Issue 4 - Censorship

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

The

Horace Mann Review

Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship Censorship

Page

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

The

Horace Mann Review 4 Free to Say What?

Issue 4, Vol. XVI

By Jason Sunshine

Minority Factor

By Dan Temel

6 An Ordered

22 Mao Money,

Silence

By Alice Kissilenko

Mao Problems

By Thomas Hwang

8 Defining

24 On the Fence

Obscenity

By Rumur Dowling

10 Desperate to Fit

In: Self-Censorship of Minorities

By Joseph Pomp

11 Harry Potter and the Banning of Wizardry

By Nancy DaSilva

About Free Speech

By Antonia Woodford

14 Genocide in Armenia Denying the Truth

By Ben Mishkin

16 Kirby Dick:

This Interview is Not Yet Rated

Piracy in Russia

By Jarett Bienenstock

18 Nancy Pelosi:

The First Hundred Hours

By Ben Jacobson

Page

26 The Wall of Shame

By Zachary Malter

28 Fuel for the Fire

By Ben Mishkin

By The Review Staff

29

12

20 Race to ‘08: The

Classified Secrecy Practices of the Bush Administration Revealed

32 Censorship Hits Theaters

By Sam Shelley

By Zachary Malter

34 Expelling the Headscarf Turkey’s Ban on the Hijab

By Venkat Kausik

38 Fuel for the Fire

By Ben Mishkin

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

Letter From the Editor The Horace Mann Review Volume XVI , Issue IV

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture Charles M. Stam Editor-in-Chief

Kunal Malkani Anoushka Vaswani Executive Editors

Diana Greenwald

Carl Case

Managing Editor

Production Manager

Naomi Mishkin

Dexter Richard

Layout Editor

Director of Technology

Jed Feiman Lindsay Gellman Josh Parker Tal Shachar

Rachel Siegel Jake Sloane] Jon Katerai

Ted Sumers Director of Photography and Design

Neal Poole Director of Subscriptions

Senior Editors

Robby Shapiro Contributing Editor

Gopal Das Director of Operations Associate Editors Benito Fernandez, Venkat Kausik, Will Kim, Alice Kissilenko, Zachary Malter, Ben Mishkin, Sam Shelley, Kimya Zahedi Contributing Writers Jarett Bienenstock, Amanda Cole, Nancy DaSilva, Rumur Dowling, Katie Dubbs, Will Dubbs, Benito Fernandez, Elizabeth Goodstein, Thomas Hwang, Ben Jacobson, Venkat Kausik, Michael Kurtz, Jon Katiraei, William Kim, Alice Kisselenko, Binchan Luo, Zachary Malter, Eliza Montgomery, Ben Mishkin, Sonja Perl, Joseph Pomp, Gaurav Saxena, Sam Shelley, Jason Sunshine, Daniel Temel, Belle Yoeli, Kimya Zahedi The Board of Trustees Bharat Das, Raj Hathiramani, Shaan Hathiramani, David Katz, Daniel S. Levien, Sabeel Rahman, Eric Todrys, Mark Todrys, Maximilian D.C. Thompson Zachary Fryer-Biggs

Dear Friends,

After what has been a year of great change for The Review, it is time for us to move on. I will step-down as Editor in Chief next year to pursue other interests and activities both within The Review and the Horace Mann community. I leave behind a publication that has made huge strides while exceeding our expectations every step of the way. I know that next year’s board will adhere to and exceed the same standards of excellence we have all become accustomed to. I cannot say enough about my colleagues on this publication, and I hate to say it, but they will surely do a better job than I have done.

Censorship is an emerging issue in our world today. At Horace Mann, students often feel frustrated by their inability to speak with candor and will scoff that they feel censored. On the national level we are faced with increased governmental oversight as a result of these turbulent times. There is a man seeking the Republican nomination for president who authored legislation that blatantly censors political groups and obstructs campaign freedom. Debate over the patriot act has raged for the past few years. Thus, the editorial board felt that censorship was a multifaceted and nuanced issue that merited our coverage.

Our last issue of the year is the junior issue, which allows for members of the publication to step into new roles. In the junior issue I will write to you again and formally introduce next year’s board. I thank you for your continued readership and support.

Sincerely Yours, Charles M. Stam

Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio, Ms. Sharon Kunde, Dr. Barbara Tischler TheReview@horacemann.org The Horace Mann Review is printed throughout the academic year. The Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association.

Please contact The Horace Mann Review for information on advertisements at TheReview@horacemann.org. Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. © 2007, The Horace Mann Review

Page

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Free to Say What?

Censorship Within the EU

T

By Jason Sunshine

he European Union (EU), a supranational, in- were never killed. There is some controversy about that under tergovernmental union of twenty-seven Euro- ‘freedom of expression’ but we believe that there are limits to pean states, was officially created in 1992 with freedom of expression, and the limits are there when it is ofthe signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Many fensive to other religions and ethnic groups.” Banning swasEuropean countries were combined to create tikas and Holocaust denial seems harmless, even noble at first. a vast super-country – with its own national anthem, motto, The EU was created to integrate the democratic principles of and flag. Integrations include: a single market, consisting of European states, and its charter guarantees freedom of speech. a customs union and a common currency (the Euro), as well as Once some political opinions are censored, all expression may common agricultural, trade, and fishing policies. The Schengen be censored. It is far from clear where the censorship will stop.

Agreement of 1985 A nation or bloc politbuckofive abolished passport ical union that censors control and cusits constituents will toms checks within inevitably tend tothe EU, allowing wards totalitarianism. for almost free When people in power movement between choose what people the countries. It can and cannot say, was a landmark they will inevitably union in world hisattempt to eliminate tory – it allowed the opinions of those for Europeans to not in support of them. live, work, travel, Volatile issues and invest freely such as whether to within Europe. ban Holocaust denial The Euroare central in the depean Union, with bate over freedom of its own giant legspeech.

However, islative body, by banning even those definition, opens opinions leads us up the door for down a very slippery an increasingly slope. We cannot altotalitarian govlow this to happen ernment.

Since because preventing The EU is considering censoring images of cannabis, such as the one above. the Union was people from voicing established, it has been feared that it will rob states of their dangerous opinions may result in their increased popularity. national sovereignty. It appears as if the anti-EU activists’ Deborah Lipstadt says, “The way of fighting Holocaust deworst fears are coming true. Several member states have niers is with history and with truth.” The threat to European created proposals to impose resolutions that would result in countries is not radical opinion, but rather the unaccountable censorship within the European Union – including the cen- superstate with rapidly increasing, seemingly endless power. soring of web sites, banning of phrases/symbols such as swasProvisions in EU documents, such as Article 10 of the tikas, and changing of terms describing Islamic terrorists. European Human Rights Convention or clauses of the more Germany’s Justice Minister, Gabrielle Zypries, will an- recent Charter on Fundamental Rights, strongly defend freenounce plans to ban Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial through- dom of expression. The EU started off opposed to any form out the EU: “We have always said it cannot be the case that it of “wide-scale general or exploratory electronic surveillance,” should still be acceptable in Europe to say that six million Jews but since the September 11, 2001 attacks, it has passed laws

Page

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI allowing strict government control of material circulating the Internet. The latest and most important directive of its kind was Article 15.1 of the EU legislation (October 31, 2003) which obliges internet service providers and phone companies to retain all records of e-mails, internet activity, faxes and phone calls that have passed through their hands and guarantee the police, the courts, and some governmental bodies the ability to access them freely. The directive is being enforced so strictly, that in December 2003, the European Commission took legal action against France, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden for not fully incorporating it. The European Commission is also proposing to regulate commercial audio and video broadcasts over the internet and mobile phones. During a press conference, Viviane Reding, EU commissioner for Information Society and Media, said, “The proposals had nothing to do with free speech.’”

The EU has recently issued a draft resolution identifying cannabis as European “drug problem number one.” The resolution contains provisions for censoring and banning web sites that provide information on its cultivation or promote its use. The guidelines could even be extended to a point where every web site with a cannabis leaf on it is considered in violation of the law.

If passed, this resolution would limit the freedom of expression of an estimated 25-40 million cannabis users within the EU.

“The EU has recently issued a draft resolution identifying cannabis as European “drug problem number one.”

The resolution contains provisions for censoring and banning web sites that provide information on its cultivation or promote its use.”

The proposal is hypocritical because several countries of the EU, including the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain, cultivation of cannabis is legal. Citizens of these countries would be able to legally grow marijuana, but not write about it on the internet.

Franco Frattini, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security, declared he was in favor of some kind of self-regulatory media code in reporting about Islam. Now the EU officials are “discreetly reviewing the language [the EU] uses to describe terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam.

EU officials are working on what they call a ‘lexicon’ for public communication on terrorism and Islam, designed to make clear that there is nothing in the religion to justify outrages like the September 11 attacks or the bombings of Madrid and London.

The lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians.” Does it really matter what language is used to describe terrorists? Would that change any of their actions?

The term “Islamic terrorism” will no longer be used.

Nor will words such as “Islamist,” “fundamentalist” and “jihad.” The word “jihad,” for example, is used by Islamic terrorists to mean warfare against infidels, but according to an EU official “for a Muslim, Jihad is a perfectly positive concept of trying to fight evil within yourself.” In an effort to avoid alienating young Muslims, the term “Islamic terror-

ism” is to be replaced by “terrorism abusing Islam.” This law would succeed merely in limiting freedom of the press.

As the European Union continues to abolish the rights and liberties of its citizens, one has to ask, where is the line

“As the European Union continues to abolish the rights and liberties of its citizens, one has to ask the question, where is the line drawn between laws created for self-promotion and elimination of the opposition?”

drawn between laws that make society more secure, and laws created for self-promotion and elimination of the opposition?

Legally, governments should have the right to shut down certain television networks, radio stations, and web sites, but only those that specifically promote violence. If freedom of speech is to be maintained, freedom of the press must exist. A newspaper should be sold in stores, regardless of whether it supports those in power. Limiting freedom of the press is the first step towards squashing the opinions of those who oppose the government. EU officials may argue that safety and security has a price, but so does liberty, the very ideal the Union was created to preserve. If there is no line drawn between what the government controls and what it does not, the government may eventually control every aspect of a person’s life. The EU is not a replacement for each country’s own government, although it is starting to act as if it were. As a body, it is being given too much power. As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The government should regulate not freedom of expression, but promotion of violence.

What we are beginning to see is the emergence of a dystopia, a world where the only thing in question is what the government decides to put in question. That may sound extreme, but if the European Union government continues to increase its power, it will eventually gow beyond the control of its citizens. dustydavidson

Censorship decisions made by the EU would affect 27 countries.

Page

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

An Ordered Silence

By Alice Kissilenko

N

owhere in the forms required to enlist for the United States Armed Forces does it say that any blogs, public forums, commercial Web mail accounts, and instant messaging services must first be renounced. When brought out on the field, however, many soldiers are “ordered, yes ORDERED” to shut down their Web sites or find that complex military filters prevent access to seemingly harmless pages.

It is within the jurisdiction of the armed forces to censor, and consequently families at home find certain links blocked by military filtering mechanisms, often for personal or political ends.

One of the major factors contributing to such stringent measures is the speed of communications in the modern era. Those who monitor information transfers increasingly recognize the

“Soldiers are ‘ordered, yes ORDERED’ to shut down their Web sites or find that complex military filters prevent access to seemingly harmless pages.”

dire effects of their loss of control. In fact, the military views its control over the press as a matter of life and death. The military became notably suspicious of the media after the Vietnam War, blaming the media for losing the war and compromising American troops. It is necessary to protect secrets that are a danger to the

Page

state or that will demoralize fighters, at least until the operations are accomplished. The United States Army has also admitted to withholding information to cover up its mistakes and preserve its reputation. It retains the right to deny journalists access to sensi-

“It is clear that those responsible for censorship are being used as tools for personal and political ends.” tive areas in the name of public security, often to stifle reports of corruption. When outsiders are finally admitted, they find that “the situation is both laughable and disgraceful. It is clear that those responsible for censorship are being used as tools for personal and political ends, quite unconnected with the security of the State.”

There are circumstances, however, where censorship is necessary, and where rapid news feeds reveal valuable plans to the enemy within seconds and interfere with maneuvers. Thus, what began as a necessary safety measure evolved into the questionable practice of full-scale censorship, often challenging the applicability of the First Amendment rights. In general, the military advocates that with freedom comes responsibility and that they may supersede the First Amendment if maturity and reliability are not demonstrated.

Many Open Source Technology Group (OSTG) sites such as SourceForge.net, Slashdot.org, and Freshmeat.net find their US Army users upset when they encounter error messages that match those developed by the company Blue Coat, using a URL database

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI from the commercial filtering product, SmartFilter. These organizations are known to cooperate with various components of the US Armed Forces, especially the Air Force and Air Command bases.

Prominent news individuals, as well as blog sites such as Wonkette and Daily Kos, have launched revealing investigations into these subtle ties. Occasionally, personnel such as Air Force spokesperson Captain David W. Small will admit that “the Air Force does block Web sites to restrict use of the Web to official business and in accordance with specific guidelines in Air Force Instructions” (specifically AFI 33-129 and AFI 33-119). He followed with a detailed description of the blocking and filtering processes.

