JHU POLITIK
the
I
OCTOBER 26, 2015
VOLUME XVIII, ISSUE VIII
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 Sasha Cea-Loveless MARKETING & PUBLICITY Chiara Wright
CAMPUS EDITOR Christina Selby
STAFF WRITERS Olga Baranoff Dylan Cowit Rosellen Grant George Gulino Corey Payne
FACULTY ADVISOR Charlotte O’Donnell
2 the JHU POLITIK
• October 26, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue VIII
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9
David Cameron’s “War on Islamic Extremism” Continues Evan Harary ’16 Sitting Out the Case:
The Court and Conflicts of Interest
Dylan Cowit ’16
Why the 2015 Canadian Election May Be the Last of Its Kind Mona Jia ’17 On the American Memory, As Seen From the Outside Diva Parekh ’19 Crime, Punishment, and Profit: The U.S. Penal System
Alejo Perez-Stable Husni ’19 Children First:
The Middle East Crisis and Children’s Livelihood
Mengyun (Catherine) Yang ’17
Volume XVIII, Issue VIII • October 26, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
David Cameron’s “War on Islamic Extremism” Continues
A
by Evan Harary ’16, Head Writer
fear of Islamic extremism permeates Western discourse on immigration, national security, and even education. Nowhere is this truer than in the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister David Cameron recently proposed a five-year plan to combat what he sees as the radicalization of his nation’s Muslim youth. This plan, proposed in June but amended last Monday, has provoked heated discussion. The plan’s supporters emphasize cultural differences and certain startling statistics—an estimated 700 British citizens have attempted to join the ranks of the Islamic State (IS) as of today. Critics, however, allege the plan is a check on free speech and risks alienating the very moderate Muslims best suited to combat Islamic extremism.
opposition Labour Party have expressed doubt over Cameron’s speech and proposals, asserting that they could “fuel further resentment, division, and a sense of victimization.”
Cameron’s initial measures were expansive, if vague. His government proposed measures to “incentivize” school integration, identify those posting extremist material and censor their output, and introduce lifetime protection for victims of forced marriage. Cameron intended these measures to reach disaffected Muslim youth and disrupt the gradual process of radicalization—as he put it, “no one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.”
In this context, Cameron’s strategy seems little more than a play for right wing support—with Britain’s Muslim community as collateral damage. Cameron’s proposals are tellingly vague— and his assertion that British tolerance is to blame for Islamic extremism is simplistic and inflammatory. Islam does not inevitably devolve into extremism if left unchecked by “British values.” Furthermore, given Britain’s imperial history and the alienation many Muslims feel within British society, British intolerance is far more to blame for extremism.
This Monday, Cameron’s government amended the plan with more pointed provisions. These include the prohibition of those accused of extremism from working with children, the basis of a strategy to prevent extremist infiltration of professional circles, and a measure that allows the government to shut down mosques accused of fomenting extremism. These measures have prompted more controversy. Dr. Shuja Shafi, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, challenged the last measure simply: “Do such mosques really exist?” Dr. Shafi asked. “By whose definition are they extremist?…We cannot help also detect the McCarthyist undertones in the proposal to create blacklists and exclude and ban people deemed to be extremist.” Despite criticism, Cameron has supported his plan. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society,” Cameron said. “It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.” Cameron has cast his plan as a defense of the “British Values” of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equality of the sexes.
Furthermore, Cameron’s strategy and campaign come in the midst of a broader trend of anti-Islam sentiment in the West. The leaders of Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland have cited the defense of “Christian values” in their treatment of Muslim refugees. Members of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have said publicly that Britain is “at war with Islam.” Even former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper deployed anti-Islamic rhetoric in his failed campaign for reelection.
