JHU POLITIK
the
SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
VOLUME XVI, ISSUE V
the
JHU POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Eliza Schultz MANAGING EDITOR Christine Server
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen
ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Abigail Sia
POLICY DESK EDITOR Mira Haqqani
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee
WEBMASTER Ben Lu
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
MARKETING & PUBLICITY Maria Garcia
STAFF WRITERS Olga Baranoff Arpan Ghosh Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Corey Payne Juliana Vigorito
• September 29, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue V
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week in Review: Environmental Justice Abigail Annear ’18 Why You Should Oppose the Strategic Plan Nadya Kronis ’17 A Major League Problem Sathvik Namburar ’18 Unemployment and Innovation: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Dylan Etzel ’17
Ending an Oligarchy Corey Payne ’17 Everybody Wins:
The Results of Scotland’s Referendum
Shrenik Jain ’18
B’More Adventurous! Robert Locke ’15
Volume XVI, Issue V • September 29, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: Environmental Justice by Abigail Annear ’18, Contributing Writer At the Heart of Energy-Devouring Times Square, 400,000 March Against Climate Policy Inaction On September 21st, roughly 400,000 people assembled along New York City’s Central Park West, prepared to take a stand against political paralysis and indifference to environmental protection. Carrying signs with slogans such as “Marching for Our Future” and “There is No Planet B,” participants paraded through the streets, united in solidarity for a cause that affects all aspects of society worldwide. Divided into six sections, ranging from indigenous victims of climate change and anti-corporate groups to vegans and university students, the protest’s organization pointedly reflected the expansive yet cohesive approach to environmental action that demonstrators demanded of the international community. With over 2,700 affiliated events in almost 150 countries taking place throughout the week prior to the United Nations’ landmark Climate Summit, the movement’s scope truly catalyzed action on a global front.
In Watershed Summit, the United Nations Calls for Universal Mobilization Gathering in the United Nations’ General Assembly Hall last Tuesday, representatives of governments and businesses from around the world commenced a historic conference on climate change, considered to be the most pressing concern of the current era. Hosted by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who encouraged all in attendance to “set the world on a new course” through leadership and cooperation, the Climate Summit sought to rouse a concerted desire to offset further climate disruption and to mobilize necessary funding and resources for a future international resolution to prevent environmental degradation. Though unable to produce an equally grand strategy to counter the extreme fluctuations in weather patterns and sea-levels during the meeting, the United Nations colloquium did facilitate much-needed discourse between State officials, NGOs, financiers, manufacturers, and the general public about how to effectively address the disastrous ramifications of global warming.
Private Sector Pledges Proactive Measures in Response to U.N. Conference In an uncharacteristically political flourish, global corporate leaders gathered together at various functions this past week to introduce and promote a myriad of recently adopted agendas designed to combat the impending climate crisis from a commercial angle. Shedding their traditional role as passive bystanders to environmental policy reform, board members and laborers alike collaborated to initiate industry-wide sustainable development through expansion of renewable energy usage and greener supply chain systems. Although many consider economic prosperity and climate preservation to be mutually exclusive variables, several executives emphasized that the implementation of environment-friendly practices in reality often lowers costs, increases production capabilities, and leads to profit maximization. David W. MacLennan, CEO of Cargill, a company notorious for its historical dependency on palm oil and the deforestation process by which it is harvested, asserted that adopting the regulatory protocols is “the right thing to do for the planet, for indigenous peoples, for our customers, and for our employees.” Through future multilateral partnerships, spanning both industrial and governmental institutions, carbon-neutrality, energy efficiency, and reduction of overall ecological impact no longer seem out of reach.