The Blue Coat blocker is installed at every base in the network control center and at the major command level in the Network Operations and Security Center. There are plans to expand this local approach to the enterprise level across the entire Armed Forces within the next two years as part of an infrastructure upgrade program. The plans would require the technological aid of Secure Computing Corp., which maintains and upgrades the list of Web sites that fit into each banned category, and SmartFilter, which allows organizations to customize their Internet experience based on their specific needs. SmartFilter separates Internet content into over seventy-three different categories so that customers can chose what types of Web content he or she wants available to his or her organization. Currently, base network control centers can add or delete specific Web sites from a local access/block list to enable them to quickly block known problem sites or to open Web sites for access if someone justifies them for official use. The military frequently blocks blogs and email sites to prevent its soldiers from accidentally divulging information to the general public. It also does not endorse phishing sites or other unofficial pages, which attempt to acquire sensitive information by masquerading as trustworthy entities.

However, a majority of the categories and sites blocked are hardly virulent, so much so that some are even laughable. For example, America’s Army – a game commissioned by the Army itself – is banned, and classified as Game/Cartoon

“The military frequently blocks blogs and email sites to prevent its soldiers from accidentally divulging information to the general public.

Violence. Sites that detail how to get remote access or shareware/freeware yield error messages, as well as Newsgroups, Computer/Internet categories, and Internet radio URLs. If soldiers attempt to argue that this censorship contravenes princi-

ples of freedom, they risk being relieved of their duties and removed from the base, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

This form of Web censorship did not replace the military’s traditional methods, but rather supplemented them. The military still retains the right to deny journalists access to an area, and thus control what reaches the press. The three-step system developed during the Gulf War is still employed by the US

“The military still retains the right to deny journalists access to an area, and thus control what reaches the press.”

Armed Forces. First, reporters are only allowed into a sensitive scene in “press pools” of specially chosen international journalists. Second, the rules and guidelines set to promote freedom and access will still be taken into account. And third, the military will allow certain “embedded journalists” to remain with the troops in order to tell the factual story, good or bad, before others feed the media with disinformation and distortions, as the military personnel believe they most certainly will continue to do.

The range of military influence off the field is also well disguised. The Defense Department is often contacted by Hollywood producers to offer important contributions to all film projects that deal with the army. This aid comes at a price, however: veto power over what goes into the film. As far as the military is concerned, any project it gets involved in must help in the “recruiting and retention of personnel.” Military advisors decide how troops are portrayed, the amount of death and blood, and the valor and glory attributed to the armed forces throughout the film. This goal isn’t surprising or sinister, but what is surprising is just how many producers and directors pay the price without anyone else ever being told about it.

The military can thus invade the cultural arena through entertaining propaganda, unbeknownst to the general public. It is this secrecy that invalidates military censorship and the film industry as well.

Just like any other organization, the military’s primary concern is to preserve its reputation so as to gather recruits and remain successful and legitimate. Among other factors, this justifies stringent security measures and unforgiving control. What began as the search for safe practices, however, evolved into the addicting beast of censorship and information denial. Paranoia that unofficial sites will influence public opinion has led the Armed Forces to employ filtering and blocking tools such as Blue Coat and SmartFilter within their own ranks, often resulting in ridiculous situations. Such occurrences anger the public and cause them to question the military and its legitimacy, quite the opposite of the military’s original goal. This vicious cycle can only be halted by a loosening of policies or a very good explanation.

Interested in writing for The Review?

Please email: thereview@horacemann.org

Page

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Defining Obscenity

By Rumur Dowling

roma

F

Henry Miller’s Tropic Of Cancer was banned by a U.S. district court in 1934.

rom its first publication in Paris in 1934, through the 1973 establishment of the Miller Test for obscenity, Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer has been at the center of the censorship issue. Now considered as ranking among the preeminent American literary works of the 20th century, the novel’s raw, explicit depiction of human sexuality was seen as scandalous when it was first published, resulting in its prompt repudiation from English-speaking countries. As such, even educated and con-

“In 1934, a U.S. district court ruled Tropic of Cancer obscene according to The Hicklin Rule. In the following decades, fear of federal lawsuits deterred numerous companies from publishing Miller’s novel.” senting adults were not afforded the opportunity to make their own decisions to read the novel. When it came to Tropic of Cancer and many other banned works of literature and art, citizens

Page

of many English-speaking nations were denied their individual freedoms of choice by outdated and paternalistic legal systems.

Obelisk Press was first founded in Paris to print novels, such as Tropic of Cancer, considered too risqué for American publication. Miller’s semi-autobiographical novel had to be smuggled into his homeland in order to reach American readers. Though widely ignored by most American literary circles of the time, Tropic of Cancer soon attracted a strong cult following. Henry Miller had not expected his novel to gain notoriety beyond a small Parisian audience when it was first published in 1934. At the time, the judicial landscapes in America and Britain relied on The Hicklin Rule for obscenity rulings, and Miller accurately predicted immediate censorship of his work.

The Hicklin Rule was established in 1868, resulting from the English case Hicklin v. Regina. In the case, Henry Scott was brought up on charges for publishing a crude, anti-Catholic propaganda pamphlet entitled “The Confessional Unmasked.” London recorder Benjamin Hicklin initially cleared his name, but this ruling was soon overturned. England’s chief justice, Alexander Cockburn, who reversed Hicklin’s decision, declared that any published work is obscene if it “deprave[s] and corrupt[s] those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” Despite its ambigu-

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI ous definition of obscenity, the statement set an obscenity ruling standard in England and the United States. As a result, many works of literature now revered by critics were banned as obscene without taking into account their artistic and educational merit.

In 1934, a U.S. District Court ruled that Tropic of Cancer was obscene according to The Hicklin Rule. In the following decades, fear of federal lawsuits deterred numerous companies from publishing Miller’s novel. Miller’s efforts continued to encounter resistance when, in 1940, the publisher of a pirated version of Tropic of Cancer was jailed for two years, and the books were taken off the market. However, Miller’s status as an important literary figure developed into superstardom as underground copies of the novel circulated.

By the late 1950s, Tropic of Cancer had received critical acclaim by American reviewers, and Miller’s plight cast him into the literary limelight. Then, in 1959, Grove Press, Inc. approached Miller, seeking permission to publish Tropic of Cancer. Rosset also offered to pay all future court expenses and to protect Miller from potential court appearances.

In the following year, Rosset and Grove Press published D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928), and successfully defended it from censorship for the first time. With this landmark decision, federal agencies including the United States Post Office immediately lifted the ban on Tropic of Cancer. Miller subsequently signed a contract with Grove Press, and the book was legally published in the United States.

Despite its sensational sales, Tropic of Cancer still had not been cleared in a federal case. As a result, individual states and counties reverted to the Hicklin Rule when deciding on the legal status of the novel. A set of state trials followed, with some states legalizing the book and others banning it. Many public libraries chose to wait for a fed-

“Despite its sensational sales, Tropic of Cancer still had not been cleared in a federal case. As a result, individual states and counties reverted to the Hicklin Rule when deciding on the legal status of the novel. A set of state trials followed, with some states legalizing the book and others banning it. eral ruling before deciding whether or not to obtain the book.

In 1964, the Tropic of Cancer censorship issue reached the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein. The case featured a citation of a different ruling, that of Jacobellis v. Ohio, made just hours before, which legalized a previously censored French film entitled Les Amants. This helped to convince the judges of the Tropic of Cancer case that material of any artistic merit could not be censored as obscene, and the novel, like the film, was therefore not obscene. Unfortunately, many booksellers and librarians continued to be harassed by those who found Tropic of Cancer too lewd for the general public to access. It was not

until nine years later that the issue was completely settled.

“The Miller Test, developed in 1973 after the federal case Miller v.

California, became the new standard for determining whether or not something is obscene. According to the test, no work can be found obscene if it has any “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

The Miller Test, developed in 1973 after the federal case Miller v. California, became the new standard for determining whether or not something is obscene. According to the test, no work can be found obscene if it has any “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The censorship of Tropic of Cancer has, for the most part, ceased. The novel is available for purchase in stores, online, and can be borrowed from public libraries. However, the repression of the novel and the nature of the bans it has encountered represent the misguided role of censorship on 20th century American literature.

Censorship’s central tenet is to protect the people, especially the youth of a nation, from obscene material of poor influence. In fact, many of those who fought to ban Tropic of Cancer had not even read the book, and therefore were acting purely on second-hand information. Those that had read the novel but supported its censorship acted solely on their own opinions of what was fit for public consumption. This paternalistic approach to censorship is particularly reprehensible, as it is not based on reason and understanding, but rather on arrogance and prejudice.

Though obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, defining obscenity is a nearly impossible task. There are no standards of obscenity to compare material to, and public opinion changes constantly. The Hicklin Rule remained in effect until the 1960s, even though it was established nearly 100 years prior. Until the trials of Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1960) and Tropic of Cancer (1964), books were subjected to a rule that was outdated and reflected the opinions of another generation, not a modern perspective.

Today, nation-wide censorship is ineffective: many people disagree with the officials making the bans, and censorship infringes upon artistic license, limiting many forms of expression.

Censorship allows federal agencies to push their own agendas forward at the expense of those who wish to access banned art.

Enforcing fair censorship is an enormous privilege and responsibility. That responsibility ultimately falls on individuals to protect themselves and their children from material they find vulgar or unfit. English-speaking countries banned Tropic of Cancer for over thirty years, but it is now considered one of the greatest novels of the 20th century. It is not up to the government to decide what is obscene for the people. Instead of being denied their right to important literature and art, individuals should have the right to judge obscenity for themselves.

Page

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Desperate to Fit In:

Self- Censorship of Minorities

W

By Joseph Pomp

mosseby

hen a minority group, be it political, reli- erance, the inhabitants’ beliefs are eradicated, with little gain. gious, or cultural, immigrates to a new enNevertheless, most forced assimilation that occurs nowadays vironment, it will most likely feel an urge is on an individual basis, and is thus less vicious than the widespread or pressure to assimilate. Some minorities form of the past. Yet most assimilation that is present is, in a sense, engage self-censorship, in which minori- self-censorship. Minorities are choosing to control themselves, in ties choose to restrain what they say in the public domain. How- all aspects: religion, political stance, physical appearance, and culever, most adaptations to society come in the form of assimilation. ture as a whole. But ultimately, these self-limitations are assimilaThey make religious and cultural adaptations, often resulting in tion. The minorities are swiftly, and thoroughly, changing their the disappearance of the traditions they and their ancestors have identity to fit within the parameters of the society they are entering. been practicing for centuIn order to have ries. In addition, political a truly diverse society, positions become diluted. it must be ensured that Learning the new lanminorities are not presguage and sometimes givsured to limit the unique ing up the native tongue traits they offer. While is also necessary. Many a place such as New voices are not heard, York City may seem to and the basic concept of be so unbelievable in democracy is thwarted. its cultural diversity, it Although assimitoo has its dilemmas. A lation is sometimes volprime example is when, untary, it can be forced in the aftermath of 9/11, upon immigrants, or even many Sikh taxi drivers an entire nation, when felt pressure to change. taken over by another They were categorized nation.

Probably the as “terrorists” simply most famous example of because some Amerithis is the process now cans associated their known as Romanization, traditional turbans with a phenomenon which those which some radioccurred when Rome ascal Muslims wear. Not similated the people of only were they clearly the lands it conquered. not terrorists, but also In the wake of 9/11, many Sikh taxi drivers felt pressured to change.

Places such as Gaul and their beliefs were commodern-day Britain were pletely different from culturally revamped. those of the terrorists.

Conquered peoples were forced to take on Roman names, learn Prejudices which lead to self-imposed censorship are unithe Latin language, surrender their troops and leaders, and at- versal. Jews in Spain at the time of the Inquisition were forced to tend new and improved schools. As a result of the harsh Roman change their beliefs or leave the country. In our own nation, Amertakeover, the course of European history was forever affected. indians feel inclined to adjust their customs to those generally acIn modern times, assimilation is not generally executed cepted here, simply because some Americans have decided that our as brutally as it was in the past. However, some may argue that population should be culturally homogeneous. Action must be takAmerica’s troops, when occupying foreign lands like Afghani- en. The minorities are not at fault for sacrificing their own identity stan and Iraq, force those who live in those countries to take on in order to assimilate. While it may be easy to blame them for not more “American” ways. This act of force is a strong display of maintaining their traditions, it is the responsibility of the surroundwhat is known as cultural imperialism, the process by which one ing people to insure that minorities feel comfortable in their environnation imposes its culture upon another. Sometimes this is for ment and do not feel pressured to change. Unless minority voices the better. In the case of the United States and Iraq, democracy are heard our society will become a bland, monochromatic place. is better than tyranny. Sometimes, however, by means of intol-

Page 10

Harry Potter

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

and the Banning of Wizardry

I

n 1997, JK Rowling introduced what would become one of the most popular but controversial books of the Twentieth Century: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, the first in a seven part series. Harry Potter provides entertainment and excitement for young and old around the world, and encourages students to read instead of spending countless hours in front of a television set or computer monitor. Yet in the past decade, thousands of requests have been received asking that the ground breaking series be removed from bookshelves worldwide, and The American Library Association ranked Rowling as the fourth most challenged author since 1990.

Despite the series’s great success, many believe the series promotes witchcraft and Satanic practices. Approximately 13% of the challenges -between 2000 and 2005 were due to religious beliefs, bringing up the issue of state censorship of literature, a la book burnings in Nazi Germany. Why should various religious groups have a say in what children read in public schools and libraries?

Harry Potter is a fictional tale of a school, Hogwarts, which teaches young witches and wizards how to master their magical skills. Though some may say this promotes witchcraft, how can one practice something that is purely fantasy? The potions and charms are completely made up by Rowling and some are found even in Shakespeare, such as this passage from Macbeth: “Fillet of a fenny snake, in the caldron boil and bake; Eye of newt, and toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog, adder’s fork, and blind-worm’s sting, lizard’s leg, and owlet’s wing.” By the same logic, the library should ban Shakespeare.

