JHU POLITIK
the
FEBRUARY 9, 2015
VOLUME XVII, ISSUE III
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
MARYLAND EDITOR David Hamburger
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad WEBMASTER Ben Lu MARKETING & PUBLICITY Chiara Wright FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
CAMPUS EDITOR Juliana Vigorito
STAFF WRITERS Abigail Annear Olga Baranoff Arpan Ghosh Alexander Grable Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Shrenik Jain Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Robert Locke Sathvik Namburar Corey Payne
• February 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue III
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week In Review: Government Corruption Abigail Sia ’15 Hogan’s “Fiscal Restraint” and Education Juliana Vigorito ’16 Allies and Elections:
The Mixing of Mideast Diplomacy with Partisan Politics
David Hamburger ’18 #jesuis Jacqueline Fedida ’17 Crisis in Yemen:
Implications for U.S.-Yemen Relations and Regional Stability
Arpan Ghosh ’17
Capital Punishment and the American Psyche Zachary Schlosberg ’16 Our Lethal Debate Over Vaccines Sathvik Namburar ’18
Volume XVII, Issue III • February 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: Government Corruption by Abigail Sia ’16, Assistant Editor Mexico President Launches Investigation...Into Himself President Enrique Peña Nieto launched a conflict-of-interest investigation into his own affairs as well as those of his wife and finance minister. All are fighting allegations that they purchased houses using credit granted by affiliates of a construction firm benefitting from government contracts. The investigation is one part of a series of anti-corruption measures that Peña is employing to repair his credibility and restore his popularity in Mexico. Although the investigation is unusual, observers are already questioning its impartiality because Peña himself appointed the government minister leading the inquiry. Peña is also encouraging a series of reforms, including the creation of a new anti-corruption agency under the attorney general. But although the reforms have the support of many anti-corruption NGOs, and stand a good chance of passing Congress, it will be much harder to tackle the ingrained practice of politicians earning money through their public offices in order to win elections.
Petrobras Scandal Forces Resignation of CEO and Key Presidential Ally The corruption scandal raging in Brazil has forced Maria das Graças Foster, CEO of Petrobras – the state-run oil company – to step down amidst revelations of $8.9 billion worth of suspicious payments, kickbacks, and bribes to politicians. Brazil President Dilma Rousseff had personally handpicked Foster to run the company, but reportedly decided that she can no longer protect her friend and ally. Investigation into the scandal, which has revealed massive amounts of funds funneled to the ruling Workers Party and its political allies through Petrobras directors, has put enormous pressure on Rousseff as she tries to steer Brazil through a severe economic crisis. Rousseff, who took office in 2011, was the chairman of Petrobras while most of the illicit activity was taking place, but has denied any knowledge of the wrongdoing.
New York State Assembly Speaker Steps Down Amidst Bribery Investigations In a fall from power that has rocked New York, Assemblyman Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) stepped down on Tuesday after leading the Assembly for more than 21 years. Once regarded as one of New York’s most powerful politicians, Silver was arrested in January and accused of fabricating a law practice to hide over $4 million in payoffs. In a scheme that stretches over a decade, Silver allegedly steered real estate developers to a law firm that then paid him kickbacks; he was also accused of funneling state grant money to a doctor who referred asbestos claims to another law firm where Silver was a lawyer. Silver’s arrest has, moreover, turned attention to the Moreland Commission, an anti-corruption panel that Governor Andrew Cuomo convened in July 2013, then abruptly shut down in March 2014. ■
4 the JHU POLITIK
• February 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue III
Hogan’s “Fiscal Restraint” and Education by Juliana Vigorito ’16, Campus Editor
L
arry Hogan, Maryland’s 62nd governor and only the second Republican to fill the seat since 1969, was inaugurated on a snowy Wednesday last month. In short order, his proposed budget for the state was announced, including predictable slashes to spending for Medicaid and state employee payrolls. Having run on a decidedly narrow platform of business partnerships and job creation, these choices were unsurprising. What has become more controversial, however, are the shifts in education spending. Though the planned sum allocated to education is a “record investment” on paper, its distribution may leave a significant fraction of Maryland children behind. Beyond just K-12, the Hogan administration has proposed limits on higher education that will affect community colleges, in stark contrast to recent national dialogue on that issue. Our own Johns Hopkins and similar private institutions will not escape unscathed either; Hogan plans to eventually dismantle the existing spending ratio that funds private universities along with public ones. In public statements so far, Governor Hogan has remained adamant that he is committed to maintaining Maryland’s excellent record on education. And so he must, since to say otherwise would be a betrayal of a crucial bipartisan value. Despite these attempts to save face, criticism has come fast and furious from many directions. Education spending remains fairly robust, particularly in the area of school construction funding, but it will be cut most severely for regions where the cost of education is especially high. Included in this group is Baltimore City, where per pupil expenditure has traditionally been high out of necessity. Baltimore exemplifies the fallacy of Hogan’s formula shift; while its spending is higher than that of nearby counties with better rated schools, its costs reflect a higher demand among students for supportive services and free or reduced-price lunches.