4 the JHU POLITIK
• September 29, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue V
Why You Should Oppose the Strategic Plan
W
by Nadya Kronis ’17, Contributing Writer
e often hear that Johns Hopkins is a relatively apolitical institution. However, the university’s administration regularly makes politically-charged decisions that go largely unnoticed by undergraduates. Underway in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences is the Strategic Plan, one of these controversial policy overhauls. The Strategic Plan would cut university costs by hiring more adjunct professors to teach undergraduate courses. This plan, adopted in different forms by institutions nationwide, exploits the labor of adjunct professors while maintaining the exorbitant salaries of executives, as well as national rankings. The Strategic Plan proposes to cut graduate student enrollment by 25 percent, while hiring adjunct teaching assistants to replace graduate student teaching assistants. It seeks also to hasten the retirement of certain high-earning senior faculty and replace them with “leaning junior” faculty. Hopkins will thereby continue to gut its already small humanities departments, which depend on graduate students to conduct departmental research and to teach many of the seminar classes offered by the university. Replacing Ph.D candidates with adjunct teaching assistants means that many of the highly specific, smaller seminar classes that are usually based on the graduate student’s research interests will be cancelled. Adjunct teaching assistants are paid significantly less than what graduate students receive through their annual research stipends. The position of adjunct professors within the university hierarchy paints an abysmal picture. The “leaning junior” faculty, who are to replace tenured senior faculty, are almost guaranteed to be composed primarily of adjuncts, eliminating tenure-track positions within the university instead of creating or freeing them for junior faculty. The practice of hiring adjunct professors has spurred debate in academia, with sensational headlines such as The Chronicle of Higher Education’s article, “The Ph.D Now Comes With Food Stamps.” Adjunct professors have virtually no job security—their employment may be terminated mid-semester without due process or hearings. They have little hope for professional advancement since they are barred from the tenure track. Health insurance is also excluded from the terms of their employment. The median salary of an adjunct professor is fixed
at about $2,700 per three-credit course, which in effect means that, in order to make a living, adjuncts will need to teach more courses per semester than their tenured counterparts, who are better compensated. Individual adjuncts often teach more than five courses per semester. By creating more positions for adjunct professors in the university, possibly eliminating some of the existing tenure-track positions, and cutting graduate admissions, Hopkins is continuing to build up an academic workforce of underpaid, uninsured, and vulnerable teaching staff who increasingly rely on working overtime. This kind of restructuring of academic policy and hiring practices is detrimental to university staff and students alike, as well as to the academic culture of Hopkins. While the university saves money by hiring adjunct professors, our annual tuition goes up rather than down due to the corporate structure of modern universities. While teaching staff may be underpaid, the number of administrators continues to grow, and so do their salaries. Of course, university presidents and executives are the most jarring example of this phenomenon: President Ronald J. Daniels earned a base annual salary of $859,555 as of 2011 (including bonuses, his annual salary reaches $1.3 million). The responsibility of a university executive is primarily to his shareholders, or university trustees. When the university operates like a corporation, the interests of students and labor come second. Adjunctification drives down the quality of undergraduate education. When professors have little to no job security, academic freedom is seriously damaged. Under these circumstances, professors can only voice their opinions at the risk of losing their jobs. The Strategic Plan also makes it a prerogative to hire “leaning junior” professors who can teach classes in multiple departments; while tenured professors and graduate students have in-depth knowledge within their field, adjuncts spread thin across departments do not necessarily. It is important for the student body to be aware of and vocal about issues of university policy, as these issues directly impact us and ultimately shape the quality of education at Hopkins. Opposing the further corporatization of Hopkins is in the interest of both the teaching staff and the student body. Both groups will lose out if the Strategic Plan is fully implemented. ■
Volume XVI, Issue V • September 29, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
A Major League Problem by Sathvik Namburar ’18, Contributing Writer
O
ver the past several weeks, the National Football League (NFL) has been in self-destruct mode, bungling crisis after crisis and leading some to question its long-term stability. The NFL began to unravel this summer when Commissioner Roger Goodell announced that the Baltimore Ravens’ Ray Rice, a star running back for the team, would serve a two-game suspension for having assaulted his then-fiancée Janay Palmer in February. Goodell’s punishment, widely considered to be too lenient, caused a nationwide furor and led the league to institute a new policy against domestic violence. Just as the uproar began to dissipate, the gossip news site TMZ released a video on September 8th that showed Rice brutally punching Palmer in a hotel elevator. Due to renewed protests, Goodell immediately suspended Rice indefinitely, and the Ravens released him from the team. Goodell has been confronted with other problems recently as well. Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was arrested on charges of child abuse for whipping his fouryear-old son, causing visible bruises and injuries. Peterson was temporarily suspended, reinstated, and suspended again due to public outcry. Meanwhile, Goodell and the Ravens have had to fend off allegations that they purposely covered up the true nature of Rice’s crime. Add these recent issues to the NFL’s ongoing struggle to curb concussions and head injuries, and it is not hard to see how the beginning of the end for the league could be nigh. If allegations that Goodell and the Ravens were involved in a cover-up of Rice’s crimes—a charge that Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti denied in a press conference on September 22nd—are true, then Goodell must go. As it is, Goodell’s stubborn inaction and indifference in the Rice and Peterson cases are dangerous and worrisome. The NFL is one of the most powerful and influential organizations in America. Goodell had a chance to use this power to take a strong, unequivocal stand against domestic violence and child abuse and set a positive example; instead, he vacillated and sent the unconscionable message that these crimes are acceptable. It is not a stretch to say that Goodell and the NFL failed America with their inaction in the Rice and Peterson cases.
