JHU POLITIK
the
I
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
VOLUME XVIII, ISSUE IV
the
JHU POLITIK EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Christine Server & Juliana Vigorito MANAGING EDITOR Mira Haqqani
HEAD WRITER Evan Harary
ASSISTANT EDITORS Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Shrenik Jain Sathvik Namburar
POLICY DESK EDITOR Arpan Ghosh
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee
MARYLAND EDITOR David Hamburger
COPY EDITOR Zachary Schlosberg WEBMASTER Position Open MARKETING & PUBLICITY Chiara Wright
CAMPUS EDITOR Christina Selby
STAFF WRITERS Olga Baranoff Dylan Cowit Rosellen Grant George Gulino Morley Musick Sathvik Namburar Corey Payne
FACULTY ADVISOR Charlotte O’Donnell
2 the JHU POLITIK
• September 21, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue IV
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9
Victim or Complainant:
JHU’s New Sexual Misconduct Policy Fails Survivors
John Hughes ’18
Is Peoples’ Flag Deepest Red Again? Sina Fahimi Hanzaei ’18 The Lightness of Public Opinion Lukasz Grabowski ’18 Russia’s Incoherent Aggression Evan Harary ’16 The Politics of Tennis Linh Tran ’19 On Judgment Calls Dylan Etzel ’17
Volume XVIII, Issue IV • September 21, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Victim or Complainant: JHU’s New Sexual Misconduct Policy Fails Survivors
T
by John Hughes ’18, Contributing Writer
his August, Johns Hopkins enacted a formal Sexual Misconduct Policy after a brief comment period on their public draft over the summer. The policy endeavors to define prohibited sexual misconduct, outline a procedure for determining whether misconduct has occurred, and remedy the situation through sanctions and accommodations. The approach it takes in this, however, is not one focused on protecting victims; instead it is based on punishing “misconduct.” This distinction goes beyond a philosophical difference – it manifests in real loopholes, gaps in coverage, and even protections for perpetrators. The policy’s opening statement illuminates the rift: “This conduct [sexual misconduct] is disruptive of the learning and working environment… To that end, the University embraces its responsibility” to take the actions outlined in the policy. Nowhere in the statement of purpose is the effect of sexual assault and harassment on victims mentioned, and the cited reason for having the policy in the first place is not the fact that sexual assault hurts people, but rather that it is a “disruption.” In fact, the document uses the word “victim” very rarely, instead using the term “complainant,” even when referring to procedures applicable after an affirmative determination that sexual assault did in fact occur. This “complainant-respondent” language distances the procedures from the reality of sexual assault. It is not surprising, therefore, that the policy fails to disambiguate the definition of “incapacitation” with respect to consent. The policy includes the phrase “a person can consume alcohol and/or drugs without becoming incapacitated,” yet gives no metric for determining incapacitation. This would be quickly resolved in a document focused on the victim, which could draw attention to the fact that there is a societal bias toward assuming victims are more cognizant than they actually were at the time of assault. Nor is it surprising that the definitions of domestic and dating violence both exclude emotional abuse (while including sexual and physical), or that the definition of discrimination excludes socioeconomic class from its list of protected classes, even when socioeconomic class is one of the major factors in both prevalence and outcomes for sexual assault.