Cameron must have expected that his rhetoric would anger the Muslim community. His willingness to employ it regardless indicates an apathy towards Muslim allegiances--and in this, a sign that Cameron’s plan will fail. As even Cameron admits, it is Muslims who are best placed to fight extremism. Any plan to undermine the attractiveness of extremism must put Muslim input first. Anything less can only devolve into culture wars and an exacerbation of the problem. Should Cameron truly choose to give mainstream Muslim voices priority, there are plenty of Muslims ready to help. Humza Arshad, a popular Pakistani-British comedian, has made combatting extremism his mission. In the process, he has become one of the most effective allies of British antiextremist police units. “Listen, I’m here for two reasons,” Arshad said. “No. 1, I’m a British citizen, and I’m proud of where I’m from. No. 2, I don’t want people losing their lives. That’s not what Islam is about.” ■
But many have accused Cameron’s proposals of undermining the values he claims they promote. The Center for Research on Globalization has cited Cameron’s actions as contributing to Britain’s decaying freedom of press. Members of the
4 the JHU POLITIK
• October 26, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue VIII
Sitting Out the Case: The Court and Conflicts of Interest
W
by Dylan Cowit ’16, Staff Writer
hen the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a recent energy policy case, one justice was conspicuously absent. In the case, FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. recused himself, a voluntary process by which justices decline to participate in a case in which their impartiality might be called into question. Justice Alito had presumably recused himself because his wife holds stock in Johnson Controls, Inc., a company whose subsidiary, EnergyConnect Inc., was a party to the case. However, while Justice Alito sat out the case, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, whose wife held stock in the same company, remained present at oral arguments. At the time, Justice Breyer did not know that Johnson Controls, Inc. owned EnergyConnect Inc. Although members of Justice Breyer’s chambers regularly conduct checks to find potential conflicts of interest, recent checks had apparently failed to discover the connection. Upon learning of the conflict the day after oral arguments, Justice Breyer’s wife, Joanna Breyer, sold her shares. Even though he had a financial interest in one of the parties during oral arguments, Justice Breyer has decided to remain on the case. Whether or not one believes Justice Breyer should recuse himself, the incident raises broader questions about conflicts of interest in the Court. Under federal law, individual Supreme Court justices possess the sole authority to determine whether they should recuse themselves. According to Title 28 of the United States Code, “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” such as when the individual has “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party” or “a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.” In the past, justices have recused themselves under both of these circumstances.
Despite the potential to sway landmark cases, justices should continue to recuse themselves whenever there could be a reasonable appearance of a lack of impartiality. Otherwise, they could severely damage the integrity of the Court. Deference to the Court’s rulings has long been based on the institution’s supposed impartiality. Even when the public or other governmental branches disagree with the Court’s reasoning, they tend to accept its decisions because they expect good faith interpretations of the law rather than ulterior motives or inappropriate biases. If it were later revealed a justice had a financial interest in a party for whom it decided a case favorably, the public could begin to view the Court as much less impartial. Even though justices’ legal judgment might never actually be impacted in such cases, reluctance to recuse could fuel perceptions of the Court as biased or corrupt, making the public less likely to view its decisions as legitimate and binding. Of course, justices should not sit out every case in which someone calls on them to recuse. A number of organizations have recently called for recusal on partisan and baseless issues, such as when a justice previously revealed a slight personal policy preference for a law before the Court. Many of those calls should go largely unheeded, recognizing that most justices have personal views on the prudence of legislation but can separate those views from their understanding of the law. Instead, justices should seriously consider recusal whenever large swaths of the American public could reasonably believe the justice had a legitimate, inappropriate, and blatant bias in the case. The integrity of the Court is too important to risk. ■
However, by recusing themselves, justices can risk unintentionally altering the substantive outcome of a case. For October Term 2014, twenty-six percent of the Court’s rulings were 5-4. With such closely divided rulings, recusals can easily result in a 4-4 tie, which would effectively uphold the ruling of the lower court. When one member of an often-divided nine-member Court does not participate, that justice increases the likelihood the case will be decided in a manner inconsistent with their understanding of the law. Thus, bearing in mind the significant legal and political ramifications of each of the Court’s decisions, some scholars have called for justices to recuse as infrequently as possible.