6 the JHU POLITIK
However, simply firing Goodell would not solve the endemic problems of domestic violence and child abuse. The league needs to permit independent arbitrators to handle punishments for players accused of crimes instead of allowing the commissioner, in a clear conflict of interest, to play the role of judge and jury in mediating these situations. The league also needs to issue firm, stringent policies against domestic violence and child abuse to deter wouldbe perpetrators, punishing those who cross the line. The NFL should also step up its prevention efforts and educate players on how to avoid committing these crimes. If such changes are made, the NFL could demonstrate to the public that domestic violence and child abuse are not acceptable in the league or in our country. In order to effect such change, the NFL’s pocketbooks must be dented. Congress is considering a bill that would revoke the NFL’s tax-exempt status and make the league pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, a move that would help send the message that the league must toughen its policies on domestic violence and child abuse. Pressure from the NFL’s sponsors could also force change. Of course, the best option would be for fans to stop watching football until the NFL fixes its issues, but a large-scale boycott is unlikely to happen. In the past several years, colleges and the federal government have begun addressing the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, and the NFL has an opportunity to set a positive example that violence against women and children is unacceptable. Rates of domestic violence and child abuse are lower in the NFL than in society at large, but the league’s failure to properly address the cases of Rice and Peterson suggests their indifference to these crimes. Hopefully, the recent outrage over the Rice and Peterson situations prompts Commissioner Goodell to take some serious action on this issue. Football is an inherently violent game, but in order to move our society forward and ensure the league’s future survival, Goodell, or his successor, must ensure that the violence stays on the field. ■
• September 29, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue V
Unemployment and Innovation: Two Sides of the Same Coin by Dylan Etzel ’17, Assistant Editor
U
nemployment” is always a crucial buzzword in American political campaigns. “How many jobs will you create?” is a question that measures a candidate’s worth at the federal, state, and local levels. However, our national obsession with job creation is shortsightedly narrow. In tangible ways, an unemployment rate above the natural rate of unemployment (generally around 4 percent) is actually good omen for the economy and society as a whole. Innovation, directly and indirectly, can lead to unemployment, especially in developed countries like the United States. Thus, we may see high unemployment during periods of expansive innovation. While policymakers and researchers often describe our current innovation as “in decline,” innovators are not decreasing in number—instead, their focus has been narrowed. Economists can correlate innovation with unemployment. In the introduction to her paper “Unemployment and Innovation Patterns: The Critical Role of Coordination,” Donatella Gatti writes that, “Innovation affects the labor market mainly because knowledge-based research is assumed to produce ‘radical’ advances in knowledge that necessitate new job matches, thereby fostering job turnover.” The more research a firm undertakes, the higher their perceived level of job turnover. When companies compete to generate innovations, the result is technological improvement at the cost of laying workers off for two reasons: research costs lead to higher budgets that require layoffs, and once an innovation is achieved, skilled workers are either let go or replaced by unskilled workers. This phenomenon happens frequently in prescription drug companies, whose high level of research and development investment constantly creates new products, phasing out older drugs or treatments. The benefit, nevertheless, is a better drug. Benefit to society is subjective; however, innovations that allow more efficient use of time may not be. Netflix is an example of an innovation that sunk a major employer, Blockbuster. Nevertheless, no one lamented the loss of VHS tape rentals at the cruel hands of getting a movie from the comfort of their own home. Therefore, unemployment may represent an inefficient allocation of labor for a service that can be simplified, like video rentals.