continuous involvement by both complainant and respondent, a commitment not often possible for non-affiliates whose work commitments and transportation needs vary significantly from those of an affiliate. Again, a victim focus would provide special provisions to ensure that complaints by non-affiliates cannot fall through procedural cracks. For all the work that the policy puts into defining extensive, rigorous investigative procedures, one would think that it would put in place formal teeth to protect the determinations and sanctions it facilitates – sanctions which may be controversial, as they can extend from simple probations and trainings, to campus bans, terminations, expulsions, and post-graduation revocations of degrees. Instead, the stability of determinations and sanctions is directly undermined by an egregious appeals process, which rests on the decisions of exactly one person – the Vice Provost for Student Affairs. These appeals may be filed not only based on procedural errors and new evidence, but also based on “excessiveness or insufficiency of the sanction(s).” And the Vice Provost can not only remand the case to investigation for further review, but also directly “enter a revised determination,” a decision which cannot be appealed. The possibility that the Vice Provost could revise a politically contentious case is extremely worrisome. Even the imposition of the sanctions themselves is ignorant of victims – and here, demonstrably, intentionally so. The original draft included “the impact of the offense on the complainant” as a consideration in sanctioning; however, this has been removed in the final policy, meaning the resolution panel must ignore the magnitude of the damage done by the offense in punishing the perpetrator. This policy is new, and it was implemented with a short, offsemester comment period. That alone is sufficient political momentum to challenge its victim-ignorant gaps and loopholes – but only if we as a campus community can have a real conversation about prioritizing victims. ■
The policy also provides no special provisions for when a person unaffiliated with the University files a complaint about sexual assault committed by a University affiliate. While these assaults are theoretically covered under the policy, investigative procedures are written in a way that implies
4 the JHU POLITIK
• September 21, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue IV
Is Peoples’ Flag Deepest Red Again? by Sina Fahimi Hanzaei ’18, Contributing Writer
J
eremy Corbyn’s election to the leadership of the British Labour Party, one of the most noteworthy events in recent British political history, will likely cause a disturbance in UK’s political equilibrium. There are traditionally two major parties active in Britain: Labour and Conservative. The Conservative Party is currently the prominent power, as they have a bigger share of seats in the Parliament. The Labour Party has been out of power for five years following the successful years of 1997 to 2010, when Tony Blair persuaded the public of his neoliberalist policies. Under Blair, Labour party transformed into New Labour. Blair claimed to work for the lower classes, who are the prominent supporters of Labour, by promising a stronger free market economy. He advocated for a turn to right, and Labour supporters who had been out of power for eighteen years at the time gladly welcomed it. But why has the Labour Party lost the popularity it gained under Blair? How is it trying to regain it after its second consecutive loss in the general elections? The solution seems to have been presented to the party last week, and it is quite simple: a turn back to classic Labour. Labour Party announced the change on September 12th after the polling period ended and a stunning 420,000 people had cast their votes. Jeremy Corbyn, the dark horse candidate who entered the race with 200-to-1 odds of winning, absolutely dominated the competition. He not only managed to gain about sixty percent of the votes, but also attracted thousands of new young members to the party. He can be introduced as the polar opposite of Blair. He seldom wears ties, is a veteran left winger, and voted about five hundred times against his own party under Blair’s New Labour. He helped lead the anti-Iraq war rally, opposing British involvement led by Blair. Corbyn supports re-nationalization of railways, fifty percent or higher tax rates for the rich, rent controls on landlords, free education policies, cheap housings, and the disposal of Britain’s entire nuclear arsenal. These policy positions in a time when neoliberalism was on the rise meant that he spent his entire career as an MP on the backbench of Parliament. But no matter how many times Tony Blair calls his policies “old fashioned,” it is quite obvious that the public is not supporting New Labour anymore, but is pushing instead for a turn back to the original Labour. In 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour gained power, most political analysts considered it to be the end of classical leftwingers. The wave of British neoliberalism started by Thatcher seemed to have finally claimed its last victim: the Labour party, the only major opposition to the conservatives. But Blair’s new