Volume XVIII, Issue VIII • October 26, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Why the 2015 Canadian Election May Be the Last of Its Kind
I
by Mona Jia ’17, Contributing Writer
t seems that The New York Times has something of a crush on Canadian Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau. In the weekdays following Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party’s stunning victory in the 42nd Canadian federal election on Monday, October 19, the Times ran a dozen articles spotlighting the leader. One profile focused on Mr. Trudeau’s early life and the legacy passed on by his late father Pierre Trudeau, who served as Prime Minister from the late ‘60s to mid-‘80s. Other coverage included Paul Krugman’s praise of the Liberals’ embrace of Keynesian economics, an analysis of the role party leaders’ hairstyles played in the election, and a piece titled “Camelot Comes to Canada” (some articles were more imaginative than others). But the rise of Justin Trudeau is not the most interesting outcome of the election. Rather, it is the possibility of electoral reform. A common narrative of the election emerged very quickly following its conclusion; after nearly a decade of Conservative rule under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canadians were anxious for change. Mr. Trudeau offered an antidote to Mr. Harper’s divisive politics by running a positive campaign and offering a vision for a more inclusive, honest Canada. He outmaneuvered the other major leadership contender, the New Democrats (NDP), by better positioning the Liberals as the challenger most likely to defeat the Conservatives. The NDP entered the race with Official Opposition party status as the favourites to win, but the tides changed as the Liberals gained momentum. In the end, Mr. Trudeau catapulted the Liberals from third-party status to forming a majority government – the first party in Canadian history to do so. Ergo, the comparisons to Camelot. The Harper era is finally over. Why, then, are so many Canadians now pushing for electoral reform? It is too easy to say that most Canadians simply rejected the Conservatives and replaced them with the Liberals. Around 60% of voters in the 2011 election went with non-Conservative parties, yet they formed majority government. In 2015, the Liberals only did about as well as the Conservatives did in 2011 in terms of the popular vote: they won 39.47% of all votes, while the Conservatives came out with 31.89%, the NDP with 19.71%, the Bloc Québécois with 4.66%, and the Green Party with 3.45%. In Canada’s multiparty parliamentary system, voters elect Members of Parliament (MPs) in electoral districts called “ridings” for seats in parliament, but do not elect the Prime Minister directly. The party that gains the largest share of seats gets to form government in a first-past-the-post arrangement. If they win in more than half of the ridings, they possess a “majority.” All the votes in a riding that don’t go to the winning MP are essentially thrown out. Thus, the popular vote does not necessarily match up with the final distribution of seats among parties, and in the last few elections they have not. Under the current system, outcomes are too heavily influenced by how votes are split in any particular riding. The more evenly split a riding is, the more painful it is for the runner-up parties within it to lose. Green Party votes were the least effective: the
6 the JHU POLITIK
Greens won 3.45% of the popular vote, but won in only one riding, receiving 0.30% of seats. Commentators who frame the Liberals’ win as a spectacular populist victory ignore the fact that it doesn’t reflect two-thirds of the votes in this election. The system also leads to strategic voting, a phenomenon where voters pick their leaders based on who they think has the best shot at unseating an undesirable candidate. In this case, left and left-ofcenter voters rallied around the Liberals to defeat Stephen Harper, and some voters who would normally support the NDP or the Greens held their noses and checked a box beside their riding’s Liberal candidate’s name out of fear of electing another Harper government. For many Canadians, a system that allows such a large disparity to exist between the popular vote and the distribution of seats in parliament is a problem that goes beyond one particularly unpopular leader. Party leaders know this, and change may be the on the way. During the campaign period, the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens all pledged to push for electoral form once in parliament, regardless of the election result. However, Liberals had made such a promise at a time when their prospects for winning