of the country is concerned,” he declared. Still, the caucuses limit opportunity for civic engagement for many disadvantaged groups in Iowa. Attempting to design an accessible caucus system with uncertain results would sap the DNC of resources; moving to a primary system is a quicker, cheaper, and surer way to make Iowa’s stage of the nomination process inclusive. Primaries allow for absentee, early, and allday voting, require only a few minutes of time, and have wellresearched strategies for accessibility. While a plurality — 43 percent — of Iowans would be disappointed, 39 percent would be in support of the switch to a primary, according to polling by the Des Moines Register. Perhaps this substantial support reflects the understanding that a primary system would be more representative of the will of the people. As of now, the caucuses’ outcomes, which shape the rest of the nomination process, are determined by only 20 percent of eligible Iowans, according to Goldford. “Americans talk a lot about the right to vote, but we don’t really mean it,” he said. If the IDP finds the courage to move to a system in which more Iowans can make their voices heard, it has the opportunity to “mean it” just a little bit more. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 23

UNITED STATES

A Constitution

Is U.S. Clay Oxford

hen Fox News and The New York Times agree with one another, you know something’s wrong. In November 2018, that unlikely scenario came to pass. After aggressive questioning from CNN reporter Jim Acosta during a press conference, then-White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders suspended Acosta’s White House press credential. CNN sued to have his access restored, and both Fox News and The New York Times filed amicus briefs in support of CNN. Though unthinkable not all that long ago, this incident is merely one of many in which President Donald Trump and his administration have broken traditional U.S. political norms. From attacking journalists’ integrity to questioning the legitimacy of U.S. elections, Trump has repeatedly crashed against the guardrails that constrain power-hungry politicians and keep democracy on track. For years, those guardrails functioned in the shadows as unwritten rules most Americans simply assumed their leaders were following. However, with Trump’s ascendency, they took on a new importance. Two years ago, Harvard Government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt brought those guardrails to the forefront with their political science bestseller How Democracies Die. Warning that today’s democracies seldom fall “at the hands of men with guns” but instead are broken down by “elected governments themselves,” Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that the United States is not unique. It may be one of the world’s oldest and wealthiest democracies, but they believe the United States is not immune to the same factors that have caused democratic backsliding in countries ranging from Venezuela to Turkey. With the 2020 election approaching, it is time to take stock of the threats to our democracy. In the two years since the release of How Democracies Die, Trump has continued to challenge political norms and exhibit traits that Levitsky and Ziblatt classify as authoritarian. Despite this pressure, however, our democratic norms have bent, but not broken. After all, fewer than two weeks after it was revoked, the White House backed down and permanently restored Acosta’s credential. In the most crucial instances, America’s institutions have constrained Trump. In all likelihood, they will continue to do so through 2020 or 2024. But the day Trump leaves office is not the day our democracy is healed. His presidency is a symptom, not the underlying cause, of the deep divisions plaguing Ameri-

24 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

can politics today. The real question, then, is not whether our democracy is still alive, but this: Can we break out of the tribal politics of the present moment, or will we be paralyzed by polarization for the foreseeable future?

TROUBLE AT THE TOP? Like so many other things in the Trump presidency, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ resignation was announced with a tweet. In a move that many saw coming, Trump forced him out the day after the 2018 midterm elections, and Matthew Whitaker, then Sessions’ chief of staff and a relatively unknown figure to the public, took over the Justice Department. At the time, the department was overseeing Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into the president’s possible coordination with Russia during the 2016 election. Citing conflicts of interest with his work on the campaign, Sessions had recused himself from oversight of the investigation, instead leaving it in the hands of career Justice Department official and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Whitaker declined to do the same, despite advice from ethics officials that recusal would be appropriate out of “an abundance of caution” due to his prior statements criticizing the probe. Sessions’ firing is a textbook example of what Levitsky and Ziblatt call “capturing the referees,” or attempting to co-opt an independent investigative or regulatory institution to do an individual politician’s own bidding. It is one of three key ways outlined in their book by which would-be authoritarians try to consolidate their power. Another is “sidelining key players,” which is when a politician keeps individuals, such as opposition leaders, the media, and anyone else who is a potential threat to his or her political power, out of politics. Finally, autocraticleaning politicians sometimes try to “tilt the playing field,” or change electoral rules to benefit themselves. How Democracies Die contains many examples from the first year of Trump’s presidency where he attempted all three. Beyond working to capture the referees, Trump has continued working to sideline key players. His administration’s effort to remove Acosta’s press pass is only one example of action taken against one key player in a constitutional democracy, the free press. Sarah Repucci, senior director for research and analysis

UNITED STATES

nal Check-Up

. Democracy Dying? at the democracy-focused NGO Freedom House, told the HPR that she and her colleagues have been closely tracking anti-press rhetoric from the White House and are “very worried” about its potential consequences. Finally, Trump has also tried to tilt the electoral playing field in his favor. He has called for tighter Voter ID laws, despite little evidence of widespread voter fraud. Furthermore, he said that Congress should take up no measures on election security that do not include Voter ID requirements, even though those election security measures could help prevent Russian interference in the 2020 election. It is important to note that none of Trump’s aforementioned actions are illegal — the president is constitutionally empowered to appoint whomever he wants as attorney general, and he does not have to grant press credentials to any journalist — and not everyone agrees norm-breaking behavior is a sign of democratic breakdown. In an interview with the HPR, Claremont-McKenna government professor Charles Kesler argued that though Trump has violated “modern, liberal norms of government,” he has “not violated important constitutional norms.” Furthermore, many of America’s institutions have stood their ground. In an interview with the HPR, Levitsky noted that that the United States has a “much more independent set of referees, particularly in the judiciary,” than many other democracies, and Repucci remarked that Freedom House has been “really impressed with the performance of the media under the Trump administration, continuing to investigate cases and continuing to report accurately.” Meanwhile, Trump’s controversial Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity was disbanded after encountering bipartisan opposition to its requests for cooperation from state election officials. And though, in Levitsky’s words, Trump has “gotten the Attorney General to basically behave as a political hack,” he did not prevent the release of the Mueller report, nor did he keep Mueller from testifying before Congress. The 2018 midterm elections have also constrained Trump. “The United States has a much, much more robust, better financed, better organized, more electorally-viable opposition” than many other democracies, said Levitsky. Democratic oversight in the House of Representatives has opened the president up to scrutiny beyond that which he faced in his first two years

in office. For example, the House Oversight committee has investigated stays by government officials at Trump hotels that could constitute violations of the Emoluments Clause. The evidence, then, is clear: The president has sometimes pushed against the constitutional guardrails constraining his power, but he has not broken them down. Whether through Trump’s forbearance, outside pressure, or their own strength, America’s democratic institutions are still standing.

“NORTH-CAROLINA-IZATION” Though Trump’s actions may be particularly alarming, he is not an aberration. His governing style — using the complete constitutional power of his office in an all-out war against his political opponents — is the continuation of a trend that has been building in American politics over many years. Denying your opponent’s legitimacy, congressional obstructionism, changing the senate rules, ignoring a Supreme Court nomination — these are all examples of what legal scholar Mark Tushnet calls “constitutional hardball,” defined by Levitsky and Ziblatt as “playing by the rules but pushing against their bounds and ‘playing for keeps.’” And they have all happened with increasing frequency in American politics since the turn of the century. The opposites of constitutional hardball are Levitsky and Ziblatt’s norms of “mutual toleration,” or respect between the two major political parties that allows them to work together and accept electoral losses, and “forbearance,” or the exercise of political power with restraint. Though those values once undergirded the U.S. political system — think of the unwritten two-term limit for presidents or the norm that unified executive and legislative branches should not work together to pack the court — respect for their importance has been in decline for some time. That decline has recently accelerated, and many remaining vestiges of forbearance have disappeared. The impeachment investigation and trial, for example, were conducted in a thoroughly partisan manner by both sides and increased the likelihood of future weaponization of the impeachment process. State governments have actively resisted the Trump administration’s policies. Major Democratic presidential candidates advocate for dramatic Supreme Court overhauls. And this past year saw the

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 25

UNITED STATES

longest government shutdown in history. Levitsky called this shift toward constitutional hardball “the North Carolina-ization of American democracy.” A purple state with a heavily gerrymandered GOP-led legislature, the North Carolina governor’s mansion switched from red to blue in 2016. In the aftermath of the election, the outgoing governor refused to concede for almost a month, and the state legislature took numerous actions to weaken the incoming governor, including granting itself the power to review gubernatorial appointments and shrinking the size of the state’s court of appeals. Neither of those actions were illegal, but they pointed to a deepening partisan animosity and a willingness to use whatever means necessary to subvert, rather than work with, the other party. That same attitude has come to Washington.

A POLITICAL PROGNOSIS In today’s America, 88 percent of voters are frustrated by the levels of “uncivil and rude behavior” among politicians. 84 percent agree that “behavior that used to be seen as unacceptable is now accepted as normal behavior.” And 87 percent agree that “compromise and finding common ground should be the goal for leaders.” Yet despite these high levels of support for bipartisan ideals, voters are not willing to stand up and hold politicians accountable to them. Instead, 83 percent of voters want politicians willing to “stand up to the other side.” Intense societal polarization gives politicians license to play constitutional hardball with the opposition, leading to dysfunction in Washington. Kesler believes it would be harmful for “the current level of partisanship and disagreement [to] fester and deepen indefinitely” because it is “not good for the country or for the Constitution” — he says polarization has left the United States in a “cold civil war.” Unfortunately, the answer is not likely to come from the nation’s leaders. “It’s only in certain moments that politicians are forced to choose between their short-term political interests and the good of the country. … Most of the time, we expect politicians to simply pursue their interests,” said Levitsky. With functioning institutions and no immediate threat of backsliding towards authoritarianism, and with constituents unwilling to punish norm-breaking politicians, it is no surprise that politics has taken a nasty turn. Many hope that the 2020 election will ultimately reduce political polarization. Levitsky and Ziblatt write that the best-case outcome is for President Trump to fail politically and in a way that unites public opinion against hardball politics. Kesler simply hopes that by the 2020 election, the public tires of partisan bickering and “finally says ... that’s enough, it’s going to be this way. And then you have a kind of realignment of political forces and you have a kind of new normal that the public brings in.” Unfortunately, neither Levitsky nor Kesler seem to believe that this change is on the horizon. Levitsky stands by his book’s 2018 prediction of the North Carolina model as the most likely outcome in the post-Trump era, saying that “[constitutional hardball] has come even more into view” over the past two years. Kesler voices similar opinions, saying that 2020 “probably will be another narrow victory which will prolong the agony between the parties for another four years.” To be clear, hardball politics is not authoritarianism. Elections are not rigged, and the voters still decide the direction of

26 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

the country. But if no change is made, governance will further deteriorate. Fewer bills will pass, no compromises will be reached, and the United States’ global standing will continue to nosedive. It will also be more difficult to implement reforms to combat other threats to our democracy, such as partisan gerrymandering, special interest groups, or foreign aggression. Much of the responsibility for preventing such a scenario falls on voters. According to Repucci, voters must “get involved.” She says that “people need to see their own role in the democratic process,” whether that is through “communicating with their representatives or volunteering at the local level or getting involved with politics itself.” Most importantly, voters must demand that politicians reject tactics like capturing the referees, sidelining key players, and tilting the playing field. The United States’ democratic tradition has held firm for more than 230 years, but that does not make it indestructible. Yes, our institutions have held firm, and the dire warnings of authoritarianism are overblown. Today’s United States is not tomorrow’s North Korea. But norms of forbearance and mutual toleration have all but disappeared from Washington, and neither politicians nor voters seem likely to bring them back any time soon. Our democracy is not dying, but it has a disease. Without effective treatment — a decrease in partisan polarization and a return to a more civil, norm-based politics — inter-party trust and effective government will continue to disappear. Constitutional hardball is an attractive vice, to be sure. We all love to see our own side win. Now, we have to ask ourselves: Is the thrill of victory worth the pain of dysfunction? Only when our answer is “no” can our democracy become healthy again.

UNITED STATES

Connor Chung

hen Mark Zuckerberg’s project first went live in 2004, it pitched itself as “an online directory that connects people through social networks at colleges.” By 2007, its mission was to provide “a social utility that connects you with the people around you.” In 2010, it had been revised to “giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.” Only in 2012, as Facebook went public, did it add “to discover what’s going on in the world” to its mission statement. But at that point, it was merely catching up to reality — that same year, social media surpassed newspapers (print and digital) as the main news source for young Americans. By any of these conceptions of Facebook’s mission, Zuckerberg’s dorm room experiment has no doubt succeeded. Since those early days at Harvard, Facebook has captured the hearts, minds, and clicks of billions, in the process gaining immense control over the world’s information. Thus far, users have embraced this system, feeding it with data and dollars. But if Facebook’s history is any indication, users should be wary of whether Facebook is truly leading news in the right direction.