The magical world of Hogwarts is a fantasy for all readers, a world similar to those in countless science fiction novels. Reading the series is an escape for people from the routines of their daily “muggle” lives, allowing them to transport themselves to completely new places. What is the harm in providing that kind of release?

Why do these religious groups have the authority to decide what is permissible to read? Why should classics such as Huckleberry Finn and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde be banned because the subject matter is found objection-

Nancy DaSilva able? Time has proven that banning books is meaningless.

Many organizations and authors are standing up for Rowling and Harry Potter. An organization called “kidSPEAK” is determined to fight the censorship of the Harry Potter series. The group started in Zeeland, Michigan, where the superintendent banned Harry Potter from every public library and school. A group called “Muggles for Harry” fought for the ban to be lifted. A letter from the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression to the superintendent stated, “In this case, you have denied children the opportunity to encounter some extraordinary books that they may otherwise never know. They can’t hear them read in class. They can’t pick them up in the library.” Finally, the lobbying persuaded the superintendent to bring Harry Potter back into the community.

Author Judy Blume wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times supporting Rowling and discouraging the censorship of her novels. She discussed what she calls the ridiculous reasons for censorship: “At the rate we’re going, I can imagine next year’s headline: ‘“Goodnight Moon” Banned for Encouraging Children to Communicate With Furniture.’ And we all know where that can lead, don’t we?” said Blume.

The CEO of the Association of American Publishers also supports Rowling. In his memo, he explains Harry’s magical powers: “Adults who object to Harry Potter’s wizardry are right to feel threatened. Harry Potter is a magician of incredible power! He turns TV-watchers and video-game players into readers right under their parents’ noses. Any small boy who can accomplish in one stroke what legions of well-meaning adults haven’t been able to do is a small boy to be reckoned with. Maybe he SHOULD be banished!”

Book banning has been around for hundreds of years.

What seems particularly objectionable is that a book like Harry Potter is intended for young readers who recognize that it is a work of fiction. While some may want to dress up as Harry Potter for Halloween or pretend to play Quidditch, no one will kill newts to make potions or flick his or her wand to make a feather fly. These children know the boundary between reality and fiction, unlike some adults.

Page 11

Heading

Piracy in Russia

The Horace Mann Review

Microsoft’s Pursuit of a Russian Schoolteacher

I

By Jarett Bienenstock

Page 12

Bill Gates Web site

n September 2006, the Russian government arrested a In general, illegal programs are downloaded every day. The Russian school teacher, Alexander Ponosov, because Chinese black market has been proven to sell pirated versions of Ponosov had allegedly been downloading illegal ver- Windows Vista, Windows’ newest computer operating system, sions of Microsoft programming onto computers and for about two dollars and fifty cents. However, Microsoft does teaching students how to use it. Even though Micro- not seem to be taking the initiative to stop the piracy. Why is soft Chairman Bill Gates Bill Gates going after a ruhimself did not call for the ral Russian school teacher arrest, he and Microsoft with no hard evidence of have not dropped the chargguilt as opposed to the es, despite requests from more substantial violators? many Russians. Initially, Why has this lawsuit Ponosov was charged with persisted? Gates is stepinstalling pirated Microsoft ping down as chairman of software onto the computers.

Microsoft this year to work Prosecutors sought a fine of on various community ser$10,000 and up to 5 years vice projects of his and his in jail for the schoolteacher. wife’s charitable organizaAfter Ponosov claimed the tion, the Bill and Melinda software was already on the Gates Foundation. In the computers when he acquired spirit of his generosity, Mr. them for his school and after Gates should not mind that much protest and investigaa Russian school teacher tion, the prosecution changed explored Windows softits charge to the illegal use ware with his students. In of software and sought a fine fact, shouldn’t this instance of $115. Notably, an expert cause the Gates’s to donate determined that Ponosov computers with Windows acquired the computers in technology to the school?

August 2005, while the piIn February 2007, the rated software was not inRussian judge dismissed the stalled until April 2006. case against Ponosov on the Letters have been sent grounds that even if Ponosov to Bill Gates asking him to committed the alleged crime, drop the lawsuit because Microsoft’s injury was too they believe Ponosov is ininsignificant to constitute a nocent. One letter sent by crime. The Russian governFormer Soviet president ment claim that Ponosov did Mikhail Gorbachev and commit a crime. Ponosov Bill Gates is leading Microsoft’s charges against Ponosov. banker Alexander Lebedev may subsequently claim says, “Alexander Ponosov is a teacher who committed himself that he had not caused sufficient injury to constitute a crime. to educating children. A salary paid to the teacher for his work Why would Microsoft and Bill Gates risk such negais rather modest. There is simply no comparison between his sal- tive public relations and worldwide harm to their pubary and that paid to an ordinary staff working for your company. lic image for the sake of prosecuting a poor Russian Now Alexander Ponosov is facing several years in jail.” The school teacher in the virtually unknown village of Sepych? letter suggests that if Bill Gates withdrew the case, then more And, why would the Russian government play along? people in Russia would be encouraged to use Microsoft products.

Although the press coverage is made up largely of anti-Mi-

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI mal sales. To avoid this problem, Russia has started prosecuting companies that illegally copy software and shopkeepers who illegally sell it, parallel to the prosecutions in the United States of companies such as Napster for pirating copyrighted songs.

As long as Russia fails to provide a legal environment where manufacturers of intellectual property can avoid having their property pirated, Russia is likely to face an inability to import basic products for business and recreation. It is not only computer software such as Microsoft programs that are at issue. Other intellectual property such as movies, songs, and games sold on DVDs may not be made available to Russia if companies cannot acquire their due royalties.

Russia wants to become a member of the World Trade Organization so it can more easily export its goods to foreign countries. However, Russia first has to show the business world that trading in Russia is safe. In the end, Russia may understand that it needs to protect foreign business interests in intellectual property sold in Russia. In fact, the prosecution of Ponosov provided Russia with publicity that heightened the world’s awareness that Russia is taking dramatic steps to make it safe and profitable to sell intellectual property in Russia. Nevertheless, the prosecution of a poor school teacher in a poor town is more reminiscent of the old Russia, rather than a new, free Russia that is attempting to foster private enterprise by educating its students.

Gorbachev Web site

crosoft and anti-Russian accusations by the school teacher and his supporters, there appear to be three rational reasons why the criminal case was brought by the Russian government. Notably, Microsoft and Bill Gates did not bring a civil case for damages.

The Microsoft employee who attended the trial explained she did so because the Russian government required her to value the software that was illegally downloaded. Indeed, Gorbachev reported that he was satisfied with Microsoft’s response that it had not instigated the criminal prosecution and was not seeking civil damages.

The three rational motivations for bringing the criminal suit appear to be Russia’s need to show the world its legal system protects foreign business interests, Russia’s need to attract technology, and Russia’s attempt to become a member of theWorldTrade Organization.

For its long term economic development, Russia needs computer software and other technology so it can compete in the world economy with other countries that have access to the latest technology. As a practical matter, foreign companies cannot be expected to sell their technologies to Russians if it may be pirated. A trade group called the Business Software Alliance estimates the amount of pirated software in Russia is 83% of the Russian software market; therefore, for every copy of Microsoft software sold legally, five copies are sold illegally, and Microsoft receives no royalty on five out of six copies. Russia cannot expect software companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Nintendo, Palm, and Blackberry, to sell their latest products in Russia if they can’t obtain sufficient revenue. Consequently, these companies do not even invest the money to make software in Russian languages if they cannot recover the money in nor-

Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev has shown support for Ponosov.

Page 13

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Genocide in Armenia Denying the Truth

W

By Ben Mishkin

Page 14

Pamuk Homepage

hile in most cases of genocide responsible denial. He told a Swiss newspaper in February 2005 that “one government has acknowledged and apol- million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me ogized for its actions, one case, perhaps dares to talk about it.” It was after these statements, in June 2005, the first example of modern ethnic geno- that the Turkish Grand National Assembly passed the aforemencide, has yet to be put to rest. The Turkish tioned law in effect punishing those who talk about the genocide genocide of the Armeor are critical of the governnians of eastern Turkey ment’s continuing denial. from 1915 to 1917, in However, the governthe midst of World War ment and the people’s agI and the collapse of the gressive tactics against ofcenturies-old Ottoman fenders of “Turkishness” do Empire, has yet to be not end there. On January even acknowledged as 19th, 2007, the Armeniangenocide by the Turkish Turkish journalist Hrant government. In addition Dink was assassinated in to refuting these claims, Istanbul by extreme Turkthe Turkish government ish nationalists. Dink was prosecuted, or some known for his repeated critimight say, persecuted, cism of the Turkish governpublic figures in Turkey ment for failing to acknowlwho talk or write about edge the mass killings of the acts as genocide, Armenians. As a result of as the government achis views, Dink had preknowledges only ethnic viously been accused and strife, and lists disease, found guilty of “denigrating and famine as causes for Turkishness” under the same the deaths of possibly law that Pamuk was charged one million Armenians. with violating. Dink’s asOne of the those people sassination particularly is Turkey’s first and shocked observers, as it was only Nobel Prize Winthe first time that someone ner, Ferit Orhan Pamuk, had been killed so publicly who won the award over criticizing the Turkish in Literature in 2006. government’s involvement In 2005 the Turkin the Armenian genocide. ish Government passed a The charges against law stating that any TurkPamuk were dropped beish citizen who “explicitcause the law passed was an ly insults the Republic or ex post facto law, such that Turkish Grand National he would have been prosAssembly, shall be imecuted for a crime that was Orhan Pamuk won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature. posed to a penalty of imnot a crime when he commitprisonment for a term of six months to three years.” It was under ted it. However, that does not mean that the Turkish government this law that the Turkish government prosecuted Pamuk for speak- will not continue to prosecute those who speak out in the future. ing out in public about the supposed genocide. He had repeatedly Dink’s assassination brought incredible fear into the hearts and openly spoken both of the atrocities and of the government’s and minds of Turkey’s intellectuals, who are now terrified of

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

Armenians protested the assassination of government critic Hrant Dink. what might happen to them if they dare question the Turkish government’s official denial of the genocide: “Shadowy nationalist groups have issued chilling threats against authors and thinkers who, like Dink, speak out against Turkey’s official denial that the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 constituted genocide,” reported the Los Angeles Times on March 1st, 2007. Previously, journalists had been very outspoken in their disgust with the new law and its restrictions on freedom of the press, even holding a protest in March 2005, in which one hundred and fifty journalists marched through Istanbul wearing handcuffs and gags in their mouths. This unofficial clampdown, which is to some degree condoned and initiated by the new law does not bode well for the future of Turkey, especially for its international image.

Turkey was resoundingly criticized internationally for its censorship and restriction of freedom of speech. Many saw it as a further obstacle to Turkey’s membership in the European Union.

The EU was not at all pleased with Turkey’s suppression of basic rights, such as freedom of speech. The Turkish government has tried to convince the Turkish people of the benefits, economic, political and strategic, of joining the EU, but most average Turks do not look upon the EU as favorably as the government does for a number of reasons. They question the stated Christian nature of the alliance, compared to Turkey’s 99% Muslim population. Tension with traditional Europe goes back a long way in

Turkey, to the time of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire and culminating with World War I, the conclusion of which, the Treaty of Sèvres, is still looked unfavorably by Turks because of its perceived humiliation of Turkey by the European Allies.

The supposed genocide, or mass killings, took place from 1915 – 1917 in the midst of the great battles of the First World War, which proved to be the last of many for the exalted Ottoman Empire. At the time in Turkey, and for many years leading up to the war, serious reformist groups had organized in the hopes of updating the Sultanate to conform to the modern world. In 1913 one of those groups, the Young Turks, took control of the Ottoman government in a coup. Under the leadership of the Three Pashas, a triumvirate of revolutionaries, hundreds of thousands of Armenians in eastern Turkey were forcibly removed from their homes. As a result of the removals, hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of Armenians perished.

Much of modern Turkish history has involved the nation’s struggle to move beyond its past, with secularization, Romanizing written Turkish and developing closer and more peaceful ties with Europe, exemplified with efforts to try to join the EU. However, the modern Turkish state has yet to, admit to, overcome, and move past the Armenian genocide.

Page 15

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

This Interview Is Not Yet Rated

The Review interviews Kirby Dick, Award-Winning director Review Staff

How does your film relate to censorship in our culture on a larger level?

Well, I think that people tend to put most of their focus regarding censorship on government censorship, when in fact I think that corporate censorship is a much more serious problem, and that’s certainly what I’m trying to address in my film. This is a ratings board that’s run by the Motion Picture Association of America, which is a trade organization comprised of the six major film studios in control of nearly 95% of the US film business. So it’s one of the largest and most powerful trade organizations operating not only in Washington, but around the world. It’s probably the most powerful trade organization influencing international trade agreements. So we’re dealing with a very powerful organization. They have control of this rating system that not only rates their own films, but rates all films, all independent films, and foreign films as well.

They set up this system so that their films get through with the less restrictive ratings, and their competition, which is independent and foreign, gets the more restrictive ratings. So that’s how these films are getting censored. To go back to the main point, this is a situation where it’s completely run by a corporation, by a corporate entity.

such a vague system, because that allows them to fudge the ratings and push their films to make sure that their films get the lesser ratings and others, their competition, get the more restrictive ratings.

It’s one of the least professionalized boards in the country. There are no experts associated with it; there are actually no written standards the raters receive, there’s actually no training. So what you have is a system that they oversee that has no checks and balances whatsoever. No transparency here. This operates politically to their benefit because their primary focus as a trade organization is to lobby Congress to pass bills that are beneficial to the six member studios. And so, by coming down hard on films with adult sexuality, it plays well to Conservatives in Congress, and allows the MPAA to, in essence, woo their votes on the, for example, intellectual property laws that they’ve been able to ram through Congress. So what they’re doing is they’re using a rating system which reportedly is for the benefit of the public, but they’re using it actually in such a way that it benefits them, not only in terms of how their films get out to the marketplace, but also by coming down hard on their competition’s films that have adult sexuality, and benefits them in Congress.