policies crippled British government’s debt, which increased from £323 billion to £617 billion despite a period of fairly fast economic growth. With the credit crunch of 2008, New Labour approached its demise, as it became apparent that the economy was not benefiting from New Labour’s policies. Election of Ed Miliband served as a comeback for the left; however, his weak position within the party demonstrated New Labour’s struggle to keep the left turning right. This year’s election was the latest attempt to stop the detrimental policies of New Labour. Blair’s strategies, which have weakened the economy, made the UK an American follower in foreign affairs and alienated the working people of Britain, are finally ending. The Labour party has returned to its roots and can once again be called the people’s party. Now they can claim: “By the strength of our common endeavor, we achieve more than we achieve alone,” because they can now represent the British working class. Labour has always claimed to fight for a “fairer country,” but from 1997 to 2010, they were unreliable politicians who turned their backs on their major constituencies and eventually lost power. Jeremy Corbyn might not be the next PM, but he has set Labour on an entirely different path. This might be exactly what the UK needs. ■
Volume XVIII, Issue IV • September 21, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
The Lightness of Public Opinion by Lukasz Grabowski ’18, Contributing Writer
W
hen asked by reporters about her slumping poll numbers, Hillary Clinton put on a poker face. “Polls go up and down; people’s decision-making changes over time,” she replied. This statement generally holds true; fourteen months before the election, media consumers are already being bombarded with coverage of presidential hopefuls. Because this period is often their first true exposure to candidates, their initial views are mercurial at best. Nevertheless, the extent to which these views can be swayed by media coverage indicates that Clinton’s position may not be so optimistic. In recent months, it was revealed that Clinton used a private email server for professional correspondence as Secretary of State. Further investigation uncovered classified information contained in these emails, calling into question Clinton’s professionalism. Submerged in this spectacle, viewers take pleasure in watching Clinton dodge allegations. They replace her beliefs with a one-dimensional media construct that may endure through election season – unless they question their own suppositions. As things stand, the email controversy has reduced her support among Democrats to its lowest in years: 39%, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll. Meanwhile, her most significant rival among the Democrats, Bernie Sanders, continues to surge upwards. He has come within 8% of Clinton in the polls and 31% of Democrats would now choose him in the primaries. The rapidity of the change in polling must further unnerve Clinton; a week prior to the aforementioned poll, Clinton’s 45% loomed comfortably over Sanders’ 25%. While hardly all-encompassing, pre-primaries polling reveals how strongly the scandal has impacted Clinton’s support and how powerful the media’s grip on public opinion has become. While media coverage continuously shifts to fit a biased agenda, politicians’ values are usually well-established. The episode, then, brings a larger question into play: should the media more clearly portray candidates’ core beliefs and political track records? As befits a democratic society, media channels are meant to hold politicians accountable. In Clinton’s case, however, this noble cause has been perverted and more closely resembles an entertainment culture than the delivery of facts. By spotlighting her minor blunder, media channels naturally enforce a new image of Clinton - one of dishonesty and carelessness. Week after week, the media coverage of the so-called scandal overshadows the basis for her campaign – the ideas that made her an instant favorite for the nomination in the first place.