THE BIRTH OF NEWS FEED When Facebook first launched, it was essentially a glorified directory (a “facebook,” after all, originally referred to the physical class booklets Harvard handed out to students). Posts would be seen by the handful who specifically visited a profile, and beyond viewing others’ pages, there was little for users to do. It was a network, but it was hardly social. It took one unassuming 2006 blog post for Facebook to forever change the history of the internet. When users logged on,

it explained, they would be greeted with a new feature: News Feed, a constantly updating trickle of recent activity. It was a way to see “when Mark adds Britney Spears to his Favorites or when your crush is single again.” And it fundamentally changed how people used the website: the users who had gone to bed with an audience of a few woke up with a potential audience of thousands. “By turning a series of lonely events into something like a story,” wrote Farhad Manjoo in Slate, “by combining all your friends’ actions into a community, or even a conversation, on your home page — news feed gave Facebook a soul.” But Facebook soon ran into a problem: as the network grew, the digital trickle risked becoming a tsunami. To deal with this glut of information, Facebook increasingly turned to algorithms to curate the feed, selecting what it thought users wanted to see. The algorithms — which originally utilized a set of hard-coded standards and were later based almost entirely on impersonal machine learning — soon came to rule the experience. Whether Facebook expected it or not, as it grew, these two decisions — collecting relevant information in one place and picking what gets shown — effectively anointed it the publisher and editor of the world’s information. Despite some initial resistance, users ratified this arrangement, flocking to News Feed in droves. This trend was not short-lived: Indeed, News Feed remains the core of the Facebook experience even today. And, fittingly enough, one of the most important parts of News Feed came from its moniker: news. As users shared journalistic content and publishers reoriented their strategies for breaking into users’ feeds, fewer Britney Spears updates and more current affairs and breaking headlines took hold. Facebook grew to embrace its role as a purveyor of news

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 27

UNITED STATES

with great enthusiasm: In a 2014 Q&A at Facebook headquarters, Zuckerberg declared that Facebook had surpassed even traditional newspapers. Making News Feed the central part of the user experience was not just a business decision, but a “philosophical” desire to build the “perfect personalized newspaper for every person in the world.”

OVERCOMING AN INITIAL DISLIKE Almost as soon as News Feed launched, however, journalists began to sound the alarm. Facebook’s power to choose what was shown meant that publishers no longer had control over their own information, and many charged that the feature failed to reward good content while punishing those who ran afoul of unprinted rules. Writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, Mathew Ingram attributed this to Facebook’s efforts to “move the goalposts” of its “all-powerful (and completely mysterious) algorithm.” When BuzzFeed News’s bet of making content specifically for a Facebook audience failed to pay off, it had no choice but to lay off over 100 staffers. When Facebook tweaked the parameters of its algorithm, Slate saw its Facebook traffic fall by 87 percent. Other digital outlets were not so lucky and went belly-up entirely. The content that did succeed on Facebook all too often was not high-quality news but misinformation. A 2018 study concluded that during the 2016 presidential election, “Facebook played a central role in spreading content from untrustworthy websites relative to other platforms.” And when real content managed to break through, the social networks and not the publishers were often the ones reaping the financial benefit. As TechCrunch Editor-at-Large Josh Constine wrote, “Opportunities to fall in love with the publisher are few and far between. They’re just another ranch producing meat for Facebook’s sausage factory.” It might have been surprising, then, when Facebook’s latest forays into the news industry were met with industry support. In October 2019, to “applause and laughs from a crowd of media industry executives,” Zuckerberg announced Facebook News, the biggest change to news delivery since News Feed. A new stand-alone tab promised to elevate quality content, and plans to pay some publishers were seen as a “peace offering.” Facebook once again presented a philosophical mandate: As a company press release declared, “Journalism plays a critical role in our democracy. When news is deeply-reported and well-sourced it gives people information they can rely on. When it’s not, we lose an essential tool for making good decisions.”

PAINFUL MEMORIES AND LASTING SKEPTICISM The press release read as if it were written with the three main criticisms of Facebook’s prior attempts at news — that it had problems with content quality, that it lacked transparency, and that it was unfair to publishers — in mind. Stories, users were told, would be curated by a team of journalists trained in elevating quality content and avoiding misinformation. The initial selection of publishers was determined by surveying what users wanted. And some publishers would be paid for their content. On the surface, Facebook appeared to have taken past criticism to heart. But has Facebook truly changed? Mathew Ingram, the Co-

28 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

lumbia Journalism Review writer who criticized Facebook’s past efforts, remains unconvinced. “I just don’t think a social network is a great home for journalism,” he told the HPR, adding that he is skeptical of any effort that Facebook would make in the news industry. To him, Facebook’s motivations are too divorced from the industry’s interest: “The platform is driven by emotional and psychological forces that have nothing to do with accuracy or factual content. It’s fundamentally at odds with what journalism is … trying to do.” If the rollout of Facebook News so far is any sign, then the questions of content quality might not be fully resolved. Among the around 200 partners at launch, according to reports, was Breitbart News — an organization which then-executive chairman Steve Bannon described as “the platform for the alt-right.” Given the company’s history of elevating unreliable news, such a decision is hardly reassuring. Though left-wing industry watchdog Media Matters for America called the decision “reflexive pandering to conservative pundits, right-wing extremists, and white nationalists,” Zuckerberg doubled down, saying that in order to be a trusted source, Facebook News needs a “diversity of … views.” This commitment to balance, however, remains unproven, hinting at another familiar problem: a lack of transparency. As part of the initial launch and planned expansions into video and opinion, Facebook has yet to bring several of the most popular leftist outlets on board, including Jacobin, Current Affairs, In These Times, and The Young Turks, representatives of those publications confirmed to the HPR — some of whom said they would likely participate if asked. Whether such exclusions are flukes or examples of a broader problem is currently unclear. Despite calls to release the list of approved outlets, Facebook has so far refused to make that information public. “No, we haven’t released the list,” a company spokesperson told the HPR. “The list will be dynamic as publishers become eligible for News and as publishers are removed if they fail to meet any of our criteria at any time.” One of the criticisms of News Feed was that it was a mystery how content was selected — a concern newly manifesting in Facebook News’ secrecy over what content it makes available. It is also unclear whether Facebook will truly be able to mend relationships with publishers. Facebook has certainly tried to appeal to the industry with News, which a company spokesperson described to the HPR as representing “a multiyear commitment that should give publishers the confidence to plan ahead.” For some, these steps were enough: at its launch, NewsCorp CEO Robert Thompson declared that “Mark deserves genuine credit for this.” Others, however, believe that whatever Facebook’s present promises, the company’s history should give the industry pause. Facebook, suggested Constine to the HPR, has a record of giving partners “platform whiplash,” in which it “announces initiatives, leads partners to invest and change their business to adapt to it, but then cancels or changes the initiative, leaving partners high and dry.” To him, there is not enough reason to suggest that this time might turn out differently.

A BUG VERSUS A FEATURE Facebook had a chance, with this new announcement, to reset its engagement with news. And yet, problems that dogged prior attempts — the quality of the content, the lack of transpar

UNITED STATES

ency, and the strained relationships with publishers — seem to be left unresolved. Are these issues just flaws in the system, or is there a problem with the system itself? Are these problems bugs or features? Matt Stoller, an antitrust scholar at the Open Markets Institute, explained to the HPR that he sees Facebook as embodying the characteristics of a monopoly. As a result of its market power, it oversees the allocation of advertising revenue, the selection of what people see, the direct financing of news, and more — a position that he describes as “too powerful and too dangerous.” Such power can have worrisome implications for the media ecosystem as a whole: “These are autocratic institutions,” he said. “When you place control of our public discourse in the hands of Mark Zuckerberg or any private, unaccountable actor, it’s not a democracy.” The tendency of the modern economy towards monopolization, or the concentration of economic power within the hands of a few select companies is, of course, a trend across markets, far from the doing of any one company. Local news was declining and ownership of national news was becoming increasingly centralized before Facebook came to be. And yet, by forcing what remains through the same funnel, Facebook has hardly been a bystander in this process. When it comes to news, Facebook holds immense power, having acquired the ability to shape not only how we read, but also what we read, when we read, and

why we read. This power revolves around a central truth — that what users truly desire is their own “perfect personalized newspaper.” This may or may not be an inherent fact. After all, “non-personalized” publications, in which readers all share the same stream of information, were the norm for the industry’s entire history, and some studies have cast doubt on whether consumers actually appreciate digital content personalization. Regardless of whether Facebook’s vision of news is a logical evolution of the industry or an engineered outcome, it has very much taken hold. As a result, Facebook holds great control over information itself. If Facebook had a history of interrogating its own power and constantly refining its approach, an announcement that perpetuated its control over the media ecosystem might be less cause for concern. But when it comes to some core questions, the opposite has happened. Of the three key questions that confronted Facebook as it launched Facebook News — content quality, transparency, and publisher relationships — none has been substantively addressed. Thus far, in the absence of other choices, users have accepted Facebook’s inertia. But for its project to prove successful in the long run, Facebook needs to properly grapple with the critical questions that it faces. Because if it will not — or if it cannot — then users might begin to doubt the foundations upon which the kingdom stands. 

Zuckerberg contines to address public concerns about the transparency of Facebook’s News Feed.

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 29

WORLD

Huawei

OR THE

“H

Highway

Amy Zhou

uawei” — The name at the center of the trade war between the United States and China, and the foremost player in the battle over 5G. Recently becoming the second-largest seller of mobile phones behind Samsung, beating Apple for the first time in 2018, the Chinese state-owned telecommunications company has grown in popularity not just in traditionally Chinese-allied nations but also in Europe, where many U.S. allies reside. It already is built into much of Europe’s 4G infrastructure, and while much of the discourse around 5G has surrounded the United States and China, Europe is primed to become the central battleground.

nies. It is also possible that as Chinese economic power grows, other countries may follow this lead. Some countries have already responded to the signals coming out of Washington, D.C. and Beijing. Many south Asian nations have decided to accept Huawei into their infrastructure while Japan, New Zealand, and Australia have followed in the United States’ footsteps. Canada, too, has maintained its closely allied status with the United States by detaining Meng WanZhou, CFO of Huawei.

THE UNITED STATES VS. CHINA

European nations have been especially concerned by the struggle over Huawei, caught between their historical commitments to the United States and their budding economic relationship with China. As the United States heightens its efforts to convince its allies to reject Huawei, the company has been making plays of its own for European favor. It already has over half of its more than 65 5G contracts in Europe. In an interview with the HPR, Philippe Le Corre, an affiliate with the Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship at the Harvard Kennedy School, remarked “that if you fly into Europe, in airports around Europe you will see billboards, you’ll see ads [for Huawei].” Consequently, Europeans have “the impression that [Huawei has] invested a lot in the consumer market and also in the enterprise market.” Huawei may even want Europe to believe that it is an “insider.” Its top official in Europe has gone so far to claim that “it is Huawei, not America, that shares European principles” and that “Europe’s values of openness, innovation and the rule of law have led to it being a powerhouse in mobile communications — and Huawei shares these values.” However, Le Corre believes that these claims are inaccurate. He noted that compared to western multinational companies, it has very little transparency, and that “it is a very Chinese company, anyone who has been to their headquarters can see that.” Furthermore, “their views of corporate social responsibility are certainly not what you would hear in the West.” For example, he pointed out that Huawei views providing telecommunications equipment and smartphones to Africans as corporate social responsibility, although in reality doing so mostly serves to expand their own business. Certainly, the response in Europe has been mixed. Countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom have expressed concerns about China’s National Intelligence Law, which obliges individuals and corporations to cooperate with Chinese intelligence. There are concerns that under this law, China could force Huawei to give the Chinese government intelligence data about its users. France and Germany have considered restricting the Chinese company’s role in their respective infrastructures as

In 2019, citing Huawei actions that “are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests,” the United States placed Huawei on its “entity list.” Companies on this list are banned from buying components and services from US-based companies, and as such this list is sometimes referred to as the “death penalty,” as being on it makes it very difficult for companies to expand and survive. In particular, it is likely that the United States hoped this action would slow Huawei’s growth. Since Huawei phones have become extremely popular in Europe, by withholding access to Google’s software, the United States may hope to make Huawei phones less attractive to Western consumers that expect to be able to use Android on their phones. The Chinese have also been striking back. China recently announced that all state offices should be off foreign hardware and software in three years. While Beijing’s plan reflects its broader goal of decoupling China from American technology and services, the timing of the announcement means it could also function as a response to the United States’ rejection of Chinese technology. While the plan faces challenges in China, as the Chinese must now manufacture replacements for Intel chips and Microsoft’s Windows Operating System, the implications for the United States are unpleasant as well. As Dr. Scott Moore, the China program director at the University of Pennsylvania, discussed in an interview with the HPR, the Chinese government market is a “drop in the bucket” for a major player like Microsoft. However, he explained that more concerning for U.S companies will be the Chinese private sector. The government ban will likely cause “a huge swath of certainly state-owned enterprises but probably a lot of private sector businesses in China as well to follow the lead” of the capital. Moore explained, “that’s typically how the Chinese system works: you get a lot of response to perceived policy signals from the center.” Thus, the reaction of the private sector would likely have a much larger impact on U.S. compa-