This is one reason why Uber was a revolutionary idea. Uber may lead to the eventual destruction of the taxicab business, but security risks aside, Uber has simplified hired transportation. The Boston Globe recently investigated a lawsuit that criticizes Uber for not classifying its drivers as employees. If Uber can pay workers classified as unemployed, future unemployment may also grow out of the death of obsolete platforms for services, like taxicabs, while improperly reflecting how dire the situation is for the unemployed, who can make ends meet through a multitude of different temporary jobs, like Uber driving. According to a popular TedTalk by economist Robert J. Gordon, the United States’ innovative drive is supposedly weakening. This forecast neglects the popularity of website and mobile app making. Critics of today’s innovation point to patent rates and compare the Industrial Revolution with the state of innovation in the present day, but the result is an overly simplified picture. While the rate of tangible inventions, such as new modes of transportation that were present in the late 1800s, has slowed, innovation has skyrocketed in the less-tangible online arena. The transmittal of electronic resources, like music, videos, and data storage has developed at rapid speeds. Is “The Cloud” considered a patented innovation by researchers, or only a restructuring of old mechanisms? The Elastic Compute Cloud, introduced by Amazon in 2006, has led to a full-scale revolution in data management among high-capital firms. Hence, innovation has narrowed in focus but not diminished. Although innovation generates unemployment, this is not necessarily a negative feature of the economy. Statistical models can express that unemployment increases based on innovation, but the nature and scope of the innovation is crucial to the understanding of the model. The scope of innovation has entered a new dimension recently, yes, but has the drive for the progress of society as a whole died? No, it most certainly has not. ■
Volume XVI, Issue V • September 29, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Ending an Oligarchy by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
E
arlier this year, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed the reinstitution of the progressive estate tax. The estate tax had been in place since 1916 and was repealed in 2010 because of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001. A replacement tax on wealth was then levied, but this deal between liberals and conservatives implemented one tax rate for all estates over $5 million. Sanders’ model increases taxes on the greatest amounts of wealth as it changes hands through inheritance. In essence, it is a tax on death. But what its opponents aren’t saying is that the tax has zero effect on 99.75 percent of Americans. The tax works as follows: people get a free pass on the first $3.5 million of wealth ($7 million for couples). From $3.5 million to $10 million, the tax rate would be 45 percent. From $10 million to $50 million the tax rate would be 50 percent, and above $50 million it would be as high as 55 percent. The entire bill was estimated in 2010 to bring in $319 billion over a decade to ease the national debt. Progressive tax rates on wealth and income have famous supporters such as capitalist figures Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith. Thomas Piketty, who has written about the issue most recently in his bestselling book, Capital in the 21st Century, warns of the increasing power of wealth in creating an aristocracy in a capitalist society. Wealth has become increasingly more valuable over the past century and will continue to do so. Unless action is taken, the power of extreme wealth will overcome that of those without wealth and the top one percent of society will become an oligarchy in the economic and political systems. Piketty has praised this tax as an important step in the right direction, as it would put a check on this growth while also providing desperately needed funds for social services. The tax is mostly the reimplementation of the tax rates in 2009— and 99.75 percent of Americans wouldn’t be affected at all. But the bill most likely won’t pass through Congress due to corporate obstructionism.