Now when you say “adult sexuality,” is there an inclination to give films with adult sexuality a higher So when you say “their films,” you mean big-budget, rating than a film that has violence or a grotesque image? corporate-backed, big-studio kind of films?

Studio films have generally much larger budgets. They obviously run up to hundreds of millions of dollars. Even the smaller, independent films, they’re are a subsidy of them that are more independent-like, but those are 5-10 million. So a lot of the films that are coming in here that are truly independent are coming in anywhere from probably 500 thousand to 10 million. They’re definitely at the lowest end of the scale.

Absolutely. I mean, people have seen that for a long, long time.

The reason for that is the studios tend to make the more violent films, and the independents tend to make the films with more adult sexuality.

I mean, that’s not completely true, but still, across the board, that’s the tendency. I would say that if the studios were making films with adult sexuality, you would see much less restrictive ratings on those films.

Now who gives these people the ability to do this?

So they’re not really interested in censoring, in really What gives them enough clout to be able to give a rating making sure there’s appropriate content, but more in and then have it follow through or have people abet them? maintaining the monopoly on the industry?

They probably wouldn’t care one way or another. In fact, they’d probably prefer there were no ratings system at all. But if there’s going to be one, they want to keep control of it. And so they set up a ratings system that does not operate for the benefit of film-makers or the public, in fact it gives out very little and very inconsistent information to the public. But there’s a reason that it’s

Page 16

Well, I mean, again, you’re dealing with the MPAA overseeing them, so it’s that the MPAA represents 95% them. The thing is that corporations control nearly 95% of the film business. That gives it its clout, but also, they’re also doing it in consort with NATO, the North American Theater Organization, I believe it is. And in any case, they have an agreement.

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI So the organization is structured and there are people who are raters who are simply individuals off the street, but is it really the executives in the lobbying firm that get the final say?

It’s not so much that executives get the final say; they have much more access to these raters through people in their corporations, in particular, more direct access than independent film-makers do. But what they’ve done is they’ve set up a system in which the most powerful people on the ratings board are very predisposed to rate films the way the studio wants them rated. And certainly there are films like Spielberg films, the one about the invasion of D-day.

With films by major filmmakers or major studio films, often, there’s a great deal of pressure on the board, and the board feels that pressure to give those films the rating that those studios want their films to get.

But then again, there are films like “Boys Don’t Cry” and “The Cooler” which were fairly well-reviewed and critically acclaimed films that had problems with the ratings system. Were those not mainstream, big-studio, big-budget films?

Well, I wouldn’t consider those mainstream films. Those are independent films. They did well by independent standards, but they’re not on the level of the big-budget films.

What is this with church involvement that was a big part of your film?

As far as the religious representation, there are two religious representatives on the appeals board, and they were put in place about 30 or so years ago because a particular couple of churches were highly critical of the ratings board, so in order to appease them, Jack said, okay, we’ll give you a special slot on the board as observers, basically. So the churches had special access and a special relationship that no other organization or any other denomination had. There’s no representative rabbi on the board. There’s no Muslim on the board. It’s really a special statement that was given to the particular religious organization.

Biography Kirby Dick is an Academy Award nominated director whose last five films have premiered at Sundance. Dick’s most recent release, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated,” is a breakthrough investigation of the highly secretive MPAA film ratings system. The film opened to great critical acclaim and has been widely credited with compelling the MPAA to make changes in the ratings system.

Dick’s prior film, “Twist Of Faith,” is the powerful story of a man confronting the trauma of his past sexual abuse by a Catholic priest. Produced for HBO, “Twist of Faith” received a 2005 Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.

Dick’s other films include, “Derrida,” a complex portrait of the world-renowned French philosopher, which won the Golden Gate Award at the San Francisco Film Festival, and the internationally acclaimed “Sick,” which won the Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival and the Grand Prize at the Los Angeles Film Festival. Released by Lion’s Gate Films, “Sick” earned both an IFP/West Spirit Award Nomination and an International Documentary Association Nomination for Best Feature Documentary.

Dick studied at the California Institute of the Arts and the American Film Institute, and is a member of the Documentary Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

The MPAA gave your film a restricted rating, NC-17, which means that it can’t be sold in most retail shops and it can’t be carried on Netflix, right?

And those are deals that the MPAA has brokered with these corporations to increase their clout?

Kirby Dick

It can be carried on Netflix and it is being carried on Netflix, but Blockbuster and Walmart won’t carry it. There are a number of theater chains that won’t carry it. There are advertising restrictions in television and newspapers.

Its not that they brokered them; they’ve allowed them to exist. As far as the distribution outlets, the MPAA with its muscle could set up a rating system where in most cases there might be some.

Page 17

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Nancy Pelosi’s Chance

A

The First Hundred Hours

By Ben Jacobson

Web

fter winning the House of Representatives our eye off our ports for the blink of an eye. Eliminate a threat, in the November elections, Democrats instead of catching it. Companies and consumers will both promised radical changes in the 110th ses- suffer because of the tediousness of going through everything sion of congress. Spearheaded by Speaker of in a port. This will raise taxes, raising the prices of imported the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrats aimed goods. No one will benefit. This bill is designed only as a poto pass six bills that would: accept the 9/11 Commission rec- litical move in order to show that Democrats are taking action, ommendations, increase the minimum wage, expand federal but certainly not the best policy for the safety of Americans. funding for stem cell research, require Medicare to negotiate Sticking to Democratic ideals, the House passed a bill raislower prescription drug prices, and cut the interest rates on stu- ing the federal minimum wage. The bill increases the minimum dent loans, achieve energy independence by repealing subsi- wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years. Pelosi wrote on dies to Big Oil and investing the savings in renewable energy. her web site “nearly 13 million people would likely benefit from House Resolution 1 implements the recommendations of the increase,” and “It is wrong to have millions of Americans the 9/11 Commission by mandating full inspection of air and working full-time and year-round and still living in poverty.” sea cargo entering the United States and shifting more homeMaybe a noble notion, but House Democrats fail to realize land security funding to communities with high-risk terror tar- the long-term effect of raising the minimum wage. Only Kansas gets. As reported has a minimum

by CNN, House wage below the Homeland Secufederal level, rity Committee while more than Chairman Bennie half the states Thompson, (Dalready have set Mississippi), unlevels above the der the provisions federal level, so of H.R. 1, all air at its core raiscargo entering the ing the federal nation would be level does little. screened within F u r three years and all thermore any shipped cargo in change to miniabout four years. mum wage will The Demohurt small busicratic bill is funness across the damentally not country. President feasible. It inhibBush has indicatits foreign trade, ed that he would which will be a disupport only a saster for an econminimum-wage omy in the midst increase that inof an upswing. By cluded tax breaks establishing bodfor businesses. ies that will over- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D- If the wage rise see the bill’s decame with tax cuts CA) plan for the first one hundred hours of the new Congress mands, Congress or other provisions creates too many bureaucracies that will not tighten US secu- to balance higher labor costs then it would not hurt small busirity but rather decrease efficiency and thus making America less ness, but in its current state this raise will only restrict busisafe. To improve security we need vigilant action abroad to pre- ness from hiring more workers. Raising the minimum wage vent the formation of threats. Only then will we be able to take can’t increase the worth of workers’ labor, but it will encoursite of the

Speaker of the

House

Page 18

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI Amherst Plasmo NYC

The only measure proposed by the Democrats that will actually improve Americans’ lives is the bill to cut interest on student loans. age companies not to hire those whose labor is not worth the elevated minimum wage. Not only will the workers be affected but also the consumers will. Consumers will be forced to pay more for products and services, because companies have to pay more for the creation of the product or service.

However, the bill most likely to be vetoed by the President increases funding for embryonic stem cell research. A highly polarizing issue because of moral and religious beliefs, the government should shy away from stem cell research. Many feel that this bill is a government statement in favor of abortion and the misuse of embryos. The New York Times interviewed Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, who said, supporting research in leftover embryos “will create a market for creating and cloning more human embryos for the express purpose of killing them.’’ Regardless of religious and moral beliefs, if it is good for the country and there is enough support then the private sector will fund and support stem cell research. The government does not need to get involved.

The fourth Democratic bill requires Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. This bill is another unnecessary and meddlesome bill that will disturb the already efficient private sector. There is a long history in the United States that when the government becomes involved in a program, the program becomes more complicated and helps less people. Private medical plans have held down health costs for years. In fact the quality and life expectancy is up in the United States. Americans must be responsible at some basic level for taking care of themselves.

Nationalized health care in other countries leads to “economized spending,” which means that there are no alternative treatments pursued, you get what the government pays. Americans should

be able to spend their own money on medical treatment, receiving the type of treatment they deserve. There is no guarantee that the government will do the same. If Medicare is able to negotiate with drug companies, then private insurance companies will lose their advantage. Americans do not want private companies engaged in a bidding war with the government.

The only bill that will actually benefit Americans proposes to cut interest rates on student loans bill. As the cost of attending college increases, lower income bracket Americans are finding it harder and harder to afford college. For this reason, the bill cutting interest rates on student college loans is an effective, important, and sound way of addressing the issue of education.

The bill repealing big oil subsidies rescinds the $7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil drillers that Congress passed in 2004 and 2005 and raises another $6.3 billion in royalties from companies that pump oil and gas in publicly owned waters off the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska. Democrats claim that the bill will encourage the search for alternative energy use, but in fact it will take away American jobs. The government should not be involved in regulating prices. It is for the free market to regulate prices. The bill would increase energy costs for manufacturers and prompt them to move more jobs to foreign markets.

Pushing through legislation does not guarantee good legislation. Good legislation is thought out, carefully planned so that it best suits the needs and wants of the American people.

The first 100 hours of a congressional session should work to make sure the whole congressional session is successful not for political gain but rather for America’s gain. The purpose of a democracy is to hear many people voice various opinions. To not criticize the Democrats’ first 100 hours is to accept totalitarian government rather than a democratic one.

Page 19

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Race to ‘08 How Race Will Influence the 2008 Presidential Election

By Daniel

temel

Evan Vucci

A

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are members of two of the tradtionally under represented minorities running for president. s the preliminary stages of the 2008 presidential election approach, a number of diverse presidential hopefuls have declared their intended candidacy. Two prominent senators, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - New York) are vying to become either the first African-American or woman, respectively, in the Oval Office. The more traditional presidential candidates have had mixed reactions to the backgrounds of their rivals.

Sen. Joe Biden (D - Delaware), who announced his candidacy on January 31st, has shown the utmost respect to his fellow candidates; however, later that day an interview with the New York Observer created controversy and generated a swift public apology. Biden had been quoted as calling Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” In a normal election this statement might have been overlooked, but with pundits and the media looking to sink any candidate who mentions the race, gender or religion of an opponent, Biden’s campaign has already been tainted. Experts predict that more examples of this influence on race, gender and religion will surface in the media in the months to come.

Page 20

Race has played a prominent role in the campaign of Barack Obama. Obama, only 45 years old, is the fifth AfricanAmerican Senator in US history and has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War since its commencement in 2003. Due to his liberal policies, Obama has become very popular with the 18-35 demographic and has gained the support of publications such as Time magazine and The New York Times. Born to a white mother and a Kenyan father in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a charismatic speaker who identifies with the white, African-American, Asian-American and Native American communities. Obama was raised in Jakarta, Indonesia where his mother remarried an Indonesian man. While Obama’s early support and crossover appeal to different races has left him as the second favorite in the Democratic primary, some members of the African-American community feel that Obama is not “black enough” and has not “lived the black experience in the United States.” Ronald Walters, president of the African American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, is not surprised that African-Americans have shown an early reluctance to support Obama. Walters has been quoted as saying that “It’s not strange at all that blacks would view him with a little suspicion. When somebody presents

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

Randy Thomas

themselves, you want to look them over and if they don’t share overcome adversity to become one of the most influential senators your background you might withhold judgment.” Even if many on the hill. Clinton sits on five senatorial committees, including of Obama’s policies appeal to the interests of the African-Ameri- the Committee on Armed Services, and has been listed on the Time can community, his lack of racial identity has left him in an awk- 100 most influential people twice. At the announcement of her inward position that may end up defining his electoral campaign. tentions to run for president, Clinton stated, “I’m in. And I’m in Another minority candidate for the upcoming election to win.” Clinton’s confidence combined with her moderate stancis the former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, who es on many hot button social and political issues have made her has emerged as one of the top Republican candidates in the 2008 the frontrunner in the early Democratic primary polls. Although election due to his Clinton’s policies on neutral policies and same-sex marriage, ability to define the abortion, and the middle. Romney, a Iraq War best repMormon, believes resent the views of in the importance the country, voters in of traditional famthe electoral battleily values, includground state of Iowa ing marriage bewere not convinced tween a man and a when Clinton came woman, as well as to speak on January more liberal poli29th, 2007. “I have cies on immigramy concerns about if tion and gun conshe’ll be able to hantrol. His ability to dle it being a womappeal to both sides an, and not because of the House has she doesn’t have the helped him secure knowledge or ability the endorsements but whether she’ll of former Speaker get the respect from of the House Dena man,” said Joe Wanis Hastert (R-Illithan of Durant, Iowa nois), Senators Bob in an interview with Bennett (R-Utah), Reuters. While ClinLarry Craig (Rton impressed posIdaho), and Matt sible voters in Iowa, Blunt, the Repubher gender will play a Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts is a top contender for the Republican nomination lican Governor of major role in voters’ Missouri. However popular Romney’s policies may be, his re- perceptions of her, and she will need to convince them that she can garligion has already engendered concern, similar to those which ner enough respect from foreign leaders to be a successful president. surfaced during the 1960 presidential campaign of Roman While race is certain to define this election, presidential Catholic John F. Kennedy. Opponents have claimed that a Mor- hopefuls have been trying to make their names known through mon would take orders from the president of the Church of Je- other mediums including speeches and endorsements from forsus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and this prejudice has set back mer presidents and senators. The 2008 election is unique in that Romney’s campaign. With the increased influence of the Prot- this is the first election in over 50 years in which an incumbent, estant and Evangelical religions in the Republican Party, church either the president or the vice-president, will not receive a party leaders are worried that Republicans in the Bible Belt will not nomination. Without an official presidential endorsement, canvote for a Mormon simply because of his faith. James Dobson, didates are scrambling to get their policies out to the people of a powerful Evangelical Christian leader, does not believe “that the United States in an unbiased manner. It is expected that votconservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mor- ers will vote both on party lines and on candidates’ policies, but mon” even if “a lot of his principles and values are consistent race, gender, and religion will likely play a key role in deciding with [our community’s].” Romney looks to address these con- the winner. Doubts about whether a woman, an African-Amercerns with heavy campaigning and question and answer sessions. ican, or a Mormon can lead the country through the beginning The final presidential candidate who will be defined by of the 21st century will make this election a highly contested a factor other than his or her policies is Senator Hillary Rodham one where no presidential frontrunner is a guaranteed winner.