Cutting funds for Baltimore City schools demonstrates outright neglect of our city from the new state administration, and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has already begun pushing back against the planned budget. A vested interest in local education should prompt response from the Johns Hopkins community as well. Fewer resources to city schools may mean that campus tutoring programs like the Tutorial Project will see higher demand, that Henderson-Hopkins School will eventually receive fewer resources, and that programs like Baltimore Scholars will have fewer qualified applicants. If Hopkins is to bolster its presence as an anchor institution for Baltimore, we must consider these linked interests closely. In his State of the State address on February 4, Governor Hogan laid out a plan for increasing business competitiveness and closing disparities between Maryland school districts. These two issues are intricately related rather than separate; in order to grow existing businesses and attract more sustainable ones, a highly educated workforce is a necessity. This starts with early childhood and kindergarten programs, and continues up through higher education. Anticipated reductions in school expenditures have prompted teachers unions and education lobbyists alike to warn of the potential for growing class sizes and teacher layoffs, dire effects that make funding allocations for school construction seem misguided. If Maryland’s budget is to be balanced, this is hardly the path of least resistance; rather, it perhaps entails the greatest losses in human capital gained through education. Tax reductions in other areas make our state a more attractive place to some, but school budget cuts can be enough of a detriment to property values and local community strength that the trade-off is hardly worthwhile. The favored phrase of Maryland’s new chief executive is “fiscal restraint.” With this budget Hogan has certainly shown it, but will next need to find a way to restrain sharply critical opponents. ■
Volume XVII, Issue III • February 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Allies and Elections:
The Mixing of Mideast Diplomacy with Partisan Politics
I
by David Hamburger ’18, Maryland Editor
n October 2014, Jeffrey Goldberg published a nowinfamous story in The Atlantic describing the growing sense of discord between U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relations. Disagreements over settlements and a failed U.S.-driven peace process have caused strain in recent years, and the relationship between the Obama administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have worsened over the past several months. The most recent “crisis” involves Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to the United States, during which he will deliver a speech to Congress at the invitation of Speaker of the House John Boehner – an invitation extended without prior consultation with the White House. Given the current strain in U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relations and the Israeli elections scheduled for March 2015, Netanyahu’s decision to speak appears to be an ill-advised political maneuver. And since it comes amid allegations of Republican support for Netanyahu’s reelection, the speech conceivably serves little purpose other than widening the current gulf between the White House and the Prime Minister. In his speech, Netanyahu plans to address the Iranian nuclear program and the rise of Islamist extremism. In recent weeks, the White House has argued that the imposition of proposed sanctions on Iran would undermine the effectiveness of America’s negotiating position. Inviting the Prime Minister to speak now on the dangers of negotiating with Iran thus constitutes what some see as the Republican leadership’s response to this newest round of negotiations and a failure to impose new sanctions. By circumventing standard diplomatic protocol, Boehner has placed the Obama administration and congressional Democrats in an uncomfortable position. The administration’s response – to confirm that President Obama would not be meeting with Netanyahu during the visit – appears to reflect sentiments of those within the White House who view the Prime Minister as having, in Goldberg’s words, a “near-pathological desire for careerpreservation.” Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden, who is usually present when foreign heads of state deliver addresses, has already announced that he will not be able to attend due to travel plans. But while the President and Vice President can argue that other business prevents them from being able to meet, a conscious decision by congressional Democrats
6 the JHU POLITIK
