JHU POLITIK
the
SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
VOLUME XVI, ISSUE IV
the
JHU POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Eliza Schultz MANAGING EDITOR Christine Server
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen
ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Abigail Sia
POLICY DESK EDITOR Mira Haqqani
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee
WEBMASTER Ben Lu
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
MARKETING & PUBLICITY Maria Garcia
STAFF WRITERS Arpan Ghosh Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Corey Payne Juliana Vigorito
• September 22, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue IV
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 9 10 11
Week in Review: Maryland Politicians David Hamburger ’18 Scotland Votes and the Union Lives Mira Haqqani ’17 A Conviction for Pistorius, But No Clear Verdict for South Africa
Olga Baranoff ’16 Why Hopkins? Nash Jenkins ’15
A Bad Turn in Military Policy Alexander Grable ’15 Jordan: A Delicate Balance Robert Locke ’15 Those Yearning to Be Free… and Alive Corey Payne ’17
Volume XVI, Issue IV • September 22, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Week in Review: Maryland Politicians by David Hamburger ’18, Contributing Writer Governor O’Malley Travels to London While Eying 2016 Presidential Race Maryland governor Martin O’Malley travelled last week to the United Kingdom, where he was invited to deliver addresses to two London-based think tanks. In the first, a roundtable discussion hosted by the Centre for Cities, he addressed the potential for data-driven models to improve economic growth in cities. O’Malley has overseen the implementation of two such models – the CitiStat program as Mayor of Baltimore, and subsequently, StateStat as Governor. The governor also addressed an audience at the Policy Network on the future of U.S. politics and the upcoming 2016 presidential election, in which he is widely expected to run as a Democratic candidate. Recent trips to states such as Iowa and Illinois to campaign for Democratic candidates in gubernatorial races, coupled with his decision to move back to Baltimore upon completing his term as governor, have further fuelled suspicions that he is considering a presidential race.
Mayor Rawlings-Blake Released from Hospital After Star-Spangled Celebrations Amidst the final days of excitement and fervor marking the end of the Star Spangled Spectacular, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was released from the University of Maryland Medical Center last week. Her stay was prompted by shortness of breath during the Saturday evening flag ceremony and fireworks display. The Baltimore Sun quoted the Mayor as saying, “I pushed myself a bit too hard, given all the excitement around [the] Star-Spangled Spectacular.” The event itself, which commemorated the bicentennial of the Battle of Baltimore, brought nearly thirty ships and at least several thousand tourists to the city between the 10th and the 16th of September. Final statistics on the economic benefits and total visitor count are expected to be released later this year.
Gubernatorial Candidate Larry Hogan Hosts Chris Christie at GOP Fundraiser With the November 4th gubernatorial election nearing, GOP hopeful Larry Hogan hosted a fundraiser in Bethesda last week and enlisted the aid of prominent New Jersey governor Chris Christie. Christie, whose attendance at the event is given partial credit for the $400,000 amassed that evening, spoke optimistically about the chances of a Republican victory even in the heavily Democratic state by citing parallels with his experiences in New Jersey. Hogan, whose running mate is former Maryland Secretary of Government Services Boyd Rutherford, will face current Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown in the November elections.
4 the JHU POLITIK
• September 22, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue IV
Scotland Votes and the Union Lives by Mira Haqqani ’17, Policy Desk Editor
S
eptember 18th, 2014 will go down in history as the day the United Kingdom – a 307-year old union between the Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Irish – was almost split in two. Just a few days prior, the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh had been filled with both pro-independence and pro-union flags as the public braced itself for the historic referendum asking Scots, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” However, in the results announced earlier this weekend, the “No” vote emerged victorious, much to the relief of the government at Westminster and, of course, the Queen. The debate over Scottish independence is one that has dominated British politics for decades, and while 45 percent of the electorate is hardly pleased with what has been called a “missed opportunity”, there is little doubt that the referendum has produced an appropriate outcome. Since the creation of the Union, Scots have been critical of London’s predominance over the political system, arguing that Westminster has sidelined Scottish needs during policymaking. Although within the same sovereign state as the English Parliament, the Scottish Parliament is known to have very different policies over issues such as agriculture, childcare, citizenship, defense, and the economy. As a result, in the last few years, the demand for Scottish independence has gained momentum, especially under the leadership of the Scottish National Party (SNP), the largest political party in Scotland. Although Westminster has addressed the SNP’s concerns time and time again, particularly under the leadership of Tony Blair, the rate at which devolution has occurred has not been substantial enough to satisfy the Scots who want a greater say in British politics. Even though a significant percentage of the results indicates that there is a strong separatist sentiment amongst the people of Scotland, it is difficult to support the SNP’s desire to leave the United Kingdom for a variety of reasons. As a component of the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of an influential state that is a major determinant force in international politics. A victory for the “Yes” vote would have significantly reduced Scotland’s global presence and voice. Scotland’s participation in organizations such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO) would have been thrown into question had it gained independence. There is a possibility that Scotland would have had to reapply for EU