8 the JHU POLITIK
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court made, arguably, its worst decision in history. It decided in the Citizens United case that corporations can spend any amount of money they would like in support or opposition of political candidates with virtually no regulation or reporting. This means that corporations are able to lobby candidates and continue to donate obscene amounts of money into the war chests of these politicians. Since wealthy corporations are run by people that are deeply affected by the estate tax, it is in the interest of the corporations to donate money to candidates who will, in exchange, push against the reinstitution of the tax. One would think the elected officials who succumbed to this pressure would receive scrutiny from their constituents, but that isn’t the case at all. By presenting the tax as a liberal scheme to tax your inheritance after your death, people are crying out against the “death tax.” But only 0.25 percent of the country would be affected by it. Our complacency is allowing officials corrupted by corporate money to continue fighting for the richest 0.25 percent while leaving 99.75 percent of the country to fight for themselves. Well, it’s time we fight for ourselves. The only way to reinstitute the tax and take steps to curb the increasing power of the ultra-rich is to get big money out of politics. The only way to get big money out of politics is by repealing Citizens United through a constitutional amendment. An amendment doing just that failed in the Senate two weeks ago. Now the hope lies in the states—the only other way an amendment can be added. Sixteen states along with councils in more than 500 cities have passed measures supporting the amendment. We must keep working. We cannot change this country when our power is being imbibed by its top classes alone. Americans fought and died for the end to a monarchical reign. In 1776, we declared ourselves free from the overwhelming power of an aristocracy. It’s high time we declared ourselves free again. ■
• September 29, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue V
Everybody Wins:
The Results of Scotland’s Referendum by Shrenik Jain ’18, Contributing Writer
T
he results of Scotland’s much anticipated referendum are in, and most of us couldn’t have hoped for anything better. An astounding 85 percent voter turnout saw a 55 to 45 percent victory for the unionists, who won all municipalities except tiny Dundee and three districts around Glasgow. While these results leave many issues unresolved, there will be no other referendum on Scottish independence in the near future. For now, the United Kingdom is here to stay. The majority of Britons celebrated this news, inside and outside of Scotland. Many in London were elated to be able to now place faith in their newfound perception of strength in the union. David Cameron, himself partly of Scottish heritage, and the Queen both affirmed their satisfaction with Scotland’s decision. There are many now who claim this result was inevitable, ranging from historians who cite similar, last-minute upsurges in unionist support in other similar referendums, to Britons who claimed the United Kingdom’s cultural legacy was too strong for separation. Perhaps the most prominent international voice for union were economists who cautioned that issues such as North Sea oil, Scottish share of the United Kingdom’s debt, and issues regarding Scottish currency, and European Union membership would significantly slow down a new economy. Many of those relieved by the results lack perspective. To many, the United Kingdom is a symbol of solidarity between intertwined peoples. In Scotland, however, there is a much more ambivalent picture of the United Kingdom due to the violent history of conflict between the two peoples. English brutality remains the subject of many monuments and in museums. Many prominent Englanders fearfully voiced that the Scottish referendum was illegitimate because it deprived non-Scottish United Kingdom citizens of a chance to decide the future of their country. Unionists claimed that secessionist referendums were a threat to stability. While the balkanization of a region can have negative effects towards the stability of governance, self-determination is a fundamental pillar of democracy in today’s post-colonial world and is a right that belongs to the Scottish people.
While Scotland’s decision to remain in the United Kingdom is good news for most, undue focus was placed on economics to try and predict this result. Prior to the referendum, economists mostly agreed that a sovereign state of Scotland would lead to at least a short-term economic slowdown due to new legal complications and uncertainty. But economics is hardly a predictor of how people will vote: examples include the widespread support in South Korea for a unified Korea despite anticipated cost of lifting the North out of poverty, and how Czechoslovakians desired separation despite predicted economic woes. History shows that populations consider more than the markets when considering unions or secessions. A seldom mentioned beneficiary of this vote is the United States and its allies. Vital submarine refueling bases, airstrips, and nuclear weapons sites are currently located in Northern Scotland. Given that there are no real alternatives to these strategic sites, the United States would have lost significant projecting power in the region. While the Scottish National Party renounced their controversial “no-NATO” stance in 2012, they remain opposed to the deployment of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. At a time when tensions with Russia are rising, retaining these military sites is of top priority to the United States. Most people inside Scotland and nearly everyone outside of Scotland are pleased with the results of the referendum. But moving forward, it is important not to overemphasize economics when trying to predict an outcome. The Scottish referendum may convince others to try and address their grievances through independence, and referendums are now being seen as a potential to solve many secessionist conflicts, such as the Catalonian conflict in Spain. If this happens, one may inaccurately perceive a bias towards unity because of the positive effects stability has on the market. It is vital for national governments and academics to remember that people vote with more than their pocketbooks. ■
Volume XVI, Issue V • September 29, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
B’More Adventurous!