30 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

EUROPE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE

WORLD

well. Yet, despite security concerns, it is often difficult for these countries to turn away from Huawei’s 5G contracts. President Trump recently sent a delegation of senior U.S. officials to dissuade the United Kingdom from using Huawei in their 5G networks. While it is understood that there are potential security threats, in spite of the United States’ protestations, U.K. intelligence has expressed confidence in being able to mitigate the security risks that Huawei technology might present. Furthermore, since the United Kingdom also faces Brexit, its economic ties to China are crucial for the nation’s economic future. In an interview with the HPR, Dr. Paul Bracken, a professor of management and political science at Yale, conveyed the idea that as trade negotiations shift away from the being governed by the World Trade Organization and toward being countryto-country direct negotiations, there will likely be many economic trades made between European nations and China in the telecommunications market. In particular, he sees the strategy of China in Europe as trying to “divide the countries in the European Union to prevent them from behaving in a united way in alliance with the United States.” He added that the United States has taken this strategy in business before to prevent the creation of a pan-European national champion out of Airbus – a competitor of the United States’ Boeing. This strategy, now being used by the Chinese, is particularly obvious in Germany, as Bracken explained that the Chinese can say to the Germans “if I give you access to the car market in China to continue selling German cars, you will give me access to the telecommunications market.” In addition to the loss of Chinese investment and trade, the risk that rejecting Huawei could decrease innovation and set the continent behind seems to weigh heavily on European policymakers. 5G has the potential to lead to instantaneous communication for self-driving cars and extremely fast download speeds, among other innovations. For a country to delay embracing 5G could translate to delayed innovation relative to other nations. In an interview with the HPR, Peter Harrell, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former deputy assistant secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, stated that European countries are likely to have different considerations than the United States as they may fear missing out on innovation should they hold back from adopting 5G as soon as possible. He noted that “there is a sense in Europe that because Europe was much slower than the United States in rolling out 3G and 4G technology, that … was actually very harmful economically for Europe.” In particular, “it gave American tech firms a leg up in building technology that used 3G and 4G such as Uber, which really could not have worked without that bandwidth.” Harrell noted that this concern is greatly underappreciated in Washington. Another attractive property of Huawei’s networking equipment is that it can be up to 30 percent cheaper than its rivals and is more economical to run. Huawei equipment has been used in 4G infrastructure across the globe and has a further economic advantage in Europe, where it would be far cheaper to build Huawei’s 5G infrastructure on top of existing Huawei 4G infrastructure than to rip out the Huawei elements and replace them with another provider’s. As Moore noted, there truly is nothing comparable in the West to Huawei in terms of a company being able to provide “the whole ecosystem of [5G] services.” Hence, many European countries are willing to put some

more work into security in order to use this product if it reduces the costliness of implementing 5G. Furthermore, while any compromising on national security interests may seem unfathomable from a U.S. perspective, Harrell commented that perhaps there should be some sympathy for the Europeans “as the Europeans will point out to you that the U.S. pervasively spies in Europe.” Hence, “there is a sense in Europe that this is not a choice between not being spied on and being spied on; it’s a choice of the Americans spying on you or the Chinese spying on you.”

LOOKING AHEAD The battle over Huawei and 5G is ultimately a battle to control the entire internet of the future and all of the innovation that comes with it. The United States appears to be fighting a losing battle over the use of 5G around the world. While the U.S. sanctions on Huawei have slowed operations somewhat, it is nowhere close to what was expected. Huawei remains the world leader in telecommunications and is still growing at nearly 30 percent in the smartphone market. In fact, during his trip to China, Moore found that the company itself views the trade war not as an obstacle, but “as their greatest hour, that if they make it through this period … this will truly prove Huawei’s greatness.” If U.S. policy was intended to dissuade Huawei’s aggressive campaign to expand in new markets, clearly the opposite has happened. For Europeans, however, there is an opportunity here. Le Corre believes that, ultimately, Europe should reach a consensus “on what space should be given to Huawei and possibly, ZTE [another Chinese state-owned telecommunications corporation] in Europe” and that there should be a clear contract “on job creation, and how much they would help the local economies.” With China and the United States both intent on gaining Europe’s favor, European countries have an upper hand in negotiating such contractual terms as well as for access to markets or other political plays. Ultimately, though, the issue of 5G is extremely complex. Should Europe embrace Huawei 5G, it could have serious consequences for the future of the transatlantic relationship. As Bracken pointed out, there are salient national security threats. China’s intelligence-sharing with Russia could be damaging to numerous American allies in Europe and the NATO alliance. Yet, pushing its allies to reject Huawei 5G is unlikely to work for the United States. Harrell comments that in being so fearful of intellectual property theft and being so concerned with stopping Huawei from innovating, the United States has moved away from its own innovation. Bracken, too, believes that the United States should reduce its animosity towards Huawei 5G and instead enlist its universities and think tanks in order to better understand 5G and its potential impact. Moore also believes that this is a time where the United States should take advantage of its own innovative talent and work with its allies to innovate to create a sort of “free world 5G.” Either way, the United States and China have reached a new point in their battle for control, and now Europe must play the role of arbiter in this economic conflict. The world is at a crossroads and the decisions that these economic actors make will have long-lasting consequences on the future of global trade, politics, and history. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 31

WORLD

ASEAN BEATS THE ODDS Ryan Zhang

ishore Mahbubani, former Singaporean Ambassador to the United Nations, once declared, “When ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] was born on the 8th of August 1967, it was destined to fail.” After all, Southeast Asia was, and continues to be, one of the most diverse regions in the world, hosting four major religions, 800 languages, innumerable ethnicities, and radically diverging political systems and cultures. However, despite its unprecedented diversity, ASEAN has brought durable stability and prosperity to 655 million people in Southeast Asia. In an era of growing cultural pessimism, ASEAN is a miraculous counterexample of coexistence.

INFERTILE GROUND FOR PEACE Before ASEAN was formed in 1967, establishing regional cooperation was an improbable, if not impossible task. Not only is the region is a melting pot of religious and ethno-linguistic diversity, but it is also a place of great political diversity, most recently including three constitutional monarchies, two communist states, three republics, a sultanate, and a former military junta. With national per-capita incomes ranging from $4,000 in Cambodia to $90,500 in Singapore, it is also one of the most unequal regions of the world. Moreover, during the 20th century, much of Southeast Asia was previously engulfed in war, so much so that the region was referred to as “the Balkans of Asia.” Many of these conflicts were between retreating colonial powers and insurgent nationalist groups. Indonesia fought the Dutch in a revolutionary war that resulted in 200,000 military and civilian casualties. Meanwhile, Việt Minh forces sought independence from the French but achieved it only after fighting the eight-year-long First Indochina War. Other domestic upheavals also threatened peace: Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddien III of Brunei faced an insurrection in 1962 by antimonarchist militants, while in 1965, General Suharto staged a coup in Indonesia and initiated a massacre of 400,000 alleged members of the Communist Party of Indonesia. With constant fighting during the mid-20th century, the grounds of Southeast Asia were not fertile for cooperation, domestic or international. In an interview with the HPR, Jay Rosengard, a lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, explained that ASEAN’s “ability to survive national, regional, and global turmoil over the past half-century, and doing that by accommodating a lot of diversity, is a big accomplishment in and of itself.”

32 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

AN UNLIKELY SUCCESS Nevertheless, in the face of unprecedented difficulties, on August 8, 1967, foreign ministers from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand met in Bangkok to sign the ASEAN Declaration. There were several ingredients that catalyzed the creation of ASEAN, the first of which was fear of communism. The 1960s saw the rise of the “domino theory,” or the belief that the fall of a noncommunist state to communism would precipitate the fall of noncommunist governments in neighboring states. With the victory of the Chinese Communist Party, the Vietnam War, and North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, Southeast Asia was predicted to be the next battleground. Moreover, communist insurrections in Southeast Asia during the 1940s and 1950s, particularly in Malaysia and Singapore, heightened the perceived threat of communism in the region. As Christina Davis, a government professor at Harvard University, told the HPR, ASEAN during its early years “created a united front and cemented solidarity against the Northern Vietnamese during the Vietnam War.” The second ingredient to ASEAN’s success was a balance of power. Transnational organizations often lose legitimacy because of “great power dominance,” or when powerful actors dominate organizations and turn them into tools that serve individual interests. Some examples include Saudi Arabia in the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, India in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, and the United States in the Organization of American States. When first conceived, ASEAN could have been dominated by Indonesia, the region’s largest economy and home to roughly half of the region’s population. However, Lee Kuan Yew, the late Prime Minister of Singapore, recalled a conscious effort by Indonesia not to dominate the bloc. “The role of President Suharto was crucial for the success of ASEAN. Indonesia did not act like a hegemon. It took into consideration the policies and interests of other members,” he wrote in his memoir The Singapore Story. “This made it possible for the others to accept Indonesia as first among equals.” By serving as a forum for discussion, rather than simply a tool for great power dominance, ASEAN maintained legitimacy.

ASEAN’S IMPACT Since its inception in 1967, ASEAN has helped shape Southeast Asia. Economically, ASEAN has encouraged free trade and foreign investment in the region. The 1992 ASEAN Free Trade Area

WORLD

removed tariffs on nearly 8,000 items, increasing business access to neighboring markets and lowering prices of goods for consumers, while the 2015 ASEAN Economic Community further lowered tariffs and streamlined trade regulations. In addition, ASEAN has given Southeast Asia better trade terms with the rest of the world. By coalescing into one bloc rather than acting as independent countries, Davis argued that ASEAN gives Southeast Asia “more leverage and more economic voice” during negotiations. Still, obstacles to deeper economic integration remain. Sithanonxay Suvannaphakdy, a researcher at Singapore’s Institute of Southeast Asian Studies–Yusof Ishak Institute, explained to the HPR, “The key challenge for ASEAN is how to intensify intra-ASEAN trade and investment, which have been stagnant over the past five years.” One major reason for this stagnation is that despite tariff reductions between countries, there are tremendous non-tariff barriers to trade, especially in industries like agriculture, which are protected for national interests. Going forward, Rosengard believes that ASEAN’s main economic challenge will be “reconciling countries’ tendencies of cooperation and competition.” ASEAN has delivered political benefits to the region as well. In a region where tensions among neighbors historically run deep, ASEAN has served as a forum for dialogue, defusing disputes between countries and ensuring relative regional stability. Scholars credit ASEAN with stabilizing tensions after the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, guiding Myanmar’s partial transition from military dictatorship to democracy, and mediating maritime disputes between various member states. Today, ASEAN’s annual summits continue to serve as neutral forums for major powers to discuss fraught issues. That is not to say ASEAN is perfect. Davis notes that ASEAN’s consensus model, in which all decisions require countries’ unanimous approval, “limits ASEAN’s scope of collaboration and makes it difficult for ASEAN to be assertive in sensitive areas.” ASEAN is frequently criticized for not acting more harshly against Myanmar’s treatment of Rohingyas and for not being more assertive in the South China Sea. In this sense, Rosengard believes that ASEAN’s “greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. … its ability to accommodate diverse viewpoints and survive as a bloc also sometimes undermines its ability to be proactive.”

THE CURRENT STATE OF ASEAN ASEAN today faces a number of challenges, the first of which is the South China Sea. China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea are disputed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei, all of which have their own, rival claims. ASEAN traditionally issues a consensus-based, joint communiqué at the end of its Foreign Ministers Meeting every year, but in 2012 and 2016, the South China Sea issue prevented communiqués from being agreed upon. In each year, the Philippines and Vietnam both wanted the joint communiqué to refer to the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the South China Sea, which found China’s claims to be in violation of international maritime law. However, Cambodia, which is seen as China’s closest ASEAN ally, opposed any mention of the ruling and blocked the communiqué. By preventing ASEAN members from reaching a unified position on territorial claims, the South China Sea has threatened the organization’s consensusconscious culture. The U.S.-China rivalry also presents a major obstacle to ASEAN and Southeast Asia. As the rivalry intensifies, ASEAN has become a geopolitical battleground, where both the United States

and China are petitioning member countries to choose sides in the rivalry. In November 2019, Indonesia decided to allow Huawei to begin building 5G telecommunications infrastructure in its country because of its low cost — a move that disgruntled U.S. officials. Meanwhile, many other ASEAN countries are both highly economically dependent on China for infrastructure project financing, such as for roadways and high-speed rail, and on the United States for trade. Since the region receives significant business from both China and the United States, countries struggle to remain impartial and retain good relations with both sides. Should U.S.-Chinese tensions escalate further, the fallout for Southeast Asia could be significant.