6 the JHU POLITIK
The dilemma remains: media will continue to frame news in a manner that maximizes viewership. Unfortunately, drama in politics is sexy, which keeps the status quo functioning. Viewers are content with making their electoral decisions based on perceived character traits and through judgments often made according to a couple of sound bites or news clips. These gut decisions are lazy and potentially irresponsible ways of choosing a candidate, especially in the months leading up to the primaries when media are slogging through numerous candidates. Voters should be made aware of Clinton’s use of a private email server, but more importantly they should have a clear understanding of her positions on foreign policy, education, health care, and job creation. Although we rely on media to uncover scandals, we also need them to sort through the convoluted world of politics and flesh out each candidate’s views. When this is no longer possible, voters must research independently – all the information is out there. In doing so, we turn inwards and question our own political values. Proactivity liberates us from the media’s clutches to reveal a political playing field that is not so black and white. Hillary Clinton made a mistake – that doesn’t necessarily make her a sly and untrustworthy liar. Similarly, we shouldn’t immediately hail Bernie Sanders as the most authentic and honest politician in Washington. It’s important that we come to such a conclusion as a result not of cable news commentary, but through a sober and objective approach to political thought, regardless of our leanings. “I think he’s all right,” I’ve heard people say after a candidate’s electrifying speech. The tone often has a note of finality. Such passive resignation undermines the tenets of American democracy, where citizens decide what they want for their nation. It is our responsibility to keep questioning, and we should only rest easy after an elected official has turned words into tangible legislative action. Otherwise, our votes become arbitrary numbers in a lottery pot. ■
• September 21, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue IV
Russia’s Incoherent Aggression by Evan Harary ’16, Head Writer
A
merican politicians like to cast Russia as our megalomaniacal foil. This is a drastic misconception: rather than ascending, Russia is moving towards decay and decentralization. What we see as carefully planned blows against Western influence are actually desperate swipes thrown by an increasingly panicked regime. This is no less dangerous. But as Putin seeks to lead talks on Syria, U.S. diplomats must use this knowledge to bring about stability and reform. With the exception of a brief period following the fall of the Soviet Union, mutual distrust has characterized the relationship between the United States and Russia, and with good reason. The U.S. is the strawman to which Russian antipathy gravitates in times of crisis. The Putin administration routinely targets minorities and the LGBTQ community as a means of misdirecting public dissatisfaction. Putin’s autocracy is not the type of government with which we want a special relationship. Putin has long been cast as America’s arch nemesis. However, American fear of Russian machinations, and Putin’s individual aura, is overwrought. Vladimir Putin has spent years cultivating his image as a macho man, a projection that has beguiled the American public. We routinely describe the relationship between America and Russia as one in which the martial Russian emasculates the passive American. But in truth, Putin is getting old. Russian sources speaking to the New York Times noted that Putin no longer has the will or desire to enact grand policy schemes. More and more, he leads in absentia. The will of an omnipotent executive has historically driven Russian policy. With Putin fading, policy makers are left to their own devices. And with the memory of post-Soviet chaos still fresh in mind, many Russian government officials describe their perspective as more doomsday than expansionary. Russian policy, aggressive abroad and at home, is the product of this crumbling infrastructure rather than a grand scheme for world domination. Russia’s actions and the global climate have left Russia in trouble. As dramatic as Russia’s annexation of Crimea was, it has saddled the already burdened nation with a host of financial liabilities. Russia’s ongoing involvement in the Ukraine, though a crowd favorite at home, has alienated Russia from the diplomatic community, inflicted further damage on its economy, and pushed Ukraine further toward NATO and the EU. Russia’s pronounced presence in Asia has borne little fruit and portends to disintegrate further as China turns inward. Oil prices have dropped and will stay low for some time, depriving the Russian economy of its primary staple. It is out of this
quagmire that Putin comes with the desire to begin talks on Syria. If Russia has its way in these talks, Western powers would enter a coalition with Russia and the Arab states and, armed with a UN Security Council mandate, defeat the Islamic State and Al Nusra Front. Russia would then bring Assad into negotiations, following which the Assad regime would be reinstated in some form. Although the Assad regime has done reprehensible things, this is a viable solution if we wish to stop the violence. But U.S. negotiators must not isolate these negotiations from Russia’s unacceptable behavior elsewhere. Putin built his legacy on his success in response to the Chechen attacks, which the Russian media labeled the work of Islamic terrorists. Putin therefore has a real, domestic need to appear as if he is effectively combating Islam-centric militants in the Middle East. To a large extent, the result of these negotiations will determine Putin’s credibility with the Russian public. While Western nations should attempt to put an end to the Syrian conflict, our political needs are not as pressing. Russia’s aggression is the result of its weakness. Western diplomats must take advantage of the shaky state of the Russian domestic situation in negotiations and demand substantive change, such as reduced involvement in the Ukraine and a softer domestic stance, in exchange for granting Putin’s policy goals. If the West allows Russia to pursue its agenda freely, it sends a message that Russia’s reprehensible actions do not preclude its involvement in the international community. The U.S. and its allies are facing a paper tiger in these talks. If they recognize this leverage they can use this opportunity to bring about peaceful change. ■
Volume XVIII, Issue IV • September 21, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
The Politics of Tennis by Linh Tran ’19, Contributing Writer
T
he 135th U.S. Open recently concluded in New York, unofficially ending this year’s tennis season. The U.S. Open has grown exponentially more popular in recent years, drawing 713,612 television viewers in 2015, the highest in decades, although few American tennis players—with the notable exception of the Williams sisters—performed well. However, as this year’s Open demonstrated, tennis is a global sport with a global following. Furthermore, unlike international soccer and basketball, for which national allegiance dictates which team a fan will support, tennis viewers usually focus more on players’ talent and personality than their country of origin. Indeed, tennis is unique in this regard, as it transcends countries’ borders. Americans who attend the U.S. Open admire players such as Novak Djokovic, who was raised in war-torn Belgrade but overcame his origins to become the top ranked tennis player in the world. Now tennis, a highly individual and physically demanding sport, excites youngsters from Asia who aspire to be the next Li Na or Kei Nishikori, as well as children across the world who dream of becoming the next tennis queen like Serena Williams. Tennis also promotes international peace and harmony. Indian doubles star Rohan Bopanna and Pakistani player Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi formed a doubles pair from 2003 until 2011, and they both wore matching jackets that read “Stop War Start Tennis” on one occasion when they played together in England. Nevertheless, despite its internationally transcendent qualities, tennis is still burdened with the stereotype that it is a leisure game for wealthy white males. One reason for this belief is that tennis requires specific equipment and playing areas that need to be well-maintained and managed. Aspiring basketball and soccer players simply need space, a ball, and a net, but tennis players need expensive accessories as well as individualized training from a young age. As a result, tennis continues to be associated primarily by wealthy Caucasians.