Clinton. Clinton is one of fourteen women senators, and she has

Would you like to write for the Review?

Email thereview@horacemann.org

Page 21

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Mao Money, Mao Problems Caffeineguy

By Thomas Hwang

I

As China’s economy has soared so too has its need for raw materials.

n 1979, after decades of central planning, the Chinese government decided to liberalize its economy. Reform shifted the Chinese economy from a communist style to a more market-oriented one. This new system, Chinese Socialism, still operates within the political framework provided by the Communist Party of China.

Concerned with its meager $163 per capita income the Chinese government implemented a series of trade reforms to encourage foreign investments and exports. These policies included duty exemptions and fiscal incentives to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) into the Chinese economy. These tax incentives, coupled with China’s cheap and relatively well-educated labor force, resulted in a large influx of FDI into China, providing it with the capital and technology necessary for development. The influx of capital has helped lift millions of Chinese out of poverty. Between 1981 and 2001 alone the poverty rate plummeted from 53% to 8%.

During the beginning of this liberalization process in the late 1970s, high international oil prices limited China’s exports to primary commodities. As global oil prices plunged in the 1980s, the growing domestic demand for oil reduced the profitability of such exports. Thus, Chinese labor and resource-intensive products such as textiles, clothing and footwear, soon dominated their exports.

The 1990’s saw a further diversification of China’s manufacturing exports to include chemicals, machinery and electronics, both parts and finished products. Undoubtedly, it was the strength of China’s manufacturing sector that fueled the rapid economic development.

Page 22

Since 1980, manufacturing productivity in China has expanded at an average rate of 9.4% per annum and has almost tripled between 1993 and 2002. This accelerated growth can be attributed to the sudden increase in FDI since the mid-1990s, which increased from US$45 billion in 2002 to US$53 billion in 2003. With this value amounting to almost 12% of the world’s total FDI, China has become one of the world’s largest FDI recipients, second to only the United States. With the steady expansion of its manufacturing sector and low and stable exchange rates over the past decades, China’s export volume has grown by 33% since its liberalization, making it the third largest exporter in merchandise goods in 2004 and a supplier of 9% of the world’s merchandise exports. At the start of 2006, China’s National Bureau of Statistics announced that China was the 4th largest economy, and had surpassed both France and the United Kingdom. Currently, China is still the fourth largest economy in the world at about $10 trillion USD. By the end of 2008, China is predicted (measured by exchange rate) to overtake Germany as the third largest economy and should surpass Japan by 2015.

Due to the recent rapid progress in industrialization and economic expansion, Chinese energy usage has also skyrocketed. The increase of investment in the construction of factories, housing and other infrastructures in the 1990s, along with the heightened demand for high-energy products such as automobiles and home appliances, has increased China’s use of energy. Although China is a producer of primary commodities, such as oil and minerals, domestic

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI suppliers were unable to keep up with the rapid rise in demand.

In 2004, for example, China imported 2.9 million barrels of oil per day while exporting only 340,300 barrels. As a result of this gap between energy imports and exports, China relies heavily on energy imports to fuel its growing economy. A large proportion of these imports is supplied by developing countries in other regions of the world. Thus, the rise of China over the past two decades has also tremendously contributed to the growth of primary commodity exporters in West Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Unfortunately, these newly prospering nations face a dismal future. These countries are beginning to become dependent upon their mono-exports. Dependence heightens the vulnerability of their economies to the “vagaries of world demand”- that is, a sudden, downward shift in commodity prices might trigger economic collapse. In addition, the continual expansion of China’s economy and the dominance of its manufacturing sector have made it a large importer of manufactured parts and raw materials from other developing countries, both within the Asian region and beyond. China assembles the parts and exports them to the United States and other developed countries. Thus, these developing countries depend not only upon China’s economy but also on the import demand from the developed world, two dependencies that will only accelerate future collapse.

However, these developing nations are not the only countries being affected by China’s enormous economic leap forward. The increase in oil prices, fuelled by China’s economic growth, has even affected the average consumer in the United States. The prices of consumer products in the United States have increased with the rise in import prices of oil. Product prices are affected by oil prices because oil is the main component of production, transportation, and operation costs. As these high price levels persist, workers have begun demanding higher wages to meet their increased daily expenses.

Should workers successfully bargain for higher wages, companies would further increase consumer prices to compensate for their loss in profits due to higher worker wages, causing the inflation rate to continue spiraling upwards. If this trend continues, the country as a whole would experience a fall in domestic demand, leading to cutback in output and employment opportunities, as well as a decrease in resources for investments in capital markets and new technologies.

Some nations have, after realizing the limitations of a monoexport economy, made efforts to expand their export basket into the pro-

duction of manufactured goods. This well-meaning economic diversification, however, has aggravated another global problem: competition. The recent restructuring of the clothing and textiles industry in China has imposed a downward pressure on the prices of Chinese textiles and clothing and, with its low prices, given China the upper hand in the already fierce competition in the world market for clothing and textiles. Met with such resistance and unable to compete with Chinese counterparts, the industries of developing nations have been forced to either stagnate or withdraw from the market completely.

The effects of China’s growth have not only been felt in the international economic forum. The booming Chinese economy also poses several domestic concerns, particularly that of income inequality. In China, most of the recent development has been concentrated in the urban areas of the eastern coastal regions, while much of the rural, Western portion of the country remains impoverished. The welfare of China’s 800 million rural residents has not improved in conjunction with the improvement in the economy. This discrepancy has contributed to, if not directly caused, the income disparity present in Chinese society. Rising inequality is evident from the Chinese gini-coefficient, a measurement calculating the income equality in an economy (it increases with growing inequality). The coefficient has risen from 0.13 in 1981 to 0.44 in 2000.

Rapid expansion has also led to severe environmental consequences. A 1998 World Health Organization report on air quality in 272 cities worldwide concluded that seven of the 10 most-polluted cities were in China. Further, it is estimated that nearly all of the nation’s rivers are considered polluted to some degree, and half of the population lacks access to clean water. In fact, various studies estimate pollution costs the Chinese economy about 7% of its total GDP each year.

Indeed, for China, increased economic development does not equal increased happiness. The Chinese government has only recently become aware of the by-products of their growth. Moving into the future, questions still linger: “Can American products survive once the Chinese economy begins to cool down?”

“Will investors begin to flee from China once ‘cooling down’ begins?”

Unfortunately, only time can answer these questions. Perhaps moves by China’s Central Bank to rein in the economy aren’t so bad after all.

Bret Arnett

Page 23

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

on the fence about free speech Is Columbia Students’ Protest of the Anti-Immigration minutemen Appropriate?

On college campuses across the country, students are debating whether or not freedom of speech applies to racially sensitive speeches -- that is, speeches that minority groups might find sensitive. Recently, Columbia University students have grappled with this issue when, at the request of the Columbia University College Republicans, anti-immigrant activists from the Minuteman Project, a vigilante border-patrol group that has used forceful methods to curtail illegal immigrant across the U.S- Mexico border, were invited to speak at the school.

The event opened with a 45-minute address by Marvin Stewart, a member of the Minuteman board of directors. According to the Columbia Spectator, Stewart’s speech was punctuated by numerous shouts from an already agitated crowd. He was criticized as a hypocrite and a “sellout” for being black and yet supporting the Minutemen, a group widely regarded as racist for its severe antiimmigration policies. Stewart responded to the insults by calling the audience ignorant and resuming his speech at a louder volume.

At one point a member of the audience yelled, “In Spanish, please!” eliciting, according to the Spectator, a strong chorus of cheers and applause in the auditorium. As Stewart brashly tried to counter this, his words were lost in the roar of the crowd, with several audience members turning their backs to him and chanting for him to “wrap it up.” Stewart was eventually escorted off the stage by Chris Kulawik, the president of the College Republicans, who reprimanded the audience before introducing Gilchrist as the main speaker.

Gilchrist began by slinging an arm around Stewart and demanding, “Who’s a racist now?” According to the Spectator, he went on to further provoke the crowd and shout, “I love the first amendment! You’re doing a great job, kids.

I’m going to have more fun with this than with my prepared speech.” He then fielded what many attendees felt was a mock phone call to his wife, raising his tone to declare into the microphone, “I’m amongst the largest collection of eclectic social maladroits I’ve ever seen in my life. You have no idea.”

The mounting disapproval from the crowd finally erupted as two members of Columbia’s International Socialist Organization (ISO) took the stage, holding a large banner proclaiming “No one is illegal!” in English and Spanish. Protestors and Gilchrist supporters alike swarmed the stage, and what was originally intended as a peaceful protest escalated into a short-lived melee. One pro-

Page 24

by Antonia Woodford

testor was reportedly left bleeding after being kicked in the head by a Minuteman supporter, an action confirmed by video footage that rapidly spread online through public sites such as YouTube.

Though the University police quickly brought the situation under control, several questions remained unasked: Should any nature of speech be permitted, no matter how offensive or insulting it may be? And when students disagree with a speaker, as is often the case, how strongly should they be allowed to voice their dissent?

Certainly, it is necessary to have codes of conduct protecting students from being targeted or harassed. In classrooms, on campus, and even during an event with a radical speaker, students need to respect each other and not engage in so-called “hate speech.” But is it appropriate to have similar codes of conduct for guest speakers? Should speakers be allowed to make statements that offend certain groups?

In addition to Columbia, other universities have been criticized for their choice of speakers and have been forced to regulate which guests may speak on campus. In 2005, for example, Princeton University cancelled an event during which three ex-terrorists had been scheduled to give presentations; one of these speakers was Walid Shoebat, a former member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was scheduled to lecture about his indoctrination as well as his subsequent decision to turn away from terror and become an advocate for Israel.

University officials cited the event as “too inflammatory,” and complained about the national publicity being given to the event by its promoters. The officials’ statement generated a great deal of criticism, accusing the officials of being receptive to only pro-Palestinian views. After his invitation was revoked, Shoebat accused the university of seeking to censor him. According to Walid Shoebat Foundation’s executive director, Keith Davies, “Princeton [was] creating red tape to stop the event.”

By allowing only certain speakers to present their views, a university creates the impression that only “acceptable” views are permitted. In addition to being criticized for stifling healthy debate, these universities also open themselves up to accusations of endorsing the beliefs of the invited speakers. Instead of trying to calculate which speakers will be too provocative, university administrators should allow a complete spectrum of speakers, while simultaneously distancing themselves from the views of the speakers.

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI Columbia University College Republicans’President Kulawik cise their free speech by stepping onto the stage, are they then expressed concern that Republicans, as a minority on campus, are robbing Mr. Gilchrist of his right to speak freely, no matter how often silenced. Lauren Steinberg, executive director of the College outrageous his views are? Are student groups such as the College Republicans, told the New York Sun, “We’ve often feared that there’s Republicans being censored if their invited speakers are disrupted? not freedom of speech at Columbia for more right-wing views.”

By preventing Mr. Gilchrist from completing his speech, Yet even among conservatives, the Minutemen are consid- the protestors allowed his provocation to succeed. They gave him ered to be an extremist group. Though their mission statement the ammunition to later propagate his views on national television, reads that they are merely trying to bring “national awareness to putting themselves rather than him in a position to be blamed and the decades-long careless disregard of effective U.S. immigration insulted. Had he kept speaking, Gilchrist likely would have proved law enforcement,” they confront immigrants using terror and bru- his incoherence and outrageousness on his own; the protesting stutality. The statement declares that America is being “devoured and dents only provided him with fodder for his wild claims. The crowd plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal also gave the College Republicans another reason to bemoan their aliens,” a viewpoint lack of representathat makes the Mintion on campus, and utemen seem opto allege that there is posed to immigration no freedom of speech altogether. Considerfor right-wing views. ing Columbia’s very Most people, diverse campus, it is including Univernot surprising that sity president Lee so many would find Bollinger, have conthe Minutemen to demned the protesbe deeply offensive. tors’ actions. WideThough Kulawik spread opinion is claims to have orgathat even though nized the event in orthe Minutemen der to foster debate, were provocative, many Columbia the audience should students disagree. not have prevented Columbia them from speakstudent Yadira Aling. Recently, a varez explained in new Resolution on the Spectator, “IlFree Speech passed legal immigration is by the University one thing, but what Senate affirms that, they’re doing to hu“the Student Body man beings is someof Columbia UniStudents and Faculty protest the Minuteman vigilante anti-immigration group. thing else. America versity has a right is a nation of immigrants. There is no way that someone can go to invite speakers with varied points of view to campus, and it against that.” The Chicano Caucus, a student organization, mo- is unacceptable within [the] community to take away someone bilized outside the university in protest prior to the event. Sev- else’s right to express their opinions and viewpoints.” Yet Coeral other student groups, including the ISO, the Black Students lumbia has a history of bringing political controversy to campus, Organization, and Students Promoting Education and Knowledge and administrators recognize the need to allow for protest. Uniagreed to co-sponsor the protest and encouraged members to par- versity policy on invited speakers has come under scrutiny by ticipate, though none of them condoned rushing the stage inside. some students, criticizing the policy as being “too restrictive.”