A
by Robert Locke ’15, Contributing Writer
ccording to “The Best of Baltimore” edition of City Paper, St. Paul Street is the easiest place to get a sandwich because it has a grand total of eight different locales within a two-block stretch. This is preposterous, especially when you consider how much variety in food, entertainment, and culture Baltimore has to offer – and how much, after three years at Johns Hopkins, I have yet to see. We, as Hopkins students, often cling to the “common understandings’’ and supposed hassle of wandering past 29th Street or encountering trouble in the area surrounding Greenmount. Our preconceived notions of Baltimore as a real-life version of The Wire, combined with our relentless workloads, keep us within the Hopkins Bubble. We could all use a break from the monotony of late nights in the library and food from Chipotle, so why haven’t we explored our city more? What might we be missing? I had the privilege of traveling around the world over the last fifteen months and I’ve experienced the gratifying effects of leaving my comfort zone. One day I sat in the small tapestry store of an abuela, grandmother, in a tiny Colombian mountain town, hours away from a traffic light. We talked about the changes she has seen over the course of her life and the pride she feels for her family, her town and her country. Things fell into perspective, and I’m sure most of you who have been abroad can relate to this sentiment. You learn so much about how other people live their lives and your own through travel, especially off the beaten path.
{
“Getting an A in Orgo is as important to me as it is to you, but I argue that an even more valuable education can be found on the streets of Baltimore.”
10 the JHU POLITIK
Admittedly, you and I both are not going to drop our books right now and run off to the other side of the world–at least not in the middle of midterm season. However, exploring the world and ourselves can begin right here in Baltimore. I, too, am guilty of sometimes being unable to overcome the perceived obstacles associated with leaving Hopkins. I have never been to the Walters Art Museum despite hearing nothing but rave reviews, its free admission, and proximity (one block) to a JHMI stop. I have no excuse for neglecting it, I’m not proud of it, and it drives me crazy that I have been missing such a cultural institution for three years. While many of us have done or currently do some form of community service work, it’s no secret Hopkins students don’t exactly immerse ourselves in the greater Baltimore community. Getting an A in Orgo is as important to me as it is to you, but I argue that an even more valuable education can be found on the streets of Baltimore. Talk to an immigrant who came to this city in search of a better life, talk to someone who works at a non-profit about the services it provides for the community, or just say hello to one of the many friendly faces you’ll walk by in Baltimore – you just might walk away with your next great book recommendation. There are large green fields, an observation deck, and an ice skating rink in Patterson Park, and Highlandtown is energetic and incredibly diverse. We can’t truly appreciate how lucky we are to live in such a culturally rich city until we go out and explore it. You’ll be glad you left campus. I’ve never regretted it. If we live in fear of public transportations or the neighborhoods not lined with beautiful new buildings and perfectly manicured lawns, how can we truly be the compassionate, open-minded leaders needed to advance the next generation of thoughtful innovation and peaceful inclusion? Whether we want to become diplomats or the next great inventors, we can only truly be effective leaders and workers if we understand and are familiar with people of all colors, religions and origins – especially those from a different background. Please go visit that restaurant you’ve been meaning to try but have been “too busy” to seek out or that non-profit you’ve heard of but haven’t really looked into, and help put aside those preconceived notions that are keeping us from breaking down the barriers to social and cultural progress. There is so much to see and do outside the walls of our comfortable bubble, and exploration, just like change, starts with us. ■
• September 29, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue V
WRITE FOR the JHU POLITIK
PHOTO COURTESY: UNITED STATES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS’S PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS DIVISION
JHU Politik, founded in 2008, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins community with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We are lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, the city of Baltimore, the domestic landscape of the United States, and the international community . While we publish the Politik weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested, e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org
Volume XVI, Issue V • September 29, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
11