not to attend the speech would mean an effective snub to the head of an allied state. Such a move could prove politically damaging for the participants and counterproductive to Netanyahu’s goal of encouraging a harder line – particularly among Democrats – against Iran’s nuclear program. Ironically, the speech is unlikely to prove beneficial even for Netanyahu. After dismissing certain members of his cabinet last year and calling for new elections, the Prime Minister has repeatedly faced criticism for fraying U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relations. Netanyahu’s political adversaries – from opposition leader Tzipi Livni to former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren – denounce the speech as a purely political move that will only exacerbate the Prime Minister’s cold relationship with Israel’s key ally. The debate over Netanyahu’s speech comes amidst a larger debate among American and Israeli politicians over intervention in foreign elections. After accusations of his tacit support for Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign, the Prime Minister is now facing criticism for his close relationship with Republican campaign financiers and strategists in preparation for the March Israeli elections. Last week, reports that a former Obama campaign aide was involved in organizing campaigns against Netanyahu surfaced at the same time Vincent Harris, a Republican campaign media strategist, worked on the Prime Minister’s reelection bid. Regardless of the particulars of these individual arrangements, the apparent growing acceptance of intervention in foreign elections reveals a concerning trend on the parts of both the Americans and the Israelis. Domestic affairs, particularly elections, are inevitably complex and partisan issues, and by appearing to align with a foreign political party in a domestic debate, international leaders jeopardize their credibility as advocates for the best interests of their respective nations. In the case of the deteriorating U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relationship, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s planned address offers little hope for a move toward reconciliation. Instead, it is likely to place further strain on relations while offering little domestic Israeli support. That, at the very least, appears to be an undiplomatic strategy for a foreign leader. ■
• February 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue III
#jesuis
T
by Jacqueline Fedida ’17, Contributing Writer
he hypocrisy of prejudice in a nation that touts the slogan “Equality, Liberty, Fraternity” is glaringly obvious. This is perhaps why, in October 2014, Jean-Christophe Cambadélis of France’s socialist party conceptualized une liberté duale: liberty for the French national, but not for the French immigrant, the French Muslim, or the French Jew. The French recognize that this selective application of social values allows an increasingly pluralistic French society to preach notions of democracy all while remaining distinctly French. The French are well-attuned to this sort of republican identity crisis, to which waves of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are highly reactionary – recall the Dreyfus Affair of the 1890s, the brutal policing of Algerian banlieue communities in the 1960s, and the antiimmigrant platform Sarkozy championed following the 2005 Paris riots. Given this context, the Paris terrorist attacks, as well as the unsettling statistic that over 1,000 French citizens and residents have joined terrorist networks in Iraq and Syria, have propelled Islamophobia to new heights. France’s official new counterterrorist campaign “Stop Jihad” has resultantly framed the current problem of Islamic fundamentalism as a challenge to French identity, whose solution lies in an all-out revival of French social and political culture. Along with expanding security and intelligence programs, the French government issued a list of nine warning signs associated with terrorist recruitment, including changing one’s style of dress and food habits. Even more indicative that France’s current problems amount to a crisis of identity, a major part of Stop Jihad involves the mobilization of French schools to transmit and strengthen republican values. These policies are alarmingly hyper-nationalist and are destined to deepen chasms between ethnic groups in French society. Why? Because French “Republicans” are not the only ones currently facing an identity crisis. Young Muslims are too. Many French jihadists are children of immigrant families, who are one more generation removed from Islamic history, language, religion and culture than their parents. Yet these partially-assimilated French teenagers live in a society that constantly reminds them of their Islamic identity – an identity to which they themselves cannot fully relate. For young teenagers, jihad is an alternative to unemployment, offering a sense of adventure and excitement and the