According to Karina Garcia, political chair of the Chicago As described in the Spectator, students wishing to stage Caucus and an organizer of the onstage protest, the incident was not a protest must reserve a space one week in advance. Even if an issue of free speech at all. During her appearance on the PBS news the confirmation of a guest speaker’s invitation is announced program Democracy Now! she said, “What we saw was two groups only a few days prior to the event, students are hard pressed to exercising their right to freedom of speech. One group was promot- obtain administrative approval. In a Spectator opinion piece, a ing hatred and violence, and the other group was loudly opposing it.” student expressed concern that the administration purposely deGilchrist, on the other hand, saw the protest as a viola- layed the announcement of very controversial speakers in ortion of civil rights and the First Amendment. On Fox News’ der to maximize security. In a different opinion column, a stuHannity and Colmes, he denounced the protestors as “fas- dent claimed that when late-minute requests were received, cist liberal anarchists” and “domestic terrorists,” going as certain student groups were given precedence over others. far as to say that “the true face of the 21st century KKK… A more reasonable policy would be to place the burden is a multi-spirited conglomeration of college students.” of heightened security on protesters themselves. Through propJudging by Gilchrist’s provocative remarks, both during his er organization and courtesy for all speakers, regardless of perspeech and in the aftermath of the event, students’ urge to pro- sonal opinions, universities can stem speaker-induced campus test seemed, to many, undeniably justified. But if students exer- violence, stimulate debate, and avoid accusations of censorship.

Page 25

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

The Wall of Shame

By Zachary Malter PHILLIP NESMITH

Border police patrol the Arizona border between the United States and Mexico in an effort to stop increased illegal immigration.

When the lingering debate in Washington over immigration closed in September 2006, little had been accomplished, but one of the overwhelming conclusions was that a fence should be constructed on the U.S.-Mexico border. Since the passing of the Republican senate bill, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the plan for a 700-mile long, 15-foot high fence has received much opposition not only from immigrant rights groups, but also from the Mexican government. Mexico’s belligerence could potentially impede the fence building and force congress to reconsider the United States’ immigration policy.

The Mexican government, along with the nation’s new President Felipe Calderon, is denouncing the plan, saying it will compound the number of Mexican deaths on the border and not resolve the increasing immigration problem. Mexico believes that the United States should have sought more input from Mexico when devising the plan, according to ex-President Vincent Fox who dubbed it, “a unilateral measure that goes against the spirit of understanding that should characterize how shared

Page 26

problems between neighboring countries are handled.”

Mexicans find it alarming that while the United States is interested in reaping the benefits of cheap labor, they have failed to provide an alternative legal path to citizenship. The issue is close to home for the majority of Mexican citizens who have relatives or friends that have attempted to emigrate out of the country. It is known to many as the “Wall of Shame,” a symbol of the oppression created by the United States Government.

Thousands of Mexicans rely on the United States to provide them with migrant labor, a source of profit, which can be sent back to their families in Mexico in the form of remittance payments.

Proponents of the measure, largely Republicans, contend that the fence is vital in curtailing the influx of undocumented Mexican immigrants, and could be one important facet of a solution. When the bill was passed it put the President in an uncomfortable situation by forcing him to choose whether to support legislation that reflects the ideology of the Republican Party and bolsters the party’s electoral prospects

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI but also threatens his relationships with Mexico, a longtime will occupy a region that is home to a plethora of wildlife, ally, and contradicts his personal views. Bush decided to side such as the bird species that live between North and Central with his Republican allies and began referring to the fence America, and myriad landscapes including deserts, mounas one step in the long fight to overhaul immigration. But it tains and cacti. Many of the animals living along the border may have been a political mistake because it had no influ- are endangered including the jaguar, gray wolf, and other rare ence in the midterm elections and is facing stiff opposition. species such as cougars, desert bighorn sheep, ocelots, prongVicente Fox, who was president at the time, was ve- horn antelope, and roadrunners. The wall would prevent this hement in his disapproval of the bill. In 2006, he immedi- wildlife from crossing the border and the fence lights might ately sent an appeal to the Organization of American States, attract insects that would become more vulnerable to be eatwhich was signed by 27 other members, and threatened to en by their predators. With the fence in place, resources esblock the plan at the United Nations. Since then, Felipe sential to animals’ survival will be unavailable. Moreover, Calderon has continued to lobby against the legislation. On the fence could eventually result in the reduction of wildlife, a trip to Canada in October before his inauguration, Calde- which would limit the viewing opportunities in national parks. ron pleaded with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen HadOn January 15th, Homeland Security Secretary Miley to join in opposition, but Harper distanced himself from chael Chertoff waived prominent environmental lawsCalderon calling the Canadian border situation “different.” - the Endangered Species Act to the Federal Water PolluCalderon ignited controversy when he compared the fence tion Control Act and the National Environmental Policy to the Berlin Wall in a press conference on October 26th. “Hu- Act-- to allow the fence to be constructed, further enragmanity committed a grave error by constructing the Berlin wall ing organizations such as the Center for Biological Diand I am sure that today the United States is committing a grave versity, which labeled the decision, “a historic travesty.” error in constructing a wall along Currently, at least our northern border,” Calderon 83 miles of fence sit at stated. Although the two deal the mostly populated arwith two disparate situations, eas on the border. San The Berlin Wall, which sepaDiego, where a fence has rated communist East Germany existed since the nineties, from West Germany for decades, has experienced a waning bares some similarity to the number of border crossMexican fence, and shows how ers. In Texas, which has people might be affected if the been allocated 200 miles fence is built. In Germany, famiof fencing, law enforcelies were separated and workers ment and government ofwere cut off from their jobs, but ficials deplore the plan. emigration was sharply reduced.

El Paso has officially opThe Mexican Government posed the barrier, citing will not support a plan that will the fact that immigration worsen the struggles of Mexican might just be diverted to migrant workers, who were laudanother location, and that ed as “heroes” by ex-President construction and mainteCalderon and Bush have fought over border plans.

Vincent Fox. Building a fence nance will be burdensome. could increase deaths by leaving Construction is underimmigrants to die in the barren desert. The United States Con- way to expand the wall as outlined in the plan. The Mexican gress decided that the increased struggle for Mexicans would be government is in favor of comprehensive immigration reform a sacrifice to reduce immigration, eventually compensated for by that will ameliorate the situation for immigrants, but feels that a viable path to legal immigration and a guest worker program. a barrier would adversely affect migrant workers. For a long When Bush and Calderon met in November the two were time, Mexico has been one of the United States’ most impormore conciliatory than expected. “President Bush was very open tant allies, but in recent years, US-Mexican relations have to all the arguments that I presented to him. We both stressed the been tested on numerous occasions. Mexico voted against the need to have a comprehensive vision with which we can move War in Iraq in the United Nations, and a United States Border forward,” Calderon explained to the associated press. Since the Patrol shot dead a Mexican as he tried to cross the San Dimeeting, Calderon has been less outspoken against the plan. ego border, prompting Vicente Fox to launch an investigation.

Among the other concerns about the plan is the feasibility Since Fox and Calderon threatened to kill the plan, of a fence that spans through an array of climates, four different House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) in January states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas), and has 2006 announced that Congress would revisit the plan, joined an exorbitant cost, roughly 2 billion dollars. In terms of fund- in support for reconsideration by Republicans John Cornyn ing, congress gave the Bush Administration leeway to allocate (R-TX) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). It is in the Unitthe money for the fence to other projects, and the Department of ed States’ best interest to establish immigration reform that Homeland Security has not yet committed to the fence project. takes Mexico’s concerns into account because without MexThere are other potentially negative ramifications of ico’s support, enforcing the plan will be nearly impossible. the fence plan that seldom have been discussed. The fence

Page 27

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

A

R The Fire

lthough Iran’s antagonistic behavior towards the United States has not been met with an active response from Israel or the European Union, it has received attention in the most unlikeliest of places: Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which maintains the world’s largest proven oil reserves, has been economically cooperative with the Islamic Republic of Iran since the late 1990’s, but that has recently changed. Iran’s ambitions as the world’s leading exporter of petroleum have been met with disapproval from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s actions have prompted a production duel within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Amidst Iran’s obvious attempt to grab power in the region, Saudi Arabia has begun to increase its oil production and lower prices. By decreasing the cost of oil, the Saudis are able not only to show their continuing power in the region, but also to drive down the price for Iran and temporarily cripple the latter’s economy.

A production duel within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has emerged, prompted by Saudi Arabia.

The power struggle between the two nations could cause the price of oil to plummet, along with numerous other implications. On the one hand, this would boost the global economy, which has become increasingly vulnerable to the price of oil. Specifically, a drop in oil prices would help the automotive and tourism industries, which are the most vulnerable to the oil pitfall. But it would also greatly cripple the Iranian economy and threaten the nation’s global prominence.

Three significant events have led to the cold confrontation: last summer’s Israeli-Lebanese War, the development of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and the most recent events regarding Iran’s role in the Iraqi Civil War. In Lebanon, Iran allegedly acted through a proxy, the Hezbollah Shiite militia, to mask the true level of its involvement in both engagements. In Iraq, this was mirrored by the insurgents.

Last summer’s Israeli-Lebanese war was a chance for Hezbollah to prove to Israel and the world its strength. With a vast tunnel network and a well-armed and determined fighting force, Hezbollah was able to stave off the modern Israeli Defense Forces for over a month. The unexpected strength of Hezbollah led many observers to believe that the militia was receiving external aide from Iran, the only Shiite entity with sufficient money to contribute. Iran has not outrightly refuted these claims.

Iran’s involvement in Lebanon is not the only example of its challenge to Saudi Arabia and other Arab powers in the region. Even more publicized than the latter is Iran’s developing nuclear weapons program, a potential bargaining chip in nego-

Page 28

By Ben Mishkin tiations with the European Union and possible negotiations with the United States. Any agreement would certainly benefit Iran, either economically or politically. However, the more immediate benefit to Iran is a new leadership position in the Muslim world’s fight against Israel. With a nuclear weapon, Iran would become the only Muslim nation capable of matching Israel in military might. This could further enhance Iran’s power in the region.

In the end, Saudi Arabia and Iran’s rift might come down to the religious divide between the two nations: Saudi Arabia is a Sunni Muslim nation while Iran is a Shiite nation. The two groups have a long history, going back to the Ottoman Empire’s continual wars with Iran. The latest conflict between the two nations, while unexpected, is not entirely surprising when considering these religious differences.

The issue of Iraq has fueled the ongoing war between Shiites and Sunnis, and with Iran’s recent alleged support of Shiite insurgents, the country’s problems could lead to more tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are supporters of the United States and have sanctioned the invasion of Iraq as much as any Muslim nation can. They hope for success in Iraq, as it would reflect well upon their allies in the USA, notably George Bush and those of the more conservative spectrum, who are much friendlier to the Dessert Kingdom. Iran’s support of Shiite insurgents has threatened American, and therefore Saudi, interests in the region.

These tensions illustrate the ever-increasing risk that developed nations face due to their dependence of Middle Eastern oil. They become subject to the religious wars and regional splits in the world’s most divided and volatile region.

Missbossy

Fuel F

OPEC’s internal politics may curb the rising cost of oil.

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

Classified:

Secrecy Practices Of the Bush t e r c Administration e S p R evealed o T

A

recent New York Times Op-Ed written by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett looked unusual to readers of the paper. Black lines covered crucial sentences of the article. The mystery was solved above the column where it stated that the Op-Ed contained classified government secrets unavailable to the American public. According to the authors of the article, however, the censored portions had already been published in a Century Foundation essay that Flynt Leverett had authored and in other books.

Classification is the imposing of a restriction on a piece of information so that only authorized officials can view it.

Military plans, economic and trade issues, intelligence activities, and foreign activities are commonly classified to protect national security interests. Under the Bush Administration, classification has become much more prevalent than in years past, and the power to classify has been extended from departments such as the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, and Treasury and Commerce Department to more obscure entities such as the Agriculture Department and the Public Health Secretary. The Times incident and similar cases have prompted some Americans to battle the Administration’s classification efforts and have raised questions about how open American government should be.

Published on December 22, 2006, the Times piece rebuked the Administration for rejecting an offer posed by the

By Zachary Malter

Iranian government to assist America in hunting members of Al-Qaeda after September 11th, 2001. An erstwhile CIA analyst, Flynt Leverett was required to present his piece to the agency’s review board, but having gone through the review procedure over twenty times before, he never expected that the article would be rejected. It was later revealed that two deputies of National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley intervened in the CIA’s clearance process and were responsible for the decision. Thus, the Bush Administration can be considered responsible for the classification of the New York Times Op-Ed. Officials in the administration attribute the sharp increase in classification to the post-9/11 national security situation. The government has been willing to exert its classification power when necessary. Pundits argue that the necessity of classification has in many cases been dubious and that documents should be classified only when they pose a legitimate threat to national security. Additionally, some critics allege that classification has been used as a political ploy to mislead the American people and conceal the administration’s ostensible follies.