RENEWED IMPORTANCE When he first entered office, President Donald Trump engaged intensely with ASEAN, flying to Manila in 2017 for the annual U.S.-ASEAN Summit. “The United States remains committed to ASEAN’s central role as a regional forum for total cooperation,” he announced at the summit, asserting that “this diplomatic partnership advances the security and prosperity of the American people and the people of all Indo-Pacific nations.” However, 2018 saw a dramatic downturn in U.S.-ASEAN engagement, as Trump skipped several ASEAN meetings traditionally attended by the U.S. President. If the United States wants to promote regional peace and security, counter China’s expanding influence, and make promising economic investments, it must continue to engage with ASEAN politically, economically, and culturally. Member countries must also support ASEAN themselves. Over the past few years, leaders in Southeast Asia have contended with increasingly difficult domestic politics. In Indonesia, identity politics linked with conservative religious values are threatening President Joko Widodo’s reformist agenda, while in the Philippines, President Roberto Duterte has recalibrated government policy to focus on domestic order. When signing the ASEAN Declaration, Singaporean Foreign Minister S. Rajaratnam warned of the need to govern with a two-level mindset – to not only think about national interests “but posit them against regional interests.” Despite facing increasingly challenging domestic situations, ASEAN country leaders must not chase exclusively domestic concerns at the expense of regional interests. Now more than ever, ASEAN must heed Rajaratnam’s rule. Looking forward, Southeast Asia will become an even more important region of the world. It is home to 650 million people and counting, making it the third-most-populous place in the world after only China and India. Collectively, its countries will grow to be the world’s fifth-largest economy and third-largest recipient of foreign investment. Located at the heart of the Asia-Pacific region, it is a strategic military location and a worldwide trading hub, where $5.3 trillion of global goods already pass through its waterways each year. Retaining regional unity will be crucial. On their own, the countries of Southeast Asia may not be able to resist becoming pawns of great powers, or as Rosengard put it, “being divided and conquered.” But, unified under the ASEAN flag, they have a fighting chance to defend their own interests. In a world of growing pessimism and tribalism, where the unknown is feared and the foreign is treated with skepticism, ASEAN is a laboratory of diversity. ASEAN’s continued success is crucial because it would demonstrate that diverse co-existence is not an impediment to success, but the key to it. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 33

WORLD

Making Change When Change is Hard

“W

e need to shift from a government that focuses primarily on working for you, to a government that works with you. Working with you, for you.” That was how Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat articulated the changing philosophy of governance of the ruling People’s Action Party, speaking in a widely-reported 45-minute speech outlining the priorities of the next generation of PAP leadership. For some observers, Deputy Prime Minister Heng’s speech seemed to herald a liberalizing shift in the state’s relationship with civil society. In Singapore, the government has traditionally played a leading role in defining the policy agenda and determining its implementation. Heng’s call for the government to partner with the people seemed to echo the increasingly common refrain of engaging and consulting civil society, reflecting the changing dynamics of state-society relations. His assurance that “we may have different views but so long as you have the good of Singapore at heart, we can work together,” also appeared to signal a break from a past where groups with views opposed to the government were seen as dissidents and troublemakers. In so doing, Heng hinted towards the government’s intention to work not merely with establishment groups, but also with civil society organizations whose views might not immediately align with the state’s. Despite the promise of Heng’s vision, however, Singaporean civil society groups remain confronted with challenges in advocacy that they have had to learn to navigate. Ultimately, the state’s commitment to truly partnering with civil society will be tested by its willingness to broaden the space for advocacy groups to operate as well as to engage with those holding contrary and even critical perspectives.

WORKING WITH YOU, FOR YOU In line with a shift towards greater engagement with civil society, a number of Singaporean civil society organizations that the HPR spoke to attested to how the government has sought to work collaboratively in developing policy solutions. Sumita Banerjee, executive director of HIV/AIDS prevention advocacy group Action for AIDS, recounted examples of how the authorities have acted upon its suggestions. The organization’s advocacy contributed to the state’s decision in 2015 to remove the ban on foreign persons living with HIV entering Singapore on social visits, she said, as well as helped to make available new biomedical options recommended by the World Health Organization. Most recently, Action for AIDS launched its Community Blueprint in December 2019 and is “looking forward to actually having some good collaborations” with the government to implement its proposals. The state has also made efforts to consult civil society organizations in the legislative process. Jiang Haolie, a founding team member of Yale-NUS College student group the Community for Advocacy and Political Education, described how parliamentarians solicited members’ feedback when drafting new laws. “[Member of Parliament] Louis Ng reached out to us through a few of our members who were his own legislative assistants,” he

34 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

John Chua

explained. When a controversial bill against fake news had been mooted in Parliament, Ng connected the group with Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam, who met and spoke with students about the proposed law on multiple occasions. Although members of CAPE remained skeptical after the sessions, one positive outcome, Jiang reflected, was that the students “understood how [the government] was working, and [the government] understood how [the students] were working as well.”

CONTINUING CHALLENGES Other members of civil society, however, are less sanguine about the state’s promises of consultation. Civil society activist and freelance journalist Kirsten Han expressed doubts about the process to the HPR. “How many national dialogues have we had, and what has come out of them?” Han asked. Some civil society activists now harbor skepticism about “how genuine such engagement is,” she noted, which discourages further involvement. In a conversation with the HPR, social worker and human rights activist Jolovan Wham also questioned the state’s willingness to undertake the potentially far-reaching reforms that might be required. It is not clear, he suggested, whether the reinvigorated attempt at national dialogue would “actually make any significant changes to the landscape, to the policies and laws that need to change.” More practically, negotiating the unspoken boundaries of acceptable advocacy vis-à-vis the state can be challenging. One frequently-described challenge is a fear of adverse consequences, whether real or perceived, as a result of dissent. Speaking based on her experience in journalism, for instance, Han related that individuals are hesitant to go on-the-record “because we still want access to this ministry or that minister, or it would jeopardize our work or it would jeopardize our organization.” Consequently, civil society groups describe a continuing tension between exercising caution in order to avoid displeasing the government and staying true to their organizational missions and aims. Speaking to the HPR, Jaya Anil Kumar, a case manager at the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics, a migrant worker advocacy group, explained how the opacity of the state complicates this process. Because what the government might deem as inappropriate is not always obvious, she observed that it is important to occasionally push boundaries, without which “the work may stagnate.” Some civil society organizations, therefore, strive to minimize misunderstanding by positioning themselves and framing dialogue carefully. CAPE, Jiang explained, attempts to avoid potentially loaded language in its public-facing material. It shies away from terms like “democracy” or “activism” unless they are used purposefully, favoring instead less provocative ideas like “active citizenry.” On a philosophical level, Jiang invoked the National University of Singapore legal scholar Lynette Chua’s concept of “pragmatic resistance” to characterize the nature of CAPE’s work. Chua coined the phrase in her study of gay activism in Singapore, describing how activists, sensitive to legal restrictions and cultural norms, adopt a strategy that is non-confrontational and non-threatening towards the political order.

WORLD

Yet, civil society activists are also cognizant of the limits and pitfalls of such an approach. Jiang highlighted how “internalizing this depoliticization” was a constant concern across the different cohorts of CAPE’s leadership. “We’ve been very worried about internalization of ‘pragmatic resistance,’ where after a certain point of time, it’s just pragmatic, and there’s no more resistance,” he reflected. Han similarly drew attention to how “pragmatic resistance” might function more effectively in certain contexts than in others. Advocating for animal welfare would demand an entirely different tack from more controversial causes such as campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty or the controversial preventative detention law, the Internal Security Act. In the case of a civil rights group seeking the repeal of the ISA, for example, Han suggested that adopting “pragmatic resistance” would be “very difficult for them because the ask is so politically sensitive.”

NEGOTIATING BOUNDARIES AND CREATING CHANGE In the face of a multitude of challenges, civil society groups in Singapore have devised strategies that have proven effective in advocating for change. One important element of this process lies in creating awareness and building support among the public. HOME, for example, has relied on highlighting stories of vulnerable migrant workers who have encountered exploitative conditions at work to gain support for its cause. “Part of the reason why stories are published is because they are very impactful,” Kumar observed. “You don’t need to know the law, or know the regulations of MOM [the Ministry of Manpower], to understand stories.” With a groundswell of public concern surrounding an issue, she pointed out, the government is more likely to be responsive to the need for change. Credible advocacy also necessitates proposals for change that are rooted in evidence-based research. Shailey Hingorani, head of research and advocacy at the gender equality advocacy group AWARE Singapore described the extensive primary and secondary research that AWARE undertakes to the HPR. “We’re not plucking things out of thin air,” Hingorani said, referencing AWARE’s qualitative research methodologies when conducting its fieldwork, along with secondary research that considers policy options shown to be effective in other countries. After an initial period of data-gathering, AWARE presents its findings back to the communities that it serves, taking their feedback into account before lobbying the government. Pairing service delivery with advocacy helps ensure that research of this sort does not become abstracted from the lived experiences of those it seeks to serve. Action for AIDS, for instance, runs the largest anonymous HIV/AIDS testing centers in Singapore, as well as support groups providing psychosocial and mental health support. Banerjee commented, “We get the evidence directly from the community, and that’s what actually helps.” Providing services allows the organization to better understand the landscape of needs while gathering data that is useful in formulating policy solutions, adding to the persuasiveness of its research. Apart from direct advocacy towards the government, empirical research can also be presented through international human rights mechanisms as another means of working towards change. HOME, for instance, has made various submissions to

the United Nations, including its “Shadow Report for the U.N. Committee on the Protection of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families” and its “Universal Periodic Review for human rights.” These, in turn, draw attention to the need for the review of policies or legislation that may be inadequate, giving the government a stronger impetus to reexamine them. However, these strategies depend eventually on the government’s receptiveness to the possibility of change. Civil society groups, therefore, seek to be sensitive to the political climate, timing advocacy efforts such that they appear aligned with the state’s policy agenda. Hingorani described how AWARE strategizes areas of focus at the beginning of each year based on its reading of the government’s priorities. In choosing between either focussing on the rights of foreign spouses or eldercare responsibilities at the start of 2019, for example, AWARE “analyzed the political climate, the announcements that the government had been making, and realized that caregiving and aging were topics already in the national conversation,” she said. Thus, it chose to concentrate on the latter issue, because “the chances of that research being picked up and the chances of the government’s listening to [them] would be higher.”

TAKING THE LONG VIEW Even though members of civil society are acutely aware of the difficulties surrounding advocacy in Singapore, they remain generally hopeful about the prospect of long-term change. One frequently cited positive development is the recent resurgence of youth activism in Singapore, with campus groups and other youth-led, ground-up initiatives sprouting up in recent years. “I’m optimistic about the people in civil society and pessimistic about the environment in which you have to operate,” Han commented. “I see young people who are very keen and very savvy wanting to get involved like CAPE — I mean, they’re doing amazing work,” she added. Confirming this, Jiang observed that there has been a “wellspring of student activism.” It is a “myth,” he asserted, that youth in Singapore are apathetic or civically disengaged. Recognizing that change is unlikely to happen overnight, civil society activists also take the long view, seeing their efforts as laying the groundwork for the future. Even if the results are not immediately apparent, Han remarked, “keeping conversations alive, even if they are smaller scale, is really important.” In the meantime, what continues to give purpose to members of civil society is the difference that they make in the lives of those they serve. Indeed, Hingorani explained that although she and her colleagues “work for twelve hours a day,” the words of gratitude from those in the community encourage them to persevere in spite of the many challenges they face. Ultimately, the state’s commitment to “engagement” with civil society will be tested with time. The litmus test for this brand of consultative politics is its willingness to accept dissenting opinions and policy suggestions that sit uncomfortably with the status quo, and to dispel any lingering worries that these critical perspectives might result in reprisals. It will be seen in the readiness of the government to collaborate in good faith with contrarians and naysayers and to thoughtfully engage with the proposals of activists like Jiang. As he put it, “We all love Singapore, for God’s sake. ... We just disagree on how things should be run.” 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 35

WORLD

36 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

WORLD

t is not everyday that a student publication gets banned. It is even rarer that a university decides to wholesale ban all student media. But that is exactly what the students of Moscow’s Higher School of Economics have to deal with. In December 2019, the school’s Student Funding Committee stripped the Doxa student journal of its status as a student organization, terminating all school support in terms of technology, space, and funding. To add insult to injury, the school declared on January 16 that it would ban all student media, justifying its ban by quoting the practices of other leading universities, among them Harvard. The administrative line is that as “suggestions of affiliation with Harvard in connection with any organization, publication, activity, or third party are only possible with the advance permission of the dean of Harvard College or its Provost,” so too can Russian universities quickly rescind the “misuse of [their] names” among student organizations. In the view of Valeria Kasamara, a vice rector at the HSE, some student organizations’ voices unfairly represented the student community. As a result, the university needed to become a politically neutral “safe space,” as she told the HPR. What exactly was the incriminating act by the Doxa student journal that led to its ban? What was so dangerous about the organization’s message? And why was it necessary for the administration to crack down on the organization so harshly? In a society where apathy is the government’s greatest supporter, flashes of opinion amount to lèse-majesté, and all efforts are made to stamp out the few views dissident to the government. General apathy in Russia has allowed the government to push their agenda, to the detriment of the Russian people.