membership, which involves a lengthy procedure that may have not ended well given the general skepticism over further EU enlargement amongst member countries. Perhaps the most serious potential concern for an independent Scotland would have been its new economy – one that no longer would have been in a position to fall back on British reserves. Relatedly, independence from the United Kingdom would have required the Scots to draw up a plan for paying off their share of the United Kingdom’s debt to foreign countries, a less-than-ideal priority for a new country. At a time of sluggish economic growth and high unemployment, a vote for independence would have been economically irresponsible and largely a gamble. With the referendum result closing the door to independence for at least the next few years, what is next in store for Scotland is uncertain at best. If anything, both the “Yes” and “No” votes, coupled with the unimaginably high electoral turnout figure of 85 percent, are indicative of an appetite for change within the country. While the government at Westminster celebrates the survival of the Union, Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech following the announcement of the results has shown the world that the political landscape in the United Kingdom is about to change drastically. Cameron hailed the referendum result but also raised the West Lothian question. He stated, “We have heard the voice of Scotland and now the millions of voices of England must be heard.” Implications of the beginning of a devolution revolution across the country and “English votes for English laws” in this statement are difficult to ignore. (Currently, devolved Parliaments in the United Kingdom are able to vote on legislation strictly affecting England.) The failure of the Scottish bid for independence, however, is likely to create a more representative system in the United Kingdom as the government looks to appease the different groups within it in order to prevent future separatist campaigns. Moreover, while David Cameron has survived a secession scare, failure to bring devolved Parliaments closer into the policymaking fold at Westminster will land him into trouble again – especially in the run up to the general election next year.
Volume XVI, Issue IV • September 22, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
A Conviction for Pistorius, But No Clear Verdict for South Africa by Olga Baranoff ’16, Contributing Writer
O
n February 14th, 2013, Oscar Pistorius was at his home with his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp when he shot and killed her, mistaking her for an intruder. The case surrounding the South African Paralympic and Olympic champion’s alleged murder of Steenkamp has since dominated headlines, with South Africans likening it to the O.J. Simpson trial of the 1990s. The Pistorius trial stretched out for over a year and a half until finally, on September 12th, 2014, Pistorius was cleared of murder charges but convicted of a lesser charge of culpable homicide. Although the conviction brings the trial to an end, with the sentencing set for October, South Africans are left facing more questions regarding issues that the trial never intended to address. Those involved in the trial embody many of the dichotomies and points of pride in South African society. Reeva Steenkamp, an actress and model, was also well known as a public spokeswoman against domestic violence. Both Pistorius and Judge Masipa are South Africans who have risen above their circumstances. Pistorius, born without fibula in both legs, had his legs amputated below the knee when he was eleven months old. Despite this, he competed as a sprint runner in events for both amputees and able-bodied athletes. Pistorius has claimed multiple world titles, sponsorship deals, and is generally regarded as a hero of the country. Judge Masipa, a black female judge, grew up in Soweto and earned her law degree in 1990, while South Africa was still under apartheid rule. She is known for stiff sentencing in cases of violence against women, but also for her empathy and fairness when presiding over cases. Pistorius’s trial has brought up many of the issues surrounding white male culture and violence in South Africa. Although the majority of crime in the country is “black on black” and is rare within gated communities, there is paranoia of crime among the white middle class. Niren Tolsi of Mail & Guardian contends that this notion, the fear of “vi-
6 the JHU POLITIK
olence crime being committed by intruders” in one’s home, originated in the colonial era. Criminologists at the University of South Africa further report that many whites, like Pistorius, live in heavily guarded communities but still fear attacks by blacks and feel entitled to take matters into their own hands. White men in South Africa often subscribe to a macho culture in which, in Tolsi’s words, the male is “the hunter, explorer, protector of women, killer of natives” and in which it is common to use one’s own firearms, rather than rely on the police, to defend one’s possessions. Aside from these aspects of South African culture, Pistorius’s trial also sheds light on the domestic violence, race relations, and inequality prevalent in South Africa. Many critics of Judge Masipa’s ruling say that she did not come down strongly enough on domestic violence in the home. Women’s rights groups have responded to the sentencing with anger and disappointment. South Africans have also criticized the judge’s ruling as being too lenient and forgiving towards Pistorius; many believe the defendant received a lighter charge because he is privileged by his fame, wealth, and race. Under the verdict of culpable homicide, Pistorius can receive a sentence anywhere from a fine to up to 15 years in prison. Although the conviction brings the trial to a close, it leaves open many debates surrounding race, privilege, inequality, and violence within South Africa, none of which the verdict addressed, as many South Africans hoped it would. While all of these issues can be traced back to the era before apartheid and therefore do not have a simple or straightforward solution, Pistorius’s trial has increased awareness surrounding these controversies. The judge’s ruling has proven to be controversial, but this controversy has forced South Africans to more directly acknowledge and address issues of racial and socioeconomic privilege, domestic violence, and crime.