“I wouldn’t be surprised [if the Bush Administration has deliberately classified information for political reasons],” said Nick Schwellenbach, an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit organization dedicated to government openness.

Page 29

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Representative Henry Waxman speaks to House Committee Chairman Tom Davis during a congressional hearing.

Both the Leveretts and Times editors felt that the decision to censor the information was misguided, so they published a redacted version of the article with the lines clearly blacked-out.

“In a democracy, transparency in government has to be honored and protected. To classify information for reasons other than the safety and security of the United States and its interests is a violation of these principles,” Leverett wrote. “The White House is using the rubric of protecting classified information not to protect classified information but to limit the dissemination of the views of someone who is very critical of their approach.”

The Times article was just one of many incidents of suspect classification over the past several years. The rise in classification began under the Clinton Administration and has further increased during President Bush’s tenure.

“In 1995, for example, according to the Information Security Oversight Office [which monitors classification activity], there were approximately 3.5 million classification actions [or decisions to classify information] throughout the government. But by 2005, that number had skyrocketed to 14.2 million classification actions,” wrote Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy in the Federation of American Scientists, in an email.

According to the Times, the number of documents classified in 2004 was nearly double that of 2001. In addition, while people have requested more documents to be declassified through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), fewer have been accepted, according to the Information Security Oversight Office.

As classification becomes more widespread, organizations such as Open the Government, the Government Accountability Project, and the Project on Government Oversight have emerged to promote open and transparent governments. The director of the prominent FAS project and writer of a weekly blog titled “Secrecy News,” Steven Aftergood is one of the leading experts on classification. “Classification is sometimes necessary to protect national security, but it is a necessary evil.

In other words, it always constitutes a limitation on democracy. It undermines public participation in the political process, and impedes public oversight of government activity,” he said.

The classification process was redefined on March 23, 2003, when Bush signed executive order 13292, an amendment to Clinton’s executive order 12958. It states, “In no case shall infor-

Page 30

mation be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.” Issues of classification revolve around FOIA, which, signed in 1966 by Lyndon B. Johnson, grants the American people the right to view federal government information by filing a request to the Justice Department.

There is an obvious discrepancy between the policy of the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration, most policy experts say. “With the Clinton Administration there was more of an effort to get information out to the public… There was an engaged effort to take classified information that should have never been classified in the first place and declassify it,” said Clayton Northouse, a political analyst at the White House Office of Management and Budget, a non-profit organization devoted to government transparency and accountability. Clinton’s order overhauled the rules of government secrecy and reduced the number of classified documents, but it also hastened the declassification process. Attorney General Janet Reno also gave a memo saying that the Justice Department would defend FOIA requests unless the agency “reasonably foresees that disclosure would be harmful to an interest protected by that exemption.” This policy resulted in the declassification of myriad papers and documents.

The Bush Administration has focused much of its attention on keeping secrets withheld from the public, concerned that declassifying information could potentially pose a threat to national security. Its first major action on classification was the Administration’s controversial 2001 executive order (13233), which barred public access to the records of former presidents. Then, in 2003, Bush issued order 13292, expanding the ability of the CIA to prevent documents from being declassified and deeming all information from foreign governments subject to scrutiny. It also delayed the declassifica-

“The White House is using the rubric of protecting classified information...to limit the dissemination of the views of someone who is very critical of [its] approach.” tion process for documents and granted the power of classification to the Vice President. The order was widely criticized for promoting secrecy at the expense of government openness.

Analysts agree that the question of why classification occurs is a complicated one. Some of it can be attributed to the tightening of national security agencies after 9/11, and Steven Aftergood asserts that this type of classification is mostly understandable. Some incidents of classification are decidedly vital for the nation’s security. For example, the idea that the identity of CIA agents should be classified is seldom disputed, and even ardent classification critics were dismayed by the disclosure of CIA analyst Valerie Plame’s identity in 2004.

Also, after 9/11, information about building bombs was ac-

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI cessible on the U.S. Defense Department’s web site, and even the Times, which has a history of publishing anti-classification editorials, urged the department to classify those materials.

The security threat cannot possibly be the only reason for the dramatic shift in the number of classification related cases, considering the fact that the Bush Administration began their

“The Bush Administration has focused much of its attention on keeping secrets withheld from the public.”

Produced by Nancy Da Silva

increased classification efforts even before 9/11. “There is this bureaucratic impulse to classify information,” said Schwellenbach. Members of government organizations have this “tendency to hoard information even when it serves no purpose to do so” because there is no incentive to keep it public. One of the reasons for this impulse is that government agencies can be punished, even fired in the recent case of a CIA senior career officer, for disclosing classifiable information, but there is no punishment for over-classifying information or abusing the system.

One of the most noteworthy examples of classification is the National Reclassification Program that the National Security Archives revealed in 2005. The 1999 covert operation, started by the Clinton Administration, was discovered when an employee of the National Archives noticed that certain documents once published became unavailable to the public and realized that intelligence agencies had been secretly denying public access to thousands of pages of previously available information. Already over 55,000 pages have been reclassified; moreover, the Times reported that the administration employs nearly thirty reviewers to continue the program. In March 11, 2006, a Times editorial wrote, “The extent and fervor of the operation seem suspiciously in sync with the White House’s obsession with secrecy at any cost.” Much of the information classified in the program was embarrassing in its innocuousness, according to Northouse, as many of the documents were dated from over 50 years ago, and some included information that can be readily found in primary school textbooks.

The Bush Administration prefers the rampant classification of documents to a policy of open government. It has shown no interest in disclosing the National Security Budget, which, according to Steven Aftergood, is one of the most absurd examples of classification in the nation’s history. “Although the government did declassify the intelligence budget total in 1997 ($26.6 billion) and 1998 ($26.7 billion), it has refused to declassify figures for any other years—even from half a century ago.”

This impetus for classification may very well be politically motivated in some cases. “I suspect there has been some politically-motivated classification (by the Bush Administration) to conceal questionable decisions on matters such as prisoner detention and interrogation, domestic intelligence surveillance, and so forth,” Aftergood said.

The Times article was merely one incident of flagrant classification. In 2002, congress was given the National Intelligence Estimate, a thorough evaluation of Iraq and its weapons program.

Later it was revealed that much of the estimate had been revised by the Administration. Dissenting opinions were removed, and

information was skewed to promote the war: the document made it seem as if the centrifuges were sources of uranium when in fact they were merely benign Rocket Motor Cases. The public received a simplified and biased picture of the intelligence.

Excessive federal government secrecy is usually detrimental to a nation. “In a democracy the public needs good information to make informed decisions,” Northouse said.

Some analysts contend that the security failures of 9/11 were the result of problems of shared information between agencies. An overhaul of the classification system would reduce the bureaucracy and help avert future national security failures. Americans prides themselves on having the most forthcoming government in the free world, but if it continues to classify information at its exorbitant rate it may lose that title.

Much can be done to stem the federal government’s tendencies to classify information and reform the government secrecy process. Firstly, a smaller scope of classification will help ensure that classification is used appropriately. The 9/11 commissions endorsed the idea of declassifying the national intelligence budget, a potentially positive step towards a more open government.

More oversight by congress, congressional overseers, and executive branch officials could also help curtail inappropriate classification efforts. Although government openness has an immense impact on the way the government functions, it gets little media coverage. Increased attention in the press “to the financial, operational and political costs of government secrecy,” Aftergood said, would make the public more cognizant of these issues. They would be more inclined to elect candidates who are devoted to government openness and reject those who abuse classification.

The new Democratic Congress said it is dedicated to making the government more open by reducing classification. A recent amendment by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to the Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 prevents congressmen from concealing information about money allocated to a particular person or cause. House Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman has promised to investigate the Bush Administration’s secrecy. Congress must address classification in Washington: governmental openness is a fundamental principle of our democracy that must not be taken away.

Page 31

Heading

The Horace Mann Review Morguefile

W

Censorship Hits Theaters

hen many people discuss movie censorship, they tend to refer to the most egregious errors associated with the phenomenon. The Hays Code which is often brought to mind, determined a strict set of guidelines by which the movie industry could produce movies.

Although some people believe massive movie censorship does not affect the United States, censoring so called “objectionable” content in movies is still a very real issue. Is this censorship just?

Should someone have to deem content inappropriate for viewing?

In Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, the 1915 Supreme Court ruled in favor of a system that the state of Ohio had established, requiring all movies to be reviewed prior to showing anywhere in the state. A review board was permitted to arrest violators. This case opened the doors for movie censorship: the decision determined that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not extend to movies.

In the early twenties, Hollywood had just begun to become known as the movie capital of the nation. But the public perceived immorality in Hollywood, and a general outcry led to the foundation of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)—a watchdog and movie censor. During the same time period Will H. Hays had begun his write-up of what would later become the Hays Code of 1930, a set of guidelines by which “moral” movies could be created. The code required

Page 32

By Sam Shelley that all use of the United States flag must be “consistently respectful” and banned “every…profane or vulgar expression.”

At first the Hays Code was entirely ignored, but by 1930 the MPAA established it as an official code. Members of the code included big name studios at the time—Buena Vista, Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros—who would follow this strict set of guidelines.

The code stayed strong until 1950, when the combined threat of television and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn its 1915 decision extended the right of free speech to movies. Just eleven years later the code was ignored altogether as more successful films chose to simply bypass its requirements and its certifications, choosing instead to deal with edgy topics of the era.

The current system of rating replaced the code. Today, rating still tries to hide the most “obscene” content from the eyes of younger viewers. While this censorship may not necessarily be enforced (although getting in to an R rated movie without someone 17 or older or a NC-17 movie is forbidden) the modern rating program does in fact create a system of artificial censorship whereby companies produce movies with the intent of reaching a certain audience. These producers understand that if they were to insert certain content into their films they would receive a more cautionary rating on the MPAA rating system than they had originally, and would consequently be blocked off from a certain audience.

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

Stock.xchange

Warrantedarrest

Censoring films and programs in the manner of the Hays Code is ridiculous. Although it is necessary to put the code in the context of its era, it is hard to believe that the general consensus wanted to ban all movies depicting anything remotely edgy. The fact that movies produced in the late 50s and early 60s without the certification of the MPAA shows that audiences desired to see this edgier content. Maybe the fact that the general masses did not know any better allowed those few who were strongly against the depiction of especially unbecoming scenes to take charge and pass such censorship laws.

What we do know is that once these restrictions were repealed people eagerly flocked to the box offices to see the previously barred films. The very masses which were so “against” such films were the first to propagate their continued production.

What is disturbing is that although the actual Hays Code no longer exists, the MPAA’s system of censorship is still running strong. It has single-handedly monopolized the rating system in America without any government participation.

With the support of the major movie producing companies and theaters from around the country, the MPAA is able to unilaterally determine which movies are viewed by the general masses. Movies are rated by an anonymous board of “ordinary” parents. Due to its anonymity, this board has no accountability whatsoever. Movie raters are hired solely by the chairman of the rating committee, Joan Graves, who has complete control over the movie censoring industry in the United States.

In addition, the committee that meets to reevaluate ratings determined by the MPAA is dominated by chairpersons of various large movie related companies (including Loews and Sony), thereby giving these large companies significant control over how movies are rated. Finally, and most shocking of all, are the two clergy who sit on the appeals committee. These two clergy are from only two denominations; they are Catholic and Episcopalian. Although given no vote in the matter, they are still permitted to participate in discussion.

How can two members of two religious sects take part in a discussion regarding national censorship in a secular country?

The United States is not alone in its movie censorship. In other countries that censor movies the censoring body, unlike the MPAA, does not work under the guise of a voluntary movie rating system.

Instead, the government enforces its policy upon its citizens, often with the influence of the dominant religious sect.

One of the most recent instances of censorship in the international community occurred in The Da Vinci Code. The movie portrayed Christianity in a negative light and received antagonism from various Catholic sects around the

An advertisement for The Da Vinci Code, a movie censored in the international community for controversial religious content. world. Whether outrightly banning the movie, organizing boycotts of the film, or tacking on an exceedingly cautionary rating (the Indian Central Board for Film Certification rated it A, adults only), those who desired to censor the movie did everything they possibly could.

Movie censorship should be extended as far as issues of national security are but no farther. The current system established in the United States is created so that the onus of censoring movies from children lies on parents or movie regulating organizations like the MPAA. This method of voluntary censorship preserves the First Amendment, yet at the same time provides the level of censorship that is currently acceptable by today’s social standards. While censorship to a more extreme degree tends to be derived from dictatorial regimes, modern censorship is determined by the nuances of the age. Censorship should be voluntarily enforced, represent the feelings of the masses, and obey the U.S. Constitution.

Page 33

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

Expelling the Headscarf Damaging Effects of Turkey’s Hijab Ban

Page 34

www.mervekavakci.net

F

or about 40 minutes, said former Turkish politician Merve Kavakci, “my colleagues in Turkey’s parliament shouted at me: ‘get out! get out!’

Their cries paused briefly when then Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit raised his hand and pointed in my direction. ‘Put this woman in her place!’ he screamed.”

Merve Kavakci was a Turkish politician elected in 1999. On May 2, 1999, Kavakci made headlines when she attempted to enter parliament wearing the hijab, the traditional Muslim women’s dress. Her attempt sparked outrage among Turkey’s parliament, and eleven days after the incident, on the grounds that she had not informed authorities of her taking dual American citizenship, Kavakci lost her Turkish citizenship.