DEMOCRACY, BUT WITH RUSSIAN CHARACTERISTICS In name, Russia pays homage to the democratic ideal. The elections to its largest legislature, the Duma, follow a proportional representation system, which generally enables a greater diversity of political views and political expression than the first-past-the-post system commonly used in former British colonies. There are multiple parties, and Article 32 of the current Russian Constitution states that “citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to participate in managing state affairs both directly and through their representatives.” Russia is still a part of the European Court of Human Rights, and governmental rhetoric firmly insists on Russia’s democratic identity, adding adjectives such as “sovereign” in front of the word “democracy” to silence Western claims to the contrary. Despite its democratic facade, however, popular opinion is largely excluded from governmental circles. In the newest version of the Russian Constitution, the president has immense political powers: He is charged with guaranteeing rights and freedoms, chairing meetings within the Russian government, and directly appointing judges to many of Russia’s federal courts. This is in direct contrast to states like Canada or the United States, where the constitution is the guarantor of rights and freedoms, where an independent speaker chairs the meetings, and where judicial appointments must also go through the legislature. The oligarchs’ all-encompassing role also works to exclude popular opinion within the Russian government. Widely reviled

by the Russian populace, the first oligarchs were bankers that struck a deal with the first Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, to trash his communist opposition and to fund his campaign in exchange for shares in the large, recently-privatized companies. While many of the original oligarchs were mostly exiled or jailed as a punishment for their overt access to power, observers note that new oligarchs have simply come to fill in the gaps of the old. In the spirit of a country that at least hopes to value democracy, this is anything but democratic: the demos, the people, are squeezed out of power in favour of the oligoi, the few. Even more dangerously, however, it seems that many Russians do not want to do much about this arrangement. A recent Russian election video seemed to chastise Russian political apathy with unrealistic, homophobic claims; only 3 percent of the Russian population claim to be actively supporting political parties, with 54 percent stating indifference or outright disinterest in the political arena. In the 2017 election, United Russia’s promotional material mostly focused on Putin rather than any political positions, and the party has long marketed itself as practical rather than ideological. As Vitaliy Zemlyansky, a student involved with Doxa, told the HPR, the second most popular party, the Communist Party of Russia, uses mostly residual feelings of Soviet nostalgia and the liberal opposition. Despite taking a major role in the protests, it does not seem to offer any real alternatives to the current regime, he continued. As people believe neither in the government nor in their own capacity to create change, the government takes a free license in its actions, sometimes with dangerous consequences.

THE LICENSE TO ACT President Vladimir Putin signed a pension reform bill into law on October 3 that increased the retirement age from 55 to 60 for women and 60 to 65 for men. This law for men is expected to gradually take effect by 2028 and for women, to be fully implemented by 2034. Thanks to this new hike, two-fifths of the Russian population may not live to see their retirement, as the Russian Confederation of Labour has stated that the average life expectancy of men was less than 65 in more than 60 regions of Russia. Austerity is tough medicine to swallow, especially amid popular discontent. That austerity was long put off by the Duma only bolstered the lack of popular trust in the Russian government. The reforms also have an asymmetric hit on the Russian population, as areas with chronic depression and unemployment see the pension as the only “ready money” for Russian families and risk increasing the number of Russian people below the poverty line in the short term. Interestingly, the new reforms do not affect members of the state security services or police officers, which spells interesting consequences for Putin’s popularity, already at a nadir from the age reform. Relaxation of corruption legislation is also part of the reason behind popular discontent, especially given that Transparency International ranks it in the top third of most corrupt countries. In early 2019, the Russian Ministry of Justice drafted a proposal stating that corruption due to force majeure should not be an offence, despite not being more specific about what constitutes such a “circumstance of insurmountable force.” The proposal sheds light on a phenomenon that has cast a

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 37

WORLD

shadow on the Russian political scene since the Russian Federation’s inception. The individualistic relationships that Russian leaders have with the other members of government breed an environment where bribery to achieve political ends is almost necessary, and in recent years, the average amount of bribe money paid has substantially increased. In a globalizing economy where competition grows in intensity, the sluggish muster of the Russian economy has taken a toll on the Russian people, prompting more malcontent in a system that does not seem to take them into account.

THE PROTESTS For many Russians, protest offers one of the rare avenues for their voices to be heard. A wave of protests in the current cycle began en masse in July 2019, when 20,000 protestors gathered together at a rally in Moscow. This initial rally stemmed from the government’s reluctance to allow opposition candidates to run in the Moscow City Duma elections. While the City Duma is merely a symbolic organ of the government, the governmental refusal to even allow opposition candidates to stand for election added insult to injury, and from that point on, five weeks of protests ensued in Moscow. To add extra fuel to the flames, opposition candidates such as Alexey Navalny joined the protestors in solidarity, and the police response, which was initially mild, reached dangerous proportions. In the five weeks of protest, the authorities only authorized two protests, the July 20 one and another in early August. Many citizens were arrested despite those authorizations, including some who left the protest for other places. The U.S. Embassy in Moscow characterized violent police responses as “use of unnecessary police force”: Russian police beat protesters with truncheons, and footage from the protests often shows police pinning people to the ground, kicking them as they continued to resist. Police even threatened to “cut off” the fingers of some citizens who refused to be fingerprinted. One report notes that Konstantin Konovalov, a designer of the Moscow underground map, had his leg broken by the police — for the crime of continuing his routine morning job on the day of a protest. Navalny was taken into custody for 30 days and reportedly poisoned by Russian authorities.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING AN OPINION Despite the protests, the City Duma elections still took place, with United Russia winning a majority of the votes. A perspective on the government’s side of those elections comes from Kasamara, a candidate who ran for the elections as a pro-governmental independent but lost to a candidate of the liberal opposition. She told the HPR that her desire to run stemmed from wanting to “find efficient ways to cooperate with officials who make decisions and [are] helpful” in addressing the concerns of the common people rather than “some kind of power obsession,” and she ascribed her loss to the Electoral Committee, which prevented many opponents from participating in the election and made her seem like a governmental puppet. The admission of electoral corruption from a pro-governmental candidate is laudable, if not remarkable. But overall, it just served to further confirm the Russian status quo. Candidates like Kasamara, who believe in the need to stay “far from any of

38 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

the political parties presented on our political arena,” are the most acceptable because they do not question the system. This makes the banning of Doxa all the more understandable. The Doxa student journal unabashedly declares itself as a leftoriented journal. Doxa writer Maria Menshikova, in an interview with the HPR, joked that while “you won’t see stars or the color red anywhere,” the journal “just criticize[s] the university from a leftist position.” The unabashedness of her political convictions translated to a recent article that criticized Rector Natalia Pochinok of the Russian State Social University for enabling corrupt submission of graduate theses. Unfortunately, that article was released in the leadup to elections for which Pochinok was a candidate. Pochinok proceeded to accuse Doxa of fraying the relationship between the HSE and the RSSU, and soon, the publication was terminated on grounds of “not correspond[ing] to … HSE’s demands, including the principles of evidence-based research.” From Menshikova’s perspective, the initial arguments did not even touch the thesis of her article. In name, Russian universities are “outside of politics,” said Zemlyansky. Kasamara reinforced this view. “The idea of fair balancing of academic interests and human rights and freedoms is to have the university neutral,” she said. However, this neutrality has a twist: While university officials are exempt from these neutrality rules, students with political affiliations find no outlets at the university. It is almost as if it replicates the Russian governmental system, where powerful government officials express their views at will, but the people’s voices do not seem to be heard.

LÈSE-MAJESTÉ, À LA RUSSE The crime of Doxa lay in its criticism of individuals: the article that criticized another rector led to the journal’s interdiction, much like how the Russian government has laws that jail people for “disrespecting the government.” Both Menshikova and Zemlyansky, the two Russian students interviewed, cited the overwhelming presence of a power vertical, a term widely used to describe Putin’s management style where subordinates are unconditionally loyal and obedient. While students nominally elect rectors, rector positions are often decided between closed doors. The Russian government’s situation is similar: While the president is elected, the mostly apathetic electors choose the incumbent as they do not see an alternative posed by any of the opposition, perpetuating a vicious cycle. As students critical of a university’s administration are silenced, so, too, are the protestors on the street critical of their country’s administration. In today’s Russia, having opinions is the ultimate form of lèse-majesté. Your opinions are not required — the government has already decided them for you; should any complaint ever exist, your mistakes are “corrected” via police brutality, threats to your family, and even poisonings. Despite Russia’s overtures to democratic norms, the state’s reliance on apathy, along with its de facto designation of opinions as “lèse-majesté,” is both cheating the international community and its own people, living in the guise of multiple parties and elections. If the people really are to rule, then Russia should wholeheartedly embrace democratic ideals. And if they are not, Russia should not sugarcoat the truth with terms such as “democracy” and further blur its true meaning. 

CULTURE

FROM SALSA TO SEÑORITA O ver 20 years ago, Peter Schmuck of the Baltimore Sun stepped off a plane in Havana to a frosty reception. While he was there to report on a goodwill baseball game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Cuban national team on March 28, 1999, the Cubans were having none of it. As he recalled in an interview with the HPR, “The Cubans did not want to have any media for that home-and-home series.” They eventually allowed him to enter — only after barring him from attending the game. Although he was not there to witness it, that baseball game, the first time a Major League Baseball team had played in Cuba in over forty years, made history in Cuban-American relations. It also represents the complex cultural interaction between the United States and Cuba: Even though American teams had not played on the island for decades, baseball originally came to Cuba through an American-educated Cuban student. Baseball is perhaps the most significant American contribution to Cuban culture. As Schmuck observed, “Cubans love baseball more than Americans do, and it’s our national pastime!” Indeed, MLB teams have held spring training camps and played well-attended games in Cuba since the turn of the 20th century. Cuban-American cultural interaction has also extended far beyond baseball, reaching rap, jazz, and even the American pop charts. But the political relationship between the two countries has always hung over this interchange, especially after Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution changed the countries’ relationship for the worse. The long history of Cuban-American cultural interaction suggests that the two cultures have embarked on a productive cultural exchange despite the political obstacles. Under a receptive U.S. administration, both nations can use this pre-existing

Kendrick Foster

cultural interchange to improve diplomatic relations.

SINGING “GUANTANAMERA” Cubans and Americans in New York City lost no time in combining their musical styles. Afro-Cuban jazz emerged in 1947, when Afro-Cuban percussionist Chano Pozo joined Dizzy Gillespie’s jazz orchestra, mixing elements from traditional American jazz and Afro-Cuban rhythms. Meanwhile, Cuban music styles, such as calypso, mambo, and cha-cha, continued entering the American music scene into the ‘50s. Then Castro came to power, and the United States cut off diplomatic relations a year later. “Cuba had become anathema. It lost its status as a friendly, happy, tropical country,” Deborah Pacini, professor emeritus of anthropology at Tufts University, told the HPR. But musicians on both sides continued creating new musical styles, with the ‘60s marking the high point of salsa, an American-based evolution of the Cuban son. The song “Guantanamera” exemplifies a shift in CubanAmerican cultural interchange. Instead of building something new with Cuban and American influences, a pop group named the Sandpipers Americanized a “very traditional Cuban song that need[ed] to be translated somewhat,” as Chris Molanphy, a Slate pop critic and chart analyst, told the HPR. The song also represented a counterpoint to the frosty political relationship at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as internationalist Pete Seeger promoted it across the globe as a call for peace between the two countries. In these ways, it seems that the phenomenon of distinctly American reinterpretations of older Cuban music stemmed from the nations’ political relationship. Since the embargo limited the previous interchange of information, music,

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 39

CULTURE

and media, communities in both nations turned to improvisation.