the election at all seemed low. Now that they are in a majority position, the Liberals no longer have the same incentive to reform the electoral process. And after an election that saw voters so eager to push the Conservatives out of office, “Anyone but Harper” sets a pretty low bar for an incoming Prime Minister. If his first week in office is any indication, however, Mr. Trudeau seems eager to fulfill his campaign promises. In his first telephone call to US President Barack Obama, Mr. Trudeau made clear his plans to withdraw Canadian fighter jets from the air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria after pledging to end Canada’s combat mission there. In his election night speech, Mr. Trudeau spoke of “sunny ways” – a shout-out to the inclusive politics of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Canada’s first francophone Prime Minister. A few days later, Mr. Trudeau extended invitations to provincial premiers and Green Leader Elizabeth May to be part of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations summit on climate change in Paris at the end of November, and intends to invite NDP Leader Tom Mulcair as well, insiders say. Compared with Stephen Harper, who was found in contempt of Parliament in 2011 and prorogued sessions four times over two terms, Mr. Trudeau’s first week has brought a sharp shift in leadership style. The 2015 Canadian election may have been the last of its kind. If Justin Trudeau lives up to his campaign promises, possible electoral reform to get rid of first-past-the-post could lessen the problem of strategic voting, and lead to a more proportionally representative parliament. Furthermore, Mr. Trudeau has already demonstrated a willingness to engage other parties in the decisionmaking process. With or without electoral form, Mr. Trudeau has set a different tone for future elections. The Liberals – and henceforth any party seeking leadership – will realize that voters reward a positive political message. Sunny ways, indeed. ■
• October 26, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue VIII
On the American Memory, As Seen From the Outside
T
by Diva Parekh ’19, Contributing Writer
hose born and raised in America often take for granted the depth and impact of this nation’s history. But to a foreigner like me, the implications of the complicated yet impressive American story are unmistakable. Initially, American patriotic fervor alarmed me, as I found themes of American exceptionalism to be nearly ubiquitous. Out of curiosity, I attempted to find the source of this uniquely American characteristic. A visit to Washington, DC, the city that houses much of the collective memory of America, helped me to understand Americans’ patriotism. Washington presents a geographically concentrated version of American history—a past that helps define the present. America’s history starts with Native Americans; however, visitors to the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington also see part of America’s integrated identity on display. Within the museum, one large circle ringed with Native American handiwork is particularly meaningful when viewed as a symbol of American history. None of the information boards on the outside of the circle can be understood by most guests, since they are written in Native languages. In order to find the English translation, visitors must enter the circle, mimicking how only a close examination of American history reveals its intricacies and implications for today. By encouraging American introspection, the museum reinforces the idea that there is no one truth to the nation’s origins. U.S. Air Force and military advertisements call on American youth to enlist and serve the “greatest country in the world.” American children grow up hearing that rhetoric, that they are citizens of the greatest country in the world. The veracity of this argument may be debatable, but the rhetoric is nonetheless powerful. American exceptionalism can be traced to the classroom, where children are first taught about their country’s past. In elementary schools especially, a tight, sanitized version of American history is presented. For many elementary school children, America begins with the story of Thanksgiving. As the apocryphal tale usually goes, the Pilgrims wanted to escape the Church of England, discovered a strange, new land in the process, had an arduous start but produced a bountiful fall harvest with the help of the Native Americans, which they all shared on Thanksgiving. This idyllic story glosses over many inconvenient truths. Though the myth is broken down at some point, that romantic image of perfect harmony doesn’t ever seem to fade away completely.