The outrage against Kavakci stemmed from the Turkish principle of secularism. Turkish law prohibits the wearing of the hijab in certain public and private institutions. In universities, students and teachers wearing the hijab are often not permitted to attend classes. In the military, soldiers are encouraged to stop their wives from wearing the hijab. Women wearing the hijab have even been prohibited from institutions such as libraries and hospitals.

The hijab ban touches many aspects of Turkish society and plays a significant role in everyday Turkish life. It has become a major aspect of one of Turkey’s most prominent principles: secularism.

The issue of the hijab ban is a multifaceted one. Some feminists, such as prominent German feminist Alice Schwarzer, vehemently favor a ban on the grounds that the hijab symbolizes the oppression of women. “The headscarf threatens the Enlightenment’s achievements,” she said. On the other hand, other commentators, such as the organization IslamOnline.net, are just as strongly opposed to the ban on the grounds that wearing the hijab is a matter of religious obligation. “The requirements of hijab are never oppressive or restrictive in any way,” the web site states.

However, the legitimacy of the hijab ban does not center on the hijab’s moral implications. The question is not whether the hijab is a positive aspect of society. Instead, the important issue is whether the ban is a just measure in a true democracy. In Turkey, the hijab ban has prevented many thousands of women from entering public institutions such as hospitals and universities. Rather than affirming the principles of “social peace, national solidarity and justice” outlined in the Turkish Constitution, the hijab ban has fostered a dangerous division between those who choose to wear the hijab and those who do not. The effects of the hijab ban have been damaging to Turkey, to equality, and to the principles of democracy.

The hijab ban in Turkey is unjust because it makes the mistake of equating secularism with equality and democracy. While a democratic government should not show preference to one

By Venkat Kausik

Merve Kavakci was told to leave the Turkish Parliament because she wore her hijab. religion over others, in the same manner, a democratic government cannot limit the religious freedom of its citizens. The ban in Turkey attempts to secure democracy, but the actual results of the ban limit the freedom of many Turks and violate their per-

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI babasteve

sonal liberties. The ban’s current applications make for an oppressive law that, instead of promoting democracy, limits it.

The ban compromises five important democratic principles. Firstly, the ban takes away the principle of equality of rights and equal protection of the law. Secondly, it abridges the right to a certain standard of living. Thirdly, it compromises freedom of religion and community association. Fourthly, it disregards the right to privacy. Fifthly, it endangers the right to security of person. These restrictions create a serious breach of freedoms and liberties which is unacceptable in a democracy.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” The General Assembly of the United Nations and the vast majority of countries, including Turkey, have

“The hijab ban in Turkey is unjust because it makes the mistake of equating secularism with equality and democracy.” adopted this declaration. The hijab ban endangers this important right of equal protection of the law, since hijab-wearing Turkish women often suffer legally endorsed punishment for their decision to wear the head-covering. Merve Kavakci is a good example: Eleven days after attempting to enter parliament wearing a hijab, Merve Kavakci lost her Turkish citizenship. The cited cause was that Kavakci failed to report her dual American citizenship. However, Kavakci was among 200,000 others who had failed to report dual citizenship, and not all received this punishment. In reality, Kavakci lost her citizenship because she attempted to wear the hijab in Parliament.

Even judges have been targeted by the hijab ban. In 2000, a Tax Court judge was asked to resign. Part of the letter sent to him stated, “Because of the clothes of your wife, which are not modern, an opinion came into being that you are closer to thoughts against secularism; and because…it is said that in the office you listen to religious broadcasts and religious songs.” Because of the hijab ban, the law does not treat Turkish hijab wearers justly.

The right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being is also a right stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; a just government needs to secure the well-being of its citizens. Because of the restrictions the hijab ban puts on hijab-wearing women, establishing an adequate standard of living for hijab-wearing women is not possible. Opportunities for education, work, and benefits from institutions such as hospitals and libraries all diminish, as exemplified in the case of Medine Bircan, a former patient at Istanbul University Hospital. In June 2002 she was refused treatment because a photograph in her documents showed her head covered. This blatant mistreatment of a patient in need shows how the hijab ban has decreased the standard of living for the thousands of hijab-wearing women in Turkey.

Numerous others have suffered because they were not allowed to participate in classes at universities. Human Rights Watch (HRW), a non-profit organization whose mission is to “prevent discrimination, uphold political freedom, protect people during wartime, and bring offenders to justice,” issued a 46-page

Women wearing Islamic dress are ostracized by the hijab ban and suffer from unfair protection of the law report on the matter in 2004. “The Turkish government has still not dispelled the coercion and self-censorship that pervade academic life,” said Rachel Denber, who was at the time the Acting Executive Director of HRW’s Europe and Central Asia Division. States the HRW web site, “Human Rights Watch believes the headscarf prohibition is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice. Moreover, the restriction of women’s dress is discriminatory and violates their right to education, their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and their right to privacy.”

Some universities in Turkey have taken the hijab ban to the extreme. Documents of Marmara University, one of the most highly regarded Turkish Universities, said that “female students should wear such clothes that their necks and heads would be uncovered.”

The restriction was therefore applied not only to the hijab, but also to the “scarves, berets and wigs which can be defined as ideological.”

Page 35

Heading

The Horace Mann Review wikipedia

The Grand Chamber of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Women wearing the hijab are forbidden to enter Parliament and other public institutions such as libraries, schools, and hospitals. The ban has taken away many fundamental human rights.

Democracy must preserve freedom of religion and the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, both outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The restric-

“The Turkish government has still not dispelled the coercion and self-censorship that pervade academic life.” tions placed on the hijab clearly restrict the ability of many women to freely practice their religion. Many women view the hijab as obligatory. One part of the Qur’an often cited as mandating the hijab is Surah al-Ahzab ayah 59, which states, “O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed.” The hijab, therefore, is a necessary part of religion to many. By banning the hijab, Turkey restricts many people’s ability to practice their religion freely.

Many hijab wearers view the hijab as a symbol of modesty. States the Gale Group’s Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, “The practice of veiling is a visible recognition of the maintenance of proper boundaries. It is a way of keeping proper distance and ensuring respect and moral behavior between men and women in public space.” Therefore, to mandate the removal of the hijab is an egregious breach of privacy.

Some declare that the hijab interferes with determining identity, thus posing a security threat. However, this same argument could be applied to numerous other attributes (sunglasses,

Page 36

beards, helmets, etc.). In addition, as the hijab is meant to establish distance between “men and women in public space,” many hijab-wearers would have no problem removing the hijab in private in front of, for example, a female security guard. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” The right to privacy, therefore, is another universally accepted right that the hijab ban breaks.

The right to security of person is a right that governments must protect. These liberties, such as equal protection before the law and freedom of religion, are all important to ensure personal safety. The hijab ban in Turkey is especially dangerous because the division it causes has reduced the safety and security of Turkish citizens. Forces ranging from racism to ter-

“The hijab ban could tip the fragile balance between religious and secular societies in Turkey, potentially leading to devastating results.” rorism have hurt both opponents and proponents of the ban.

“Cracking down in this way is only likely to lead to a sense of victimization, which will fuel extremism, not reduce it,” says Fanny Dethloff, a Hamburg Church pastor who manages refugee affairs in her community. Dethloff hits the hijab ban issue on the

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI mark. The sentiment that Turkey is experiencing a clash of civilizations is shared by many Turkish citizens. The hijab ban, if left in place, will increase the division between highly religious communities and the supporters of secularism and can only make the sentiment more widespread. The hijab ban could tip the fragile balance between religious and secular societies in Turkey, potentially leading to devastating results. Extremist groups have already taken babasteve

election in which no hijab-wearing candidate ran for office, the organization is hoping that one will be selected for the November 2007 parliamentary elections. In addition, support for hijabwearers is building in the general public. A January/February 2005 poll by Pollmark revealed that 70% of participants opposed a university ban and 63% supported the right of a female state officer to choose whether or not to wear the hijab. The results of the poll, coinciding with the increasing momentum of organizations such as The Capital Women’s Platform, give evidence that the Turkish populace may be realizing that the hijab ban violates several important democratic rights. More and more Turks are bringing this issue to the forefront of national discussion.

The hijab ban is relevant not only in Turkey, but also in other parts of the world. Many other countries have pursued policies similar to those of Turkey. In the Netherlands, legislation to

“A January/February 2005 poll by Pollmark revealed that 70% of participants opposed a university ban and 63% supported the right of a female state officer to choose whether or not to wear the hijab.”

Many Turkish women wear Islamic dress because of commitment to their religious beliefs. This dress is called the niqab. action in many other areas of the world in response to policies similar to the hijab ban of Turkey. The hijab ban must be repealed before the secular and religious forces in Turkey completely clash.

Integration is necessary to preserve peace in Turkey. The potential clash between secular and religious forces in Turkey is too great a threat to be ignored. Turkey is a country made up of more than just one community. While some women choose to wear the hijab, others do not. In this setting, bringing the hijab and other aspects of religion to mainstream Turkey is necessary so that the secular and religious societies of the country can coexist in peace.

Some Turks, however, seem to be catching on to this idea.

“Controversy Grows Over Islamic Headscarf in Turkey,” ran a Voice of America News headline in November 2005. The article described an organization, The Capital Women’s Platform, which is committed to abolishing the hijab ban. The organization was formed in the mid-1990s by wearers of the scarf, many of whom had lost their jobs because of their dress. The organization has built hope since its inception, and after a 2003 parliamentary

ban the public wearing of face-covering clothing is pending. “The Dutch government has said it intends to ban the wearing of burqas and other Muslim full-face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds. Reports said on Friday that Rita Verdonk, the Dutch minister for immigration, would soon draw up legislation to implement a ban on the burqa,” the newspaper Al Jazeera reported. In Belgium, “Women can now be fined 150 euros if they are found to be wearing the niqab,” reported BBC News. In Germany, two students who went to school wearing burqas were suspended for “disturbing the peace” and were even investigated. The Constitutional Court of Germany, ruled that prohibiting a teacher’s wearing of the hijab is constitutional, and eight of sixteen German states have followed through on the ruling. The most prominent ban on the hijab (and other religious symbols) is France’s law banning religious symbols in public institutions. These restrictions on the wearing of the hijab may, like the Turkish ban, stem from good intentions. However, they too restrict the rights of many Muslim women who simply want to practice their religion.

The issue of the hijab has already arrived in America. In 2004, an Oklahoma school suspended an 11-year old Muslim girl “for wearing a head scarf,” The New York Times reported. It is vital that America oppose the bans in Turkey and Europe and uphold the rights of its hijab wearing residents.

The ban infringes upon numerous rights of hijab wearing women. The ban has pushed these women out of hospitals, universities, and other institutions. It has relegated them to a lower standard of living and compromised their safety. The ban must be abolished so that hijab wearers receive the rights they deserve as citizens under a democratic government. Just as women must have the right to take off the hijab, women must also have the right to put it back on.

Page 37

Heading

The Horace Mann Review

The Pitfalls of a Ban on Holocaust Denial

S

ince 1985, Germany has outlawed Holocaust denial and forbidden any use of Nazi insignia. In early January, German justice minister Brigitte Zypries proposed a European Union wide ban on the display of Nazi insignia (such as swastikas) and penalties for holocaust denial. Yet later that month, Germany withdrew its support for the European Union (EU) insignia ban, because of heated opposition from Hindu interest groups. A similar proposal in Luxembourg was withdrawn on February 24th, for it was clear after conflicting debate over which symbols to prohibit that the proposal would not pass.

Opposition to the EU-wide ban stems from various organizations, ranging from religious groups to neo-Nazi supporters.

The move to criminalise the display of swatstikas sparked controversy in the Hindu society, which has used the swastika as a religious symbol for nearly 5,000 years before the Nazis. Citing a restriction on the Hindu religion, the Hindu Forum of Britain (HFB) and related organizations declared a campaign against the German draft proposal. Furthermore, many German citizens, already uneasy about their heritage (for some have had Nazi ancestors), have stated that forbidding the denial of Holocaust would be, in effect, silencing and condemning certain practices and beliefs; the government has no right to determine which policy is superior.

On the other hand, the German government and Zypries argue that if anti-Semitic, anti-Gypsy and homophobic beliefs associated with Adolf Hitler are allowed, Germany will be forced to combat systematically every form of racism. According to Zypries, the nation must act against the crime of racism. Moreover, an EUwide ban on Nazi insignia and Holocaust denial is justified because it would make a significant difference to challenging racism in today’s Europe, creating a precedence of anti-racism in Europe.

These laws are intended to prevent the disparity of society that develops from segregated groups of people. People are often looking for someone to blame for their personal misfortunes, contagiously resulting in hatred, and very often leading to violence. The reason for having anti-hate laws in countries like the US is to prevent events that have occurred in the past—events such as the Holocaust, discrimination towards blacks, imprisonment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War 1, racial profiling of Arabs post 9/11, and the impressments against homosexuals.

Although one can argue that enforcing restrictions such as those outlined in the German proposition would curtail freedom of expression, it has been evident throughout history that violence and conflicts erupt in a society struggling with hatred, racism, and confusion. Sacrificing freedom of expression may be necessary to stem

Page 38

Anti-Defamation League, Kathlyn Gay

By Amanda Cole

Members and supporters of the Ku Klux Klan give the traditional Nazi salute and proclaim that the Holocaust was a hoax. deeply rooted racism and hate. But the German proposition was not passed by the European Union. Each EU nation will now decide individually what signifies racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia.

The Horace Mann Review Issue 4, Vol. XVI

The Leading Hotels of the World

Page 39

The Horace Mann Review

Heading

The Horace Mann Review 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, NY, 10471

Page 40