RAP, ROCK, AND SYNTHESIS Despite that embargo, musical interchange continued as young Cubans began getting their hands on American rock music. Cultural interchange “was not happening in state- or industry-sponsored networks,” Pacini said. “It was the product of personal connections: If you knew somebody who happened to have a rock record, you could hear it.” As the Beatles gained worldwide popularity in the late 1960s, their records found a way to circulate across the island, and Cubans began founding rock bands, such as Los Van Van, that explicitly drew inspiration from American rock. According to Pacini, as Cuban rock evolved, some artists aimed “to incorporate more Cuban elements into it, whether Spanish-language lyrics or lyrics about local issues.” Sintesis, a band founded in 1978, perfectly exemplified this theme by combining American rock chords, traditional Afro-Cuban beats, and Spanish lyrics. Its name, meaning “synthesis” in Spanish, perfectly encapsulated its mission and music. Acceptance of rock paved the way for rap’s 1980s emergence in the Cuban cultural scene. Rappers, too, found ways to circumvent the embargo. As Sujatha Fernandes, a professor at the University of Sydney, pointed out in an interview with the HPR, young Cubans got interested in hip-hop by putting up “antennas outside of their windows with wire coat hangers to try and get hold of the music.” These rappers would “take background beats from American songs, get a tape recorder, and loop those beats until they had a full background beat, and then they would just rap over that,” Fernandes explained. Lacking modern rap equipment (largely due to the embargo), Cuban rappers would “use Afro-Cuban music with traditional instrumentation for their beats,” along with beatboxing, to add a distinctive Cuban spin. Cuban rap and hip-hop also increasingly became a vehicle for Afro-Cuban social criticism, similar to how African-Americans used rap and hip-hop. Across the Straits of Florida, Gloria Estefan continued the trend of Americanization in Cuban-American crossover hits like the 1985 hit song “Conga”, which added English lyrics and hip-hop beats onto its base of Cuban conga music. Meanwhile, the Buena Vista Social Club, “a supergroup of the greatest Cuban musicians of the late ‘90s,” as Molanphy described it, played off Americans’ nostalgia for pre-communist Cuban music and culture. The group’s debut album was not necessarily a response to the Americanization of Cuban music, but rather a reminder of the Cuban balladry that had largely escaped the notice of the American market for 40 years.

ABRIENDO PUERTAS, OPENING DOORS Buena Vista Social Club would not have been possible without a unique set of circumstances. While Cuba started to open up to the global economy to recover from the sudden loss of Soviet support, the United States relaxed the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1988, enabling new cultural flows between the two countries. As Fernandes argues, these new interactions between Cuba and the rest of the world allowed Cuban art to “make com-

40 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

mentary on a broader global system.” The March 28, 1999 game took place within this broader thaw between the United States and Cuba — if only for the political wrangling of Peter Angelos, the Orioles’ owner. As Schmuck explained, Angelos “was a huge donor to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. He wanted to do this, and he contacted the Clinton administration and the State Department. That was probably the biggest thing that made it happen.” Schmuck argued that the game began a “loosening” of relations between the Cuban baseball federation and MLB which eventually led to a stream of Cuban players entering the league. That stream has accelerated recently: “There are a lot more star-caliber players in the big leagues now than there were when Cuban players started defecting,” Joe Kehoskie, a former agent for Cuban players, told the HPR, naming several high-profile players such as Aroldis Chapman, Yasiel Puig, and Jose Abreu. These players have added immensely to the sport; Chapman, for instance, threw the fastest baseball pitch ever. Although the second Bush administration introduced a new crackdown on relations, the Obama administration toned down its predecessor’s belligerence. Indeed, the administration realized the potential to use the countries’ shared cultures as a reconciling force: Obama attended a baseball game between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Cuban national team as part of the first trip to Cuba by a sitting U.S. president; The Guardian argued that Obama’s presence at this game did more for detente than speeches and statements ever did. And before that game, a comedy skit between Obama and Pánfilo — a character in the popular Cuban TV show Vivir del cuento — allowed him to “harness humor and popular culture to connect with the Cuban people on a quotidian level,” as Yale’s Albert Laguna argued. Meanwhile, more formal cultural exchange also took place. The American Ballet Theater visited Cuba in 2010, where it performed and conducted workshops for Cuban dancers; both sides came away impressed with the other’s technique and started discussing plans for further interaction. In May 2016, the Minnesota Orchestra, harkening back to its 1960s concerts in Cuba, played two concerts. As Yale undergraduate Rhea Kumar argued, its astute choice of pieces, including Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet, projected a “strong and direct” message of cultural unification.

CROONING ABOUT CUBA While the Obama administration tried opening the door, the Trump administration slammed it shut, scaling back many of Obama’s changes. However, interaction in the musical sphere has continued apace, with Camila Cabello, a Cuban-American artist, and Cimafunk, a purely Cuban one, exemplifying the trend. The Cuban influences in Cabello’s 2017 breakout hit “Havana” appear obvious: The song is named after Cuba’s capital and Cabello’s birthplace, and Cabello croons that “half of [her] heart is in Havana,” representing the Cuban-American exile experience. Additionally, the clave that makes the song so catchy originates from a traditional Afro-Cuban jazz clave. As Molanphy put it, “It was the first time she was putting her Cuban roots front and center, and a metaphor for her expressing her independence in general.” Cabello’s next number one hit, “Señorita,” features a key note

CULTURE

reminiscent of that of “Havana,” while the lyric “land in Miami” clearly references the center of Cuban-American émigré life. However, the song makes few other pretensions of authenticity; the fact that the song is an “American-feeling pop record” made it popular for American audiences, Molanphy argued. Nonetheless, the success of both songs indicates the Cuban-American diaspora’s presence in American culture and the increasing diversification of American pop. In contrast to Cabello, who mainly swoons for American pop audiences, the Cuban artist Cimafunk, called the “Cuban James Brown,” has achieved popularity in the United States and Cuba with an innovative blend of hip-hop, funk, and traditional AfroCuban standards, fundamentally representing America’s influence on Cuban pop music. The overwhelmingly positive reaction to his 2019 tour showed that artists no longer need to pander to American audiences in order to achieve popular success. In addition to showing the wild success of the amalgam of Cuban and American music, his tour also addressed the two countries’ political relationship: He offered free concerts at low-income high schools and discussed common interests between the two countries.

TURNING THE BEAT AROUND Cimafunk’s approach, which seemingly paid dividends, could be used as an example of cultural diplomacy, which political scientist Milton Cummings defines as “the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples to foster mutual understanding.” Indeed, effective cultural diplomacy is not a one-way street, but rather an exchange that requires equal participation of all countries involved. American policymakers largely seem to have missed the point, though, and many Cubans believe the United States intends to totally change Cuban economics and politics. If American diplomats confine their goals to normalization, though, cultural diplomacy can certainly help bring the two states and peoples closer together by turning the formerly political question of American policy towards Cuba into a more

personal question. For Schmuck, his 1999 trip changed his perspective on the Cuban-American relationship. “I’m a rightof-center guy, and when I was a child, I swallowed the whole pro-American, anti-Castro stuff. When you get there, you realize how stupid [the embargo] is.” That cultural diplomacy would likely fall under two areas: mutual artistic exchange and baseball diplomacy. From the U.S. side, the exchanges would help to establish goodwill, dispel negative stereotypes about American popular culture, and send a message without relying on tropes of imperial domination. The exchanges would do the same for the Cuban side, especially helping to change the opinion of hardline Cuban-Americans. Indeed, as Laguna argued, “Postrevolutionary popular culture … has helped build bridges between generations of the diaspora and back to the island.” As the Cimafunk concerts and Schmuck’s experiences in Cuba show, these mutual exchanges can also help to establish meaningful dialogue about issues of common concern to Cubans and Americans, supporting political diplomacy. Likewise, baseball diplomacy, if practiced successfully, can help bring the two countries together by emphasizing common ground and increasing person-to-person contact if fans travel to the other country. And as The Economist writes, Cuban baseball players have given Americans a more human perspective of the island. For one, Kehoskie is cautiously optimistic. “The more Cubans and Americans interact, the more the baseball programs interact long-term, it can only be a good thing,” he said. Ultimately, rapprochement may lie in national rather than international politics, since successful cultural diplomacy requires both the American and Cuban governments to open themselves up to the other side’s culture. Yet they seem capable of doing so given how their cultural relationship has historically continued even without political rapprochement. Now, both governments can take a page from the book of the Cuban rappers and American singers who have made all that cultural interchange possible. Like good negotiators, artists who bridge the divide are ready to speak, but also willing to listen. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 41

CULTURE

Performance Art as an Activist Tool Jessica Morandi

“E

verything is political.” This statement is both an acknowledgement of the inherently political nature of existence in a hierarchical world and a direct quote from every person interviewed for this article. “Everything is relational, and everything has a power relation,” Amy Elizabeth Alterman, a Ph.D. candidate in Culture and Performance at UCLA, explained in an interview with the HPR. “So, everything is political.” Art is no exception. Although there are artists who insist that their work is not political, this claim ignores the stakes of representation; for any artist to deny that their actions have political implications is to deny the fact that media and entertainment shape the way that people view the world and everyone inhabiting it. It is important to acknowledge a distinction between bursts of protest and sustained activism. Both play crucial roles in political progress, and art can function as either depending on its implementation, but the two styles of advocacy serve different purposes. Protest often consists of sporadic, individual instances of critiquing injustice and is fundamentally an attempt to raise awareness about an issue. Art is therefore a natural fit; its emotional resonance is indispensable in efforts to grab the public’s attention and to change hearts and minds. Activism, on the other hand, requires continued engagement, with a focus on solutions rather than just calling attention to an issue’s existence. That is not to say that art is no longer a suitable tool — in fact, the reality is quite the opposite. Art is most often thought to be politically powerful because of its ability to reach new audiences; in this

HARVARDPOLITICAL POLITICALREVIEW REVIEWSPRING SPRING2020 2020 4242 HARVARD

capacity, art is comparable to political protest as primarily a method of raising awareness. However, an often-overlooked capability of performance art is its potential to arm audiences who are already sympathetic to a cause with the specific knowledge necessary to take action, serving as a sustained form of activism. Two organizations that exemplify the latter strategy are Abortion Access Front’s comedy tour and UCLA’s Sex Squad. ART AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL Beyond performance art’s power to touch people emotionally, it can be a very effective educational tool, especially when dealing with stigmatized topics. In an interview with the HPR, co-creator of The Daily Show Lizz Winstead highlighted the importance of going beyond providing information: “If you’re going to point out what’s wrong and just let people sit with that, if you don’t give them a call to action, it’s creating quicksand.” Especially with the proliferation of social media, the number of injustices in the world can easily become overwhelming. As Winstead points out, from an activistartist’s perspective, it is not enough to simply draw attention to political problems; clear explanations of specific, actionable solutions are necessary to channel the audience’s energy into productive next steps. Following this principle, Winstead founded the reproductive rights nonprofit Abortion Access Front in 2015 to combine her expertise in political satire with “the freedom to say, ‘And here’s what you can do about it.’”

CULTURE

AAF’s year-round comedy and music tour serves as a prime example of the potential for art to arm audiences with the tools for continued activism. “Abortion AF: The Tour” is a component of AAF’s work that brings feminist comedy shows to cities across the country to destigmatize abortion. The effect of comedy in this setting is three-fold: it attracts people to the event, it breaks the stigma surrounding abortion by getting the audience to relax, and it allows a conversation to begin. “There’s something specifically about humor and comedy that loosens people up,” affirmed Alterman, whose dissertation is an ethnographic study of AAF’s tour as a new model of performance activism. “It resonates for people in a way that other formats, other forms of communicating, don’t.” AAF’s tour is not designed for bipartisan appeal. With a topic as divisive and inflammatory as abortion, there is no such thing as material that pleases everyone. “I think too many progressive organizations are trying to reach across the aisle,” commented Alterman. Instead of focusing on changing perspectives, AAF is “taking people who kind of already have a perspective, and they’re offering them more education and tools of things to do.” Importantly, the shows feature talkbacks with local abortion providers, giving audience members information about abortion access in their region, as well as ways to support independent clinics through donating, volunteering, and voting. To Winstead, “it completes the evening” to end in dialogue: “You’ve learned something, you’ve learned what you can do about it, and you can do it right there in the room, and then you can sign up to continue being part of the solution.” Above all, this comedy tour captures the unique power of art to be emotionally compelling. Unlike traditional methods of consuming information, like reading articles and watching the news, decidedly political art informs viewers without feeling like a mental chore. Viewers are more likely to retain information and follow up with action after an enjoyable experience rather than a dry one, which is why it is key to give the audience concrete next steps in order to capitalize on this energy. THE POWER OF PARTICIPATION AAF is not alone in prioritizing action. “Knowledge is powerful; power is power,” said Bobby Gordon, a performance artist and sexual health educator with an M.A. in Applied Theatre Arts from UCLA, told the HPR. “It becomes less about just knowing the information but collective strategizing about how to push back against these oppressions.” Like AAF, Gordon’s approach to sex education is focused on going beyond providing information. He believes that interactive forms of performance in particular encourage students to retain more information than traditional styles of teaching. To address this unmet need in the field of sex education, Gordon founded Sex Squad, a UCLA student group that uses participatory theater to educate at-risk youth about sexual health. It is not enough, Gordon argues, for students to be able to regurgitate answers on a test — especially for an issue as personal as sexual health. “You have to be able to translate it for yourself and put it into action in your own life,” he explained. And for him, nothing is better positioned to achieve this than interactive art: “Active participation and engagement, especially in a way that requires creativity and rewriting things for our own contexts, pushes us to learn in a way that we can actually use.”