chance to participate in a historic movement. For older French Muslims, jihad presents a familiar ideological struggle – familiar because the French historical narrative has also reinforced a division between the West and the Islamic world. So, while in many cases the recruitment of French jihadists occurs unbeknownst to their families, social tensions in the homeland of human rights and freedom have ironically sown the seeds for radicalization. For this reason, the Stop Jihad campaign may prove counterintuitive – especially as violence against Muslims in France rises. A few weeks after the government unveiled Stop Jihad, police in Nice interrogated an eight-year-old boy, Ahmed, after he was accused of advocating terrorism. During school – France’s “citizen route” – Ahmed’s teacher asked him if he was Charlie (playing off the #JeSuisCharlie solidarity hashtag). Ahmed responded that he was not, because Charlie draws caricatures of the Prophet, and that he was therefore on the side of the terrorists Although many dismissed Ahmed’s comment as innocently ignorant, the fact that Ahmed has already divorced his Muslim identity from his French identity is indicative of the dangers of differentiation and stigmatization. Ahmed’s comment should be a worrisome sign for France. How will Ahmed view himself in a few years, as the very campaign intended to assimilate him will encourage his classmates to question the food he eats, the clothes he wears, and his interactions with girls? Ahmed’s future identity is uncertain, like that of France and of the global Muslim community. School will play a central role in shaping Ahmed, the French Muslim – hopefully without producing a tension between the two. Historian Benjamin Stora offers a potential solution: teach a French history that is one of France and “the countries of the South.” Teach a French history that embraces, rather than rejects, its convergence with the history of Islamic societies in the Maghreb, so that French minority teenagers can feel a sense of belonging. I do not deny the difficulty of becoming a French Republican Muslim in today’s world, but I do not believe they are irreconcilable. Because Islam is a religion that, despite its extremist iterations, preaches the pursuit of social justice. And because France is a country that, although sometimes falling short of its own aspirations, was founded on the principles of equality, fraternity and liberty. ■
Volume XVII, Issue III • February 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Crisis in Yemen:
Implications for U.S.-Yemen Relations and Regional Stability by Arpan Ghosh ’17, Staff Writer
F
ollowing 9/11, former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh allied with the United States against terrorism, permitting CIA and American Special Forces to train Yemeni military units against Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP). Although Yemen should have been the Bush administration’s top priority, the United States trusted that Saleh would adequately dismantle terrorism’s biggest hotspot in the Arabian Peninsula. But this was far from the truth. Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, accurately and bluntly describes the truth: that Americantrained Yemeni military units had “primarily been used for the defense of the [Saleh] regime and to fight the Shi’ite minority rebel Houthis in the north, and political opponents in the south of the country. Saleh played the U.S. like a piano on the counterterror issue. He realized it was a cash cow that also could benefit him politically.” The Americans weren’t the only ones who were “played” by these events. Under Saleh, Yemen became the poorest country in the Arab world. Following the Tunisian Revolution, disgruntled Yemeni citizens took to the streets to demand the Saleh regime’s dissolution. After a year of protests resulting in over 300 civilian deaths and over a thousand injuries, the Yemeni Revolution successfully ousted Saleh and his regime in February 2012. Afterwards, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, sole candidate in the presidential election, was inaugurated as president of Yemen. Yemen, under Hadi’s leadership, began to cooperate with the United States more than Saleh ever did, particularly in military operations against AQAP. As a result, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen have skyrocketed since 2001, and especially so throughout the Obama administration. American drone warfare, coupled with Hadi’s green light, was upheld by Obama on September 10, 2014 as a success: “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.” In saying this, Obama seems either to be lying or is completely oblivious to how American intervention in Yemen has failed. The Obama administration has been aware of the militant
8 the JHU POLITIK
Shiite organizations growing in size and power in North Yemen, as well as al-Qaeda’s consolidation of power in the south and east. A couple of weeks after Obama’s statements, Yemeni Prime Minister Mohammed Basindawa resigned as a result of Houthi insurgents’ entering the capital, Sana’a, and storming the presidential palace. And on January 22, 2015, Houthi insurgents took complete control of both, resulting in Hadi’s resignation as leader and the complete dissolution of the country’s parliament. Last Friday, February 6, Houthi insurgents announced that they were planning to take over the country. Did Obama suspect that Hadi would be ousted only four months after his speech hailing operations in Yemen as a success? The Obama administration was well aware of the failures in Yemen. Not