• September 22, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue IV
Why Hopkins? by Nash Jenkins ’15, Contributing Writer
M
y high school girlfriend and I wanted very badly to go to Yale; in fact, we planned to go together, ultimately get married, and have Yale-bound children.
On March 30, 2011, Yale College told us both that we’d not be in New Haven come September, sorry, though they were certain – certain! – we’d thrive elsewhere. To summarize a long, bloody narrative: she went to Duke and I to Baltimore, to a school whose application I’d filled out as casually as a driver’s license form. My college counselor had gently nudged me toward it, saying Johns Hopkins was looking to expand its humanities programs and would look upon my application favorably. I got in, and because it was the most prestigious school to accept me, I decided to go. However, to call it a decision and not an inevitable reality might be too generous. I’m not alone; excluding the kids who applied early decision – who comprise about a third of each class – it is decidedly rare to meet an undergraduate here who will honestly tell you that Hopkins was their first choice. We seem to find ourselves here largely by accident, with a perfectly understandable ambivalence – many of us never even visited the campus until after we received our admission letters. I’m certain that this diffidence lies at the root of so many of the grievances we habitually air about the Hopkins undergraduate experience: few students are engaged in activities on campus, few seem terribly interested in their classes beyond the final grade, and the stands in our lacrosse stadium are uncomfortably empty at most games. We arrive with an indifference that festers into a self-sustaining bitterness – we actively resent the gloom, and contribute to it in turn.
We can blame adolescent or post-adolescent despair or whatever, but ultimately, the university is partly culpable. Hopkins has systematically failed to sell its undergraduate experience to prospective students, and in consequence, the university is awash with students whose dream schools rejected them. Why, despite our ample resources and that which makes Johns Hopkins an objectively impressive institution, are high school seniors applying only as a contingency plan? It’s a matter of name brand, to put it simply, and ours is decidedly weak. Mason Hall has tried desperately in the last few years to broaden the university’s appeal to prospective students. We currently exist in the psyche of America’s college-bound as an academically bleak, unfulfilling school where the academic rigor isn’t commensurate to its fringe benefits (employment opportunities, network resources, a general sense of fulfillment, etc.). Hopkins has attempted to rebrand itself as a warm haven for quirkiness, where the university president dances in a YouTube video with a frightening anthropomorphic bird – the mascot at our sporting games, I hear – and kids can spend four years eagerly geeking out and playing Quidditch. The problem is that high school students aren’t spending their adolescence hunched morbidly over their SAT books because they want to run around Harvard Yard with a broomstick between their legs. They want to go to Harvard because it’s Harvard. Harvard knows this, and milks it. They – and the other “dream schools” – exploit their prestige and advertise themselves with a seductive sheen of gravitas.
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Volume XVI, Issue IV • September 22, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Meanwhile, one who visits Hopkins’ Facebook page may initially suspect they’ve stumbled upon either an illegitimate, unsanctioned site seemingly by some freshman in the throes of his first Adderall high, or a clumsy piece of performance art attempting to satirize American higher education. Rather than posting on Hopkins’ latest research endeavors, it devotes the lion’s share of its Facebook posts to selfies and t-shirts, written in the bizarre vernacular of a sixty-year-old non-native English speaker who recently skimmed a book on American slang written over text message by your mother. One particularly upsetting post from September 18th reads, “MmmmmmMMMmmmmmMMmmmm... sweater weather.... fall..... cool air.... leaves.........pumpkin spice lattes.” OMG, right? Attached was a picture of quarter-zip sweatshirts in Barnes and Noble seemingly taken on an iPhone 4. #LOL.
{
“The thing about college-bound students is that they’re teenagers, and teenagers are petty.”