overcame them. When they visit DC, they know the stories behind the structures that have become a part of the American legacy. Walking toward the Jefferson Memorial, they know that slavery was still in effect when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and that Jefferson himself was a slave owner. However, even as a non-American, I find myself in awe of the way the sunlight glances off the pillars and seems to make it shine from the inside. This awe, reflected throughout DC, has a powerful impact on any visitor. From the Jefferson Memorial, a visitor can see a monument that was installed only in 2011: the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial, which celebrates the end of slavery. This chiseled stone helps Americans reconcile themselves with their history by finding refuge in its best aspects. The monuments and museums of Washington, D.C. contain many similar dualities. While the Vietnam War Memorial is stark, recognizing only the loss of life and jolting Americans into questioning the wisdom of war, the World War II Memorial is grand yet somber, glorifying the American contribution to the war. Washington, with its conflicting themes and imagery—and American history in general—encourages visitors and citizens to recognize the complicated history of America while also celebrating it and striving to forge a brighter future. As an outsider, I have found that lessons from America’s national history play a profound role in why Americans, despite how often they criticize their country, still believe in it and its values both collectively and individually. And this belief is part of the magic of being here, even if Americans don’t always recognize its origins. ■
A few years later, children entering adolescence learn about the darker parts of American history, but also how the country
Volume XVIII, Issue VIII • October 26, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Crime, Punishment, and Profit: The U.S. Penal System
I
by Alejo Perez-Stable Husni ’19, Contributing Writer
t is no secret that the United States has a mass incarceration problem. In 2014, over 2.2 million Americans were imprisoned in federal, state, or county facilities. About 97% of sentences were over one year. With the exception of Seychelles, an archipelago in the Indian Ocean with a population of 92,000, the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world at 698 prisoners per 100,000 people. These statistics raise many questions: How did the prison population become so large? Should the goal of our prisons be to quarantine those who have violated the law, or attempt to reincorporate them into society? Is it fair for certain individuals to profit off of somebody else’s punishment? How much power do for-profit prisons wield? While some prisoners have committed crimes worthy of a life sentence, such as rape or murder, only 7.3% of all inmates in the United States are violent offenders. The rise in inmates is not an indication of a more violent population. In fact, even as violent crime rates have dropped over the last decade, the United States prison population has skyrocketed. This dramatic rise reflects a change in policing, beginning with the War on Drugs. As the “broken windows” style of policing took hold in New York in the 1990s, prison populations surged. Police officers had to meet arrest quotas, and sentences for drug offenses were prolonged. Many prisoners received life sentences for nonviolent crimes. Despite rhetoric from both Democrats and Republicans condemning the power of corporate lobbies writ large, the power of the private prison lobby often goes unnoticed. As Michael Cohen pointed out in The Washington Post, forprofit prisons have poured $10 million into campaigns and $25 million into lobbying since 1989. As inmate populations increased in the 1970s and 80s, prison corporations like the Corrections Corporation of America—which brought in $1.7 billion in revenue in 2011—gained prominence. The power of the private prison lobby should not be overlooked. For-profit prison firms have had numerous corruption allegations against them, including bribing judges to hand out longer sentences. Simultaneously, Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have received thousands in donations from this lobby.
a decrepit criminal justice system that has given far too much weight to economic incentives. The first problematic economic incentive is the private prison itself. State governments issue contracts to correction corporations in order to run a facility. State-issued contracts typically pay the correction corporation a daily or monthly rate on each prisoner in the facility. In other words, the correction corporations generate more profit if they have more prisoners and if they keep prisoners for longer. Inherently, the purpose of a prison, or a correctional facility, should be to “correct” rather than to destroy the lives of the inmates. The concept of the for-profit prison does exactly the opposite. In order to change the criminal justice system and lower the incarceration rate, the United States must act differently. New York and Illinois have already banned private prison contracts, but this is not enough. Around 19.1% of federal prisoners are in privately operated facilities, making mass incarceration just as much an issue at the federal level. With support from both sides of the aisle in Washington, prison reform is necessary and looming. Still, many questions remain unanswered. In order to shift the status quo of the penal system from punishment to correction, billions of dollars in infrastructure will be needed in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of prisoners. Furthermore, while studies have shown that rehabilitation can work, the effects of such a policy have yet to be seen on a large scale in the United States. At the end of the day, two-thirds of today’s inmates will offend again after they are released. The bottom line is that status quo punishments do not work. Rehabilitating nonviolent and juvenile offenders should be the priority. It is time for the U.S. to reform the criminal justice system and do away with private prisons. ■