to amend policy or attempt to find a way to quell both the Yemeni people and various Shiite insurgencies is indicative of a massive U.S. foreign policy failure in the Nile-to-Oxus region. Moreover, with the recent anti-West, Shi’ite rebels takeover, it is unlikely that the United States has any diplomatic influence over Yemen now. U.N. Security Council talks have failed over the past few weeks, and conflicts will only be exacerbated as other groups like al-Qaeda or even Hadi proponents engage in armed combat, possibly resulting in a bloody civil war. Al-Qaeda is not the only threat to the United States. Although the Houthis accept the role that American drone warfare played in killing al-Qaeda militants, Houthi rhetoric is extremist and anti-American. The U.S. could fund proHadi groups and attempt to reinstate an American-friendly administration, but it would be a prolonged battle with a slim chance of success. It would be a repeat of Syria. The United States should therefore continue diplomatic talks with Iran. Iran has numerous ties to the Houthis and have allegedly funded many of their operations to prevent future violence. But it does seem that war and violence is inevitable in Yemen and that the Obama administration will no longer be able to continue its inadequate and ineffectual policies regarding the area. ■
• February 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue III
Capital Punishment and the American Psyche by Zachary Schlosberg ’16, Staff Writer
T
he United States is one of 37 countries worldwide that still employs the death penalty. Only 21 countries are estimated to have executed citizens in 2013, and only one other of these countries (Japan) is considered “developed” by the International Monetary Fund. A number of the countries still practicing the death penalty include capital punishment for sodomy. A handful still execute people by hanging, by stoning, or by firing squad. Capital punishment is a troubling remnant of a past world that still exists in the U.S., with 43 executions in 2012, 39 in 2013, and 35 last year. The facts are a disgrace. So what are the effects of legal homicide on the psyche of our country? Last week, The New Yorker published an article about the astonishing rate of fatal shootings by police officers in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Titled “Your Son is Deceased,” the article begins with the harrowing narrative of Christopher Torres, a schizophrenic gunned down in his own backyard by an Albuquerque police officer, who died shrieking, “I’m a good guy! This is my house!” Christopher’s parents returned to their home that afternoon to find the neighborhood swarming with police officers. They were given next to no information other than that their son had been killed; they only found out how the next day, from the news. In the five years before Christopher’s death, there had been nine shootings of mentally ill individuals by Albuquerque police officers. These victims were presented by the police department and the media as criminals. In Christopher’s case, reports cited a few past road rage incidents. When interviewed about the previous shootings, Christopher’s mother later commented, “I just assumed that these men must have done something to merit being killed.” The American moral compass is not so lost as to condone police brutality. Intrinsically, we want to believe that our cops are heroes and their victims deserving criminals. But these good intentions are false. We are spinning ourselves an incorrect narrative because it’s the more convenient one: I just assumed that these men must have done something to merit being killed. We want to live in a world where death equals justice, and our country has given us a template for this desire. Our country tells us that there are some things you deserve to die for. Our country is able to justify homicide. It says: murdering is wrong, except when it’s okay. We have a built-
in loophole. When somebody with authority kills someone who doesn’t have that authority, we generally shrug and think “okay” and go on with our lives. This is because we live in a society that tells us some people deserve to die. I am not here to argue that question. This world contains unspeakable horror, and whether or not humans deserve to die for their actions is a debate fraught with complexity. And killing someone out of self-defense is its own prickly issue that we have a judicial system to figure out. The bottom line is that our government should not be able to commit legalized murder. In the past two weeks, the government has condoned the execution of a man in Georgia with an IQ of 70 and a man in Texas with an IQ of 67. What’s more, a study published in 2014 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America estimates that 4.1 percent of those convicted on death row are, in fact, innocent. Capital punishment simplifies something obscenely complex. We are simplifying. That’s what we do when we subconsciously assume that “these men must have done something to merit being killed.” What does that even mean, when it comes down to it? To merit being killed. Does a person deserve to die for killing someone else? Does he deserve to die for shoplifting? For selling loose cigarettes? For holding a toy gun? For being schizophrenic and scared? Or perhaps it’s in the aftermath that we determine whether or not an individual deserved to die. When pictures surface, when we find out they smoked marijuana and listened to rap music. This is when, collectively, we shrug our shoulders and think about how, in the United States of America, when we kill people, they deserve it. ■