Similarly to AAF’s comedy tour, Sex Squad leverages the art of humor to break the stigma surrounding sexual health, which allows a fruitful conversation to occur. Taking it one step further, Sex Squad encourages students to participate in the performance in order to practice handling challenging scenarios by themselves. This active engagement is a key benefit of using theater and comedy and is particularly effective for education. “‘We transform when we actively participate in transformation,’” Gordon quoted from Augusto Boal. “I can’t transform you. … I can make an invitation and an offer to you, but you have to be the one to do it.” WHERE IDEOLOGY MEETS REALITY But of course, neither of these organizations could pursue the work that they do without funding, which frequently comes from institutions that uphold hierarchical systems of oppression. Academia in particular provides many activists with the opportunities that they need to pursue their art, yet universities in the United States often unintentionally perpetuate institutionalized racism in a variety of ways, from the application process to the challenges that historically marginalized students and professors face on campus. Gordon struggles with the tension between artists’ aspirations to do good work and the competitive nature of grant writing. “Whereas the rest of society underestimates the power of the arts for social change,” he said, “we in the arts, because we need to make a case for it, get really good at making a case for it.” In an ideal world, seeking funding from ethically questionable sources would not be necessary, but in reality there must be room for nuance. Nonprofits don’t have to betray their morals to ensure financial security; while monetary incentives may encourage artists to exaggerate the projected effects of their proposals, the core goals of the art remain the same. As Winstead stated, “The funders fund us because of our mission, not in spite of it.” The following metaphor enables Gordon to persevere despite this contradiction: “One hand being full doesn’t empty the other.” In other words, the unethical nature of working in institutions that reinforce supremacy does not negate the knowledge and positive impact that the resulting art creates; rather, the two truths coexist. Imperfect progress is better than no progress at all. Society benefits from political art, and very few artists could financially or emotionally afford to pursue their work in addition to a fulltime job without supplementary monetary support. If morally objectionable funding sources enable artists to educate and inspire audiences, to introduce them to activism in an inviting and feasible way, then more is gained than lost. As long as artists are conscious of the unjust systems in which they work — “productively suspicious,” in Gordon’s words — flawed circumstances should not prevent them from engaging in activism with the best intentions. Artists cannot remove themselves from politics if they are unsatisfied with surrounding institutions; everything is political, after all. 

SPRING SPRING2020 2020 HARVARD HARVARD POLITICAL POLITICAL REVIEW REVIEW 43 43

CULTURE

FROM TOURISTS TO TRAVELERS

“E

verybody’s posting online and I’m like, I want to go. Take me with you. Put me in your suitcase,” said Tate and Camden, two young travelers preparing to embark on a 21-day adventure across Europe. The duo agreed to share their plans with the HPR as they paced around the boarding area at O’Hare Airport. After drawing inspiration from Pinterest bucket lists, they had created a rough itinerary, scoured Omio for cheap flights, and booked Airbnbs at different sites. It would be their first time ever leaving the United States. Nervous but excited, the pair represented the changing face of travel: young, well-informed, and unafraid to seek out unique experiences. Tate and Camden’s journey took place just as travel has exploded globally. Worldwide increases in real income, loosening of travel restrictions, and the rise of low-cost airlines have made travel, regardless of the destination, both easier and cheaper. As a testament to the travel boom, nearly 4.4 billion individual flights were taken in 2018, a stark growth over the 2.6 billion taken at the start of the decade. Tourism brings international attention to cities and money to local economies. Worldwide, the tourism industry contributed to 10.4 percent of global GDP in 2019. Moreover, travel serves as a unique vehicle to exchange local cultures and to bring people together from different walks of life. However, this is often balanced with decreased quality of life for many residents of “over-touristed” cities, who see their city overrun by visitors. Hallstatt, a picturesque Austrian town, is just one of many cities to fall prey to this issue. The town sees nearly 10,000 tourists a day despite a population of just 780; accordingly, the cost of living has risen and many residents have lost their privacy. Locals dodge selfie-takers on their way home while the museum of village history remains empty. As more and more travelers journey across the world, it is becoming clear that rejecting the culture of mass tourism and embracing individual experiences in conjunction with local communities uniquely provides for a sustainable and enjoyable future of tourism.

EXPERIENCING THE WORLD As travel has increased in popularity, the average age of travelers has decreased. Data provided to the HPR from the American Society of Travel Advisors show that millennials are the most likely Americans to travel, while Gen-Xers are right behind. Erika Richter, communications director of the ASTA, explained in an interview with the HPR that “when we look at the different generations and where they are in their life stages, we see millennials wanting to experience the world because they value experiences more than they value things.” Travel provides opportunities for individuals to immerse themselves in another culture, an adventure that cannot be replicated at home. Travelers now have more access than ever to information about their destinations, which helps in crafting a trip. Beyond traditional sites like TripAdvisor, social media has become a tool

44 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

Andy Wang for researching travel. A growing source of travel information comes from influencers, who share their personal experiences, while friends seek to share their unique destinations. “Instagram is one of the biggest influencers in determining where millennials are traveling and how they’re traveling,” said Richter. “They do it for the Insta. That’s the game.” Young people feel pressure to travel as a result of what they see on social media, but the diversification of information sources has greatly influenced travel habits as well. Social media can highlight unique destinations, while other travelers can visit sites off the beaten path that traditional travel media would not cover. As a result, young travelers have resources that greatly increase the potential variety of their travel.

MORE THAN TICKING OFF LANDMARKS With a greater desire to travel and more information at their disposal, young people also travel in a markedly different way from their older peers. They choose to spend time away from major destinations and focus on immersing themselves in the local culture. Young travelers “tend to stay longer and interact more closely with the communities they visit than the average tourist,” according to the U.N. World Tourism Organization; “as such, youth travel has emerged as one of the most promising paths towards a more responsible and sustainable tourism sector.” It seems an authentic sense of community is important for young travelers, and this comes with positive side effects. Staying longer means reduced carbon emissions from travel, while genuine interaction with the local community promotes the actual local culture. Thus, immersive stays should be the goal for all travelers. The recent growth in tourism can lead directly to a degradation in the local culture if not managed properly. Many sites, like Prague and Venice, have long been tourist hotspots. The duo serve as examples of mass tourism: “an extreme concentration of tourists in one place.” This trend may display itself as a clumping of tourists in just one part of the city, like Prague’s old town, or the entire city, like Venice. In order to serve these tourists within concentrated areas, businesses and cultural institutions cater their offerings to a culture of mass tourism. These often manifest as kitschy tourist shops or tours designed for visitors to snap a quick picture in front of major sites. This culture of “fast tourism” does nothing to share an actual understanding of culture, while at the same time contributing to a decrease in livability for locals. In contrast, young travelers are more likely to apply their interests to create an immersive experience in the local culture. A majority of young travelers cite meeting locals as important to their reasons to travel. This desire “brings young travellers closer to local communities and means that they have more direct economic, social and cultural impacts on the communities they visit,” according to the WYSE Travel Confederation. In contrast, “fast tourism” does not even attempt to bring locals and visitors together in interaction. Richter also explained that increasingly,

CULTURE

“people want to do more than just tick off landmarks on a list of things to do or places to see: they want immersive experiences.” Until now, travelers have often been forging their own paths to get these experiences: In order to promote a sustainable future of travel, cities need to start promote experiential tourism.

HERITAGE IN THE CITY Cities have started to respond to this new traveler behavior by realizing its benefits to their local communities. Instead of having mass tourism focused on photographing sights, travelers who have a specific interest are likely to interact in authentic ways with the locals and take away more of the culture, which they can then share with the world. As a result, cities have slowly begun to adopt tourism strategies that highlight immersive experiences in order to attract these visitors. The city of Weimar, in eastern Germany, has adapted their tourism marketing strategy in order to tap into these experiential travelers’ interests. Besides being a picturesque small German town, Weimar is also home to the German classical literary tradition, as well as to the seat of the German modernism movement. Recognizing its strong heritage on these two fronts, Weimar has tailored its marketing to find travelers with the same interests. “We have created a persona,” shared Serge Strekotin, a tourism marketer of the city, in an interview with the HPR. “Who is a classics lover? It’s mostly the visitors in their golden ages who are into high culture.” Reaching out to this target demographic group, then, increases the chances that a traveler interacts in an authentic manner upon arrival, as opposed to someone visiting just to snap a quick picture of the scenic town center. Indeed, these tailored experiential visitors look to take part in the local culture. According to Strekotin, the classics visitors “want to have evening programs to the theater or a very good restaurant,” while Bauhaus visitors “would like to visit the ateliers and to buy or see the Bauhaus designs and their modern interpretation.” These tourists then contribute more to the local economy and culture by supporting traditions and businesses that already exist. Weimar’s ties to its cultural heritage are not driven by tourism. Instead, tourism empowers an already salient part of the city’s culture. As a result, travelers who venture to Weimar are able to find experiences tailored to them, and Weimar itself is able to avoid the classic problem of over-tourism, which can lead to a dilution of native culture.

LIVABLE, LOVABLE, AND VALUABLE Another solution to over-tourism is to divert travelers from crowded tourist hotspots by highlighting alternatives. Typically, travelers arrive in “gateway cities” with large airports, many hotels, and a large population. Getting travelers out to other cities has been a large focus of many national tourist boards, including the Netherlands. “In the past, Amsterdam was not only a highlight and a very important city for us to promote, but it was one of our icons besides the windmills, the tulips, and the cheese. But that is changing,” said Antonia Koedijk, North American director for the Netherlands Board of Tourism & Conventions, in an interview with the HPR. This iconic status has led to a crowding of the capitol, with residents complaining of the city center only catering to tourists and a treatment of their city as “a

naughty Disneyland.” In order to alleviate the crowding in the capitol, the Dutch board has put forward a plan called Perspective 2030, which aims to allow all Dutch residents to live in harmony with and benefit from tourism. Key to this is managing tourist flows. “If you keep on promoting the same areas, you will eventually run into a problem of too many travelers in one area and another area not benefiting from tourism,” explained Koedijk. Therefore, more attention has been put by the board on cultural experiences away from the capitol, such as visiting cheese farmers in rural Holland. Growing tourism focused on local cultures ensures sustainable development in under-touristed areas as their culture is enhanced and promoted, while the bulk of the returns goes straight to local residents and businesses. In that way, the plan aims to ensure that tourism enhances the quality of life for locals. “The city should be livable, lovable and valuable, not only to the travelers but even more so to the residents,” shared Koedijk. “We have to be careful that we focus on the quality visitors that incorporate the residents.” Tourism that does not suit the needs of local communities does more harm than good, especially because many communities may feel that their own culture is under attack by a mass tourism culture. Simply growing tourist numbers for the sake of increased tourism ignores the cultural nuances of individual communities, while focusing on immersive experiences hand-in-hand with local communities provides opportunities to share local customs authentically worldwide.