Although the private prison population represents about 186,000 prisoners, 8.4% of the United States’ total prison population, this number alone exceeds incarceration totals for most developed nations. The prison population crisis of the United States is not an isolated problem; it is an indication of
8 the JHU POLITIK
• October 26, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue VIII
Children First: The Middle East Crisis and Children’s Livelihood
S
by Mengyun (Catherine) Yang ’17, Contributing Writer
yrian children are suffering from the ongoing conflict, with basic rights including education, sanitation, and security in jeopardy. Recently their dire situation has been worsened by Russian airstrikes that have reportedly struck nine medical centers. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, more than 130 civilians, including 36 children, have been killed by airstrikes already. These non-discriminating airstrikes increase the difficulty of getting humanitarian aid to children in Syria and are destroying their access to education and medical care. The lives of these children are essential to guarantee the future stability of Syria, but their possibility of growing and reaching their full potential as individuals is in peril. Rather than merely continuing to intervene militarily in Syria, Western countries should consider aiding children in this region as a possible solution to contain the lasting effects of war and violence. Children are easily affected by their surrounding environmental and social conditions, especially during their earliest years. As they are still developing personal identities and seeking an understanding of life, children tend to adopt the behaviors and ideologies of adults around them. In Syria, for example, soldiers and militants surround children living in combat zones; destruction, fear, and violence are overrepresented among their experiences. Consciously or not, they may imitate militants’ violent behavior and eventually be more likely to join the armed groups without realizing the dangers and abuses they will encounter. According to UNICEF, 5.6 million children are living in dire situations in Syria without access to education. Most are susceptible to the influence of nonstop violence, and would benefit from measures that foster both their physical and psychological development. Therefore, our aid to these children must not only include food and logistical aid, but should also increase access to education and emotional support that can help children cope with their surroundings.
of Syria become increasingly involved in these conflicts and violence, it will become even harder for Syria to completely get rid of combatants in the long term. Thus, it seems likely that the dependence of these children on any of the warring factions would increase their chances of becoming soldiers. NGOs such as UNICEF and Save the Children are striving to disseminate information exposing what children in Syria are experiencing. They launched a series of campaigns including the “I believe in Zero, and OneMinuteJr campaigns. Most famous among these efforts is the Tap Project, which asks participants to stay away their cellular phones for 15 minutes in exchange for a day’s worth of water provided by sponsor donations. To some extent, these campaigns have been successful in funding and collecting resources, and many children have seen their lot improve. However, it is still incredibly hard for NGOs to construct and implement an effective humanitarian program for children in combat zones because they lack power and institutional authority in these regions. To succeed, NGOs need support from Western countries in order to to provide economic and political resources to build local schools and hospitals for children. Feelings of sympathy towards the innocent victims and refugees in Syria and inspiring speeches given by political leaders of the West do nothing to tangibly improve the situation. Operating airstrikes and fighting back against combatants is important, but humanitarian aid for Syrian children also needs to be highlighted. Without investing in this generation of Syrian children, it is hard to imagine a stable Syria in the future. There are effective means of helping children living in combat zones, and they deserve attention. As long as individuals worldwide, governments, and NGOs are willing to cooperate and provide adequate aid, the course of Middle Eastern conflicts can be changed for the better. ■
Terrorist attacks from the Islamic State exacerbate the dreadful situation caused by the ongoing civil war in Syria. A variety of military actors have distinct interests in the Syrian conflict, and a clear termination of the conflict cannot be foreseen. Syrian children may align themselves with the side that can offer them the necessary support to survive. According to Human Rights Watch, rebel groups used children in roles such as soldiers and suicide bombers. The United Nations has also condemned the Assad regime for recruiting child soldiers. If the children
Volume XVIII, Issue VIII • October 26, 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
• October 26, 2015 • Volume XVIII, Issue VIII