Volume XVII, Issue III • February 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
Our Lethal Debate Over Vaccines
I
by Sathvik Namburar ’18, Staff Writer
n January 2015, the United States reported 102 cases of measles, the majority of which are linked to an outbreak originating in California’s Disneyland. While 102 cases may seem insignificant compared to the current Ebola epidemic, which has infected a staggering 22,000 individuals, this latest outbreak confirms the resurgence of a virus that was long considered to be on the decline in America. 52 years after the introduction of the first measles vaccination, it appears that the United States still needs to take significant steps to eradicate this disease. Widespread skepticism about vaccines arose from a paper published in The Lancet. Published in 1998, the paper hinted at a link between vaccinations and autism. Although it has since been retracted and numerous studies have found no such association, the paper left an indelible impression on some parents, who fail to recognize that the risks associated with immunizations are far outweighed by the dangers of not immunizing children, as demonstrated by this latest measles outbreak. Experts believe that the vast majority of children infected in the Disneyland outbreak had not been vaccinated. Children who are not vaccinated also pose a significant health risk to their peers, which is why some – though not all – states require that children receive certain basic immunizations before being permitted to attend school. Of course, some vaccines do carry significant risk. There is currently much debate over whether an Ebola vaccine should be rolled out quickly, as it could have unforeseen negative health consequences. However, the measles vaccine, first developed fifty years ago, has been successfully administered to billions of children. In the 1960s, some side effects were found to be associated with the measles vaccine, but scientists quickly determined ways to make it safer. As a result, the measles vaccine is among the safest on the market today.
Unfortunately, too many Americans believe in the selfappointed experts who decry the use of vaccines. Jenny McCarthy, former anchor on The View, received muchdeserved criticism for railing against the benefits of
10 the JHU POLITIK
vaccines, but her uninformed opinion likely influenced many American parents. Likewise, prominent politicians such as Rand Paul and Chris Christie have used the debate over vaccines’ efficacy as a way to support their agenda of protecting personal freedoms by supporting the right of every parent to determine whether their children should be vaccinated. But what politicians like Christie and Paul seem not to grasp is that science has proven that vaccines have incontrovertibly positive benefits. Instead, Christie and Paul fail are willing to undermine our nation’s public health by questioning the practice of vaccination in order to promote their political agendas. They, along with others who have publicly criticised the use of vaccines, deserve some of the blame for the latest measles outbreak. At the same time that Americans refuse to vaccinate their children, global demand for and use of vaccines continues to rise. The World Health Organization and other groups have implemented an ambitious campaign to vaccinate all children against polio, and as a result, are close to eradicating the disease around the globe. Many countries have implemented vaccination drives, and India has an ambitious Universal Immunization Program that calls for all children to be vaccinated against seven common diseases. Only in America has the desire for personal freedom trumped common sense. While the right to refuse vaccination will likely not be abolished in the near future, the U.S. government should begin a renewed push to promote vaccines’ safety. Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should fully understand the adverse consequences of doing so. The recent debate over the safety of well-established vaccines threatens to undermine the positive steps taken in the last 100 years to lessen the burden of infectious diseases. For some, the consequence will be fatal. Unless we are prepared to encounter more crises similar to the Disneyland measles outbreak, we must end this unproductive and unnecessary debate over the perceived dangers of vaccines. ■
• February 9, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue III
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 XVII, Issue III • February 9, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
11