TRAVELERS, NOT TOURISTS The sustainable and equitable future of tourism must focus on personalized experiences that work in conjunction with local communities. Only by doing so can the problems associated with mass tourism be alleviated. Tourism should seek to empower local communities and to share their unique culture. As such, cities and countries should target visitors that match the cultures and sites unique to them. For visitors, too, the quality of travel is improved with unique experiences and authentic interactions. The surface-level visits of mass tourism are replaced with immersive experiences led by locals. Furthermore, visitors know that their experiences are unique: their visit is tailored to their individual interests. Of course, the debate over the future of tourism is multifaceted and brings further questions. Catering to experiences and uniqueness could shut out travelers with fewer resources who may not be able to venture further from gateway airports. Spreading out travelers geographically may not directly solve the environmental impact of travel, but at least it attempts to make visits more meaningful. In spite of the possible questions, though, the future of tourism seems to be headed in a better direction. For Tate and Camden, the final boarding calls sounded, marking the start of their journey across the Atlantic. Soon enough, they would be visiting the destinations they were most excited about – for Tate, a glacier tour in Iceland, and for Camden, the Giant’s Causeway in Ireland. They would be following a trip of their dreams, just like hundreds and thousands of young travelers before them. One by one, these determined travelers seeking their own experiences have led to a movement, bringing us the tourism revolution that we so desperately need. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 45

INTERVIEWS

The Future of Left Politics with

MEAGAN DAY M

eagan Day is a staff writer at Jacobin magazine. Her writing has been featured in The New York Times, Vox, Mother Jones and Timeline. Her forthcoming book with Micah Uetricht is Bigger than Bernie: How We Go from the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism. On January 28, Day spoke at the “Class Warfare: The Future of Left Politics” forum at Harvard University.

Harvard Political Review: Jacobin has been called “the closest thing to a flagship publication of the Democratic Socialists of America left” even though it doesn’t have any formal ties to the organization. How do you identify with socialism, and how has that informed your writing? Meagan Day: There is no formal relationship between Jacobin and DSA, but Jacobin is the largest socialist publication in the United States, and the DSA is the largest socialist organization in the United States. You’ll find that a lot of DSA members will regularly read and write for Jacobin. And a lot of people like myself, who are on staff at Jacobin, are also active members of the DSA. I started my career in media before I was a socialist, and I’m sure that I could be on a different track. Instead, in 2015, I noticed that Bernie Sanders had decided to run against Hillary Clinton. I started paying attention to his campaign, and I became extraordinarily inspired by something that I didn’t previously think was possible. It was the idea that in the United States, there would be a constituency for class politics that wasn’t the fringe or marginal and that was instead comprised of ordinary, working-class people who wanted to transform society so they could have a better life for themselves and their loved ones. It was a shock to everybody. Anybody who tells you this wasn’t a shock to them is lying; nobody saw this coming. I had already read Jacobin before. I knew what democratic socialism was. What happened in that moment for me was that, whereas previously I thought that socialists were correct ... I had never posed the question to myself: Are you a socialist? Because I didn’t really think that it was something that I could be. Now suddenly, millions of people supported a politician who described his political ideology as democratic socialism. And so I posed the question to myself: Am I a socialist? Because the answer was yes, I went and I joined the DSA. And because I joined the DSA, I realized that if I was going to work in media, it’d be

46 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

with Winona Guo and Joseph Winters

better if I could find a situation for myself where I could actually change the world and push it in the direction that I think it ought to go, not simply report on developments as they were unfolding. So socialism led me to Jacobin. At this point, there’s no separation between my writing and my political ideology.

HPR: Was there anything in your personal life that informed your conclusion that socialism was correct? MD: Everything in my personal life confirmed that conclusion. You know, I did not grow up in a working-class household. I grew up in a relatively wealthy household, which can give you a glimpse of the world that is just as startling as the one that you get growing up in a working-class household. We live in a staggeringly unequal society, and it’s indefensible. It always bothered me, ever since I was conscious as a young person. I sought answers as to why it had to be that way and I found unsatisfying answers everywhere that I looked until I came to the explanation that, in fact, society is characterized by class conflict — that the capitalist class becomes wealthy and enjoys its privileges and luxuries by exploiting the working class. And the working class sells its labor to the capitalist class in exchange for a wage, which the working class uses to purchase the necessities of life. ... [The capitalist class] appropriates the surplus value of that labor as profit, and that’s how people become wealthy. And these two classes are locked into struggle with each other. The capitalist class would prefer it if we did not talk about this, right? So yes, my entire personal life has confirmed for me that this is not an acceptable way to arrange a society, but it’s not necessarily a personal experience of hardship.

HPR: Why write as a means of political change? MD: Well, I’m also an organizer with DSA, and I don’t think that we can simply write as a means of political change. I actually think that if people just write about politics, some people tend to become estranged from the challenges that face organizers on the ground. And that can warp your political perspective. So if you’re going to be a political writer, and specifically a socialist political writer, it’s important to stay connected to an organization. But that said, we need to write frequently because we need to be able to communicate our ideas to people. We need to be able to persuade people. People are already persuaded that

INTERVIEWS

there’s something wrong. People are persuaded that this society is grossly unequal and that the hardships that they experience are not fair. However, sometimes people do genuinely think that [their hardships are] their fault. Well, then you have to start there. You have to persuade people that it’s not their fault. But if they’ve already determined that it’s a social problem, then you have to persuade people that the social problem actually has solutions. Then you have to organize and have solidarity and wage “class struggle,” by building the forces of the working class to engage in struggle against the capitalist class. We’re not starting a class war, we’re fighting back in the class war.

HPR: The media is grappling with questions of truth and bias and “death to bothsidesism.” Jacobin unabashedly takes sides — unlike some news sources, which claim objectivity. What do you think the role and responsibility of the media is in delivering information and truth to people? MD: There needs to be a diverse media ecosystem. We need reporters who deliver facts to us accurately, there’s no question about it. We also need freedom of press, and we need people to be able to create organizations that allow them to communicate their political ideas. That’s a cornerstone of free expression. I do think that in the Trump era, when there’s a lot of conversation about fake news, and there are reputable and disreputable sources, liberals will sometimes lump our magazine into the conversation and say, “This is something we don’t want. It’s extreme. It’s biased.” To me, this is a problem. We need to be able to protect the voices of political minorities in our democracy. As for the mainstream outlets that are often responsible for delivering breaking news to us, they are also responsible for advancing a political perspective, and it just so happens that the majority of the time, their political perspective lines up with the interests of the capitalist class. Sometimes they’ll give accommodations for voices from the left, but for the most part, the perspective that they’re advancing is pretty compatible with the interests of the capitalist class. To me that reads as hypocrisy, the idea that there’s no bias in the mainstream press, but bias exists in a magazine like Jacobin, and the bias in our magazine is bad and must be stamped out in order to protect democracy. This is a bizarre narrative.

HPR: You’ve been pro-Bernie for a long time. Why do we need a Sanders presidency? MD: We need a Sanders presidency to catalyze a movement that’s even bigger than the one that’s going to put him in the White House. The movement that’s organized around Bernie Sanders right now is unlike anything that’s been seen in modern electoral history. This is just a fact. Now, people who don’t want him to win will deny that this is true up and down, but either their heads are in the sand or they just have a vested interest in denying this fact. But they know it full well, that this is completely unusual. We have a mass …. movement to ... elect [Sanders]. … But it’s not big enough ... to actually transform our society, to eliminate gross inequality. It’s not big enough to end poverty, to end war, to end climate change. We need a Sanders presidency for the opportunity to use the levers of power that are available to us to actually build a movement big enough to transform the

world. And eventually to transform our economic system from one that not only permits but actually functions on exploitation, to one that instead functions on a basis of equality, democracy at work, and solidarity. A solidaristic economy … a phase that is less barbaric, frankly. So will it happen? I don’t know. Nobody can say. But this is the nature of class struggles. You see opportunities and you take them, and you fight as hard as you can.

HPR: Do you have any personal concerns about a Sanders presidency? MD: Well, he’s going to face not only the ordinary constraints that all presidents face, he’ll also face extraordinary, unusual pushback, because he’ll be attempting to advance an agenda that dramatically improves the lives of the working class at the expense of the capitalist class. Medicare for All means the elimination of the private insurance industry. Large industries don’t allow themselves to be eliminated; they go out in bloody battle. And of course, they have money, influence, and formal positions of power. They also have — this is the most unfortunate and scary thing, but it’s one of capitalism’s cleverest tricks — they have the ability to have their ball and go home and tank the economy. This is typically how, when things are not going their way, the capitalist class will undermine left-wing administrations or governments. “Capital disinvestment” or “capital flight” are names for this, or a very aggressive and more coordinated version would be the “capital strike.” Workers can go on strike — well, so can the capitalist class. So yeah, something bad could happen if Bernie Sanders was President, there’s no question about it. But also something bad is happening every day when people experience medical debt because they were diagnosed with cancer. Something bad is happening every day when people face eviction because they can’t afford a roof over their head, because housing costs are spiraling upward, but their wages are staying exactly the same. In order to change the system, you have to be provocative.

HPR: What’s the role of students in this next election cycle and in the future of left politics? MD: Historically speaking, students have played an incredibly important role on the left. And they also typically have fewer responsibilities to attend to that would prevent them from being politically engaged. But it’s been a minute since we’ve had a strong, politically active student movement in this country. Bernie Sanders may be changing that. Students prefer Bernie by overwhelming margins. Bernie Sanders has a campaign infrastructure to incorporate every supporter as a very active volunteer, and he has no intention of demobilizing that machine after he’s elected. This is a pipeline for students with strong political feelings to become student activists and eventually become student organizers for the long haul. It does have the potential to catalyze a new left-wing student movement in this country. Students need to decide whether they’re going to take the opportunities that are presented right now. Not opportunities simply to vote and cheerlead, but to become organizers on campuses and in their communities. It’s up to each student to decide what they want to do with their life, and what role they want to play, and whose side they want to be on. 

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 47

ENDPAPER

A CLOUD OVER CAMBRIDGE Katie Weiner

ne of my earliest, clearest memories at Harvard is of the evening of November 8, 2016. Hundreds of first-years were packed in Annenberg Dining Hall to watch live coverage of the 2016 election, expecting what the polls predicted: a resounding victory for Hillary Clinton. Initially, Annenberg was buzzing with excitement — eight years after the United States had elected its first black president, it seemed we were ready to make history again. I had turned 18 that August, making this the first election in which I was eligible to vote. I spent a moment taking a mental picture, imagining that one day I’d describe the scene to my own future daughter when she asked where I was the night that the first woman president of the United States was elected. The polls, experts, and assumptions, it turned out, were wrong. As it slowly became clear that the tide was turning, my roommates and I headed back to our dorm to wait for the final results — which confirmed, at around 3 a.m., that Donald Trump would be the 45th president of the United States. On our walk home through Harvard Yard, we ran into friends, acquaintances, and strangers crying or simply sitting dejectedly, coming to terms with what the next four years would mean for our campus and country. The mood over the next few days was somber and heavy — it felt like Harvard was in a state of mourning. In ways I’m not sure my class has always been conscious of, that cloud has continued to hang over us for the last three years. Trump has been president for almost the whole of my Harvard experience, and on a campus where many students are concerned with social justice, equality, and human rights, that political reality has been a consistent source of disappointment and anger. A barrage of negative news has weighed on our formative college years, and pessimism is the natural result. In classes, extracurriculars, and social gatherings, political discussions inevitably devolve with the sad recognition that our country’s collective future is being determined by an individual whom few Harvard students trust or respect. Even talking about Trump, at this point, is something of a cliché. And global news provides little respite: an international surge in xenophobia, nationalism, and right-wing authoritarianism makes the United

48 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

States’ turmoil that much more frightening. In this atmosphere, I’ve sometimes let myself slip into defeatism, spending more time bemoaning the status quo than imagining a brighter future. There is, of course, plenty to be sad about. But as I prepare to leave Harvard, I’m trying to gain as much wisdom and insight from what we all recognize is this school’s most important asset: its people. My most inspiring peers at Harvard are energized and excited; they are working to imagine, engineer, legislate, and lead better worlds than the one we have today. The most engaging classes I’ve taken here have asked me not just to uncover inequalities, but to imagine their solutions. During my sophomore year, I took a class with Dr. Cornel West. After his lecture one day, I waited to ask how he managed to stay optimistic in the face of so much inequality. He, in turn, asked me what other option there was. It is all too easy to intellectualize injustice, condemning it from our ivory tower without empathy or passion. West, though, recognized how meaningless this attitude is for the victims we purport to care about. We can’t make change without believing that change is possible; to build a more just future, we must allow ourselves to have hope. We must be knowledgeable, but also creative, enthusiastic, and warmhearted. Understanding what’s wrong is only the first step in creating a more just world, yet sometimes we seem to devote so much energy to this task that we have none left when it comes time to act. These insights, of course, are not unique to our Trumpian moment: Almost 1,500 years ago, the prophet Muhammad’s father-in-law Abu Bakr affirmed that “without knowledge, action is useless, but knowledge without action is futile.” At Harvard, we spend a lot of time analyzing, discussing, and dissecting the world around us. Perhaps we should spend more time trying to make it better. 

INTERVIEWS

WANT TO ADVERTISE IN THE HPR?

CONTACT BUSINESS@HARVARDPOLITICS.COM

SPRING 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 49

INTERVIEWS

50 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING 2020

Spring 2020: The Politics of Protest

Articles inside

Good Protester, Bad Protester