USTA hopes to reinvigorate the U.S. tennis program, which has shown signs of decline in the past few years. Tennis also has to confront issues of sexism and racism. Serena Williams, despite being one of the greatest female players in history, often sees less news coverage than Maria Sharapova, a tall blond Russian. Throughout her career, Williams has wonderfully and gracefully exemplified excellence, but she also has had to battle against racism. Nevertheless, Williams chooses to let her victories speak for her. When Shamil Tarpischev, president of the Russian Tennis Federations, described Williams as “scary to look at,” Williams gave a simple rejoinder: “I’ve done the best that I can do, and that’s all I can say.” Indeed, Williams was, is, and will forever be the national treasure of U.S. tennis, not only because of her twenty-one grand slam titles, but also because of her remarkable presence as a symbol of diversity, equality, and tenacity (she grew up in Compton, CA). Still, it is not enough for Williams to be the sole representative of diversity in tennis; we must ensure that others have a chance to join her. Tennis has evolved significantly since its medieval origins and its formal beginnings in English social clubs. It started as a leisure game for wealthy Brits during the colonial era. Now, professional players from many different corners of the world play professional tournaments, many of which are increasingly being held in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. As tennis has gradually become the embodiment of global peace and harmony, we must take steps to ensure that in the future, anyone from any background can play this beautiful game. ■
There is even less diversity at the professional level, although some organizations are trying to rectify this issue. “The best thing we can do is make sure kids are exposed to rackets and courts at a very early age and from all walks of life,” Serena Williams suggested recently to the New York Times. In the past few years, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) has attempted to do so, focusing on finding talented youth in underserved communities. The USTA has facilitated the Hispanic outreach initiative Tenis para Todos and is investing in the National Junior Tennis & Learning program. With a more diverse population of kids learning to play tennis, the
8 the JHU POLITIK
• September 21, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue IV
On Judgment Calls by Dylan Etzel ’17, Assistant Editor
E
arlier this week, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject a plan to build a mosque in the Detroit, Michigan suburb. The city council cited the fact that the structure was “not harmonious with the existing buildings in the area,” but due to its size, not due to its purpose. Meanwhile, citizens who had gathered outside to voice opposition to the mosque chanted “God Bless America” and “No More Mosques” outside the City Hall. In a similar bout of ethno-religious tension, the case of Ahmed Mohamed went viral this week. Police in the town of Irving, Texas cuffed Ahmed, a 14 year old, for building a “hoax bomb”—their term for the home-made digital clock that Ahmed brought to his new school to impress teachers. These two cases illustrate the difficulty that bureaucracy has dealing with minorities, especially a minority as vilified as the American Muslim community. In his “Society Must be Defended” lectures at the Collège de France, Michel Foucault defined racism as the break between what must live and what must die. He elaborated that racism is not just personal; bureaucratic institutions are necessarily racist in their administration of the laws. The Sterling Heights City Council probably should have allowed the mosque to be built; however, they claim that since they put it to a vote, due process has been applied. The members of the Council recognized an unwinnable game. This is the bureaucratic struggle: deciding whether to confront racism or the majority. If they approved the mosque, residents would maintain claims that the mosque decreases property value and intensifies traffic. They may not have avoided ethnic conflict, as Sterling Heights features the largest Iraqi Christian population in the United States. Some Iraqi Christians (Chaldeans) had already publicly declared the mosque to be a terrorist training center, according to al-Jazeera America. They also recognized that rejecting the plans meant that they would be labeled anti-Muslim. They had a decision to make, and they chose what they considered to be the safest.
Reconciling bureaucracy with the minorities they underrepresent is difficult. The series of police killings of African Americans over the last two years demonstrates this problem. We need substantive solutions, not just rhetoric. In Ahmed’s case, we should have more Muslim teachers and police officers. Though workplace diversity rules are often criticized, they should apply to America’s minority religions too. Police need better protocols for dealing with minors under criminal suspicion in general. The police asked Ahmed why he built a clock, and they decided he had no “reasonable answer.” However, they were allowed to determine what defined a reasonable answer. They should never have been able to cuff him without learning more about the situation. In the Sterling Heights case, sadly, a mosque is exactly what the suburb needed to dispel racist assumptions about the project. But a solution is not out of reach; Americans need a better education of religions that are not Judeo-Christian. More Americans need to tour a mosque and become comfortable with Islam, the world’s most widely practiced faith. Many public school systems mandate multiple years of a foreign language, but too few require a class about different world religions. Politicians, bureaucrats, police officers, and teachers have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they make decisions that are immoral and biased, but irrational fears are something everyone encounters at times. To assuage those fears, American society needs to become more comfortable with unfamiliar religions and cultures. ■
The Ahmed Mohamed and Sterling Heights cases share the problem of how bureaucracy cannot effectively deal with religious minorities and their stereotypes. Upon reading the story, it is easy to say that the police and the MacArthur High School teachers acted on their racist beliefs. That said, the police’s claim that the clock looked like a “movie bomb” is not in and of itself wrong. The clock apparatus utilized a briefcase, a time monitor, and several multi-colored wires. Examining it closely, there is no sign of any explosives; this is why police charged Ahmed with possession of a “hoax bomb.” However embedded racism is in the criminal justice system, individual police officers and teachers have to make judgment calls.
Volume XVIII, Issue IV • September 21, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
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
10 the JHU POLITIK
• September 21, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue IV