8 the JHU POLITIK
I venture that it’s unprofessional to promote one of the country’s largest and most entrenched academies using the substance of a Buzzfeed article. It troubles me that it’s still happening considering the university’s apparent dedication to improving its undergraduate experience. The thing about college-bound students is that they’re teenagers, and teenagers are petty. The ruthless American college admissions process can be partially explained by its innate narcissism: applicants gun for the country’s top universities not simply to better themselves for the future, but also to affirm themselves in the present. They seek colleges whose names elicit that “ah” of impressed surprise in conversations with strangers. It would be one thing if we were as cheerfully mediocre as our social media presence suggests, but we’re not. Besides the tired facts about our prowess in medicine and natural sciences, our Writing Seminars, English, and History departments are consistently ranked in the country’s top five or ten; International Studies students can matriculate into one of the world’s best graduate schools in the discipline (ours); we have creative partnerships with the Peabody Conservatory and Maryland Institute College of Art, the proximity of the nation’s capital, and an impossibly large sum of money reserved exclusively for undergraduate research. Why didn’t I know about this when I applied? If Hopkins indeed intends to improve the caliber and cadence of its undergraduate experience, it needs to cater to the students they hope to enroll. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts: those high school students who come to Hopkins because they’re passionate about the place will invariably contribute to it, thereby making the school more appealing to larger numbers of future prospective students. It should entice these students by playing up the school’s strengths as a venerated research institution with a long lineage of academic cachet – and maybe fire its current social media guy.
• September 22, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue IV
A Bad Turn in Military Policy by Alexander Grable ’15, Contributing Writer
I
n a so-called “pivot to Asia”, with new bases in Australia and the deployment of large naval formations in the eastern Pacific, the U.S. military has shifted to a new focus. U.S. military doctrine has moved away from the emphasis laid down late in the Bush Administration and the early part of the Obama Administration on counterinsurgency operations. Once again, it has begun focusing more on fighting State actors such as China or, more alarmingly, Russia. This change in doctrine is a mistake. The main threat to our national security will continue to be from non-State actors. The form that such actors take is diverse. They can manifest as a multinational corporation that dodges taxes, an Islamic terror network such as ISIS, or even the armed rebels who threatened Federal Bureau of Land Management officials during the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada this April. By seeking to counter State actors and largely ignoring nonState actors, the United States military is, once again, seeking to find an enemy that plays to its strengths instead of its weaknesses. But wishing the problem away will not solve it, and recent history provides an illustrative example. At the end of the Cold War, the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) was proclaimed. In essence, this doctrine stated that technology would allow the U.S. military to know what the enemy was going to do before the enemy itself knew, and improve command and control at all levels. Despite the questionable efficacy of high-technology forces under RMA, the U.S. military performed well against the State forces of Iraq in 2003. However, all the mobility and expensive technology at the disposal of the military proved to be strategically and often tactically worthless against disparate insurgent groups in Iraq. U.S. forces were thwarted by low-technology weapons such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs). In the face of this threat, civilian authorities, with little protest from senior military officers, only slowly came to understand that relatively cheap up-armored vehicles and not expensive technology is what was required in the face of such a menace.
Even worse, the U.S. response to insurgency at all stages of the conflict, including the vaunted surge, was usually misconceived. It had all of the hallmarks of German occupation policy in a variety of countries during World War II and often much of its brutality, employing arbitrary detention and torture. U.S. forces would lash out as hard as they could, as they did in Fallujah, and then relent in the face of increasing resistance and try to strike a deal. Ultimately, all approaches failed for a host of reasons. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S.-led counterinsurgency efforts failed. The reasons are legion, but the failure itself should be a spur to action. Instead the military is once again ignoring it, but ignoring the issue will not make the problem go away, as ISIS and our own domestic rebels have so rudely reminded us. However, such a criticism cannot be levelled without adding that the discussion of an appropriate military doctrine will not be pursued, precisely because forces oriented towards counterinsurgency activities are relatively cheap and light. Light forces do not equal huge profits for defense contractors and defense contractors give very generously to congressional and presidential candidates of both parties. While this is the case, there is no incentive for the political leadership of the United States to engage seriously with the issue of what an appropriate military doctrine, and therefore military procurement policy, would be. The current incentives run toward throwing huge sums of money on prime examples of private sector inefficiency and waste as much as, for example, $160 billion for an over-budget F-35 fighter. Until the nexus between organized money and the political power is broken, there is little hope for a properly oriented defense doctrine in this country.
Volume XVI, Issue IV • September 22, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
Jordan: A Delicate Balance by Robert Locke ’15, Contributing Writer
U
nfortunately, stories of instability and conflict in the Middle East – whether in Syria, Iraq, Israel or Gaza – often dominate the headlines. A region of the world with a significant role in the beginnings of civilization as we know it, filled with vibrant cultures and citizens who want just as good and stable a life as the rest of us, have fallen into what seems to be a vicious, never-ending cycle of violence. However, one country has remained relatively stable in the face of such conflict: Jordan. Since Jordan gained independence in 1948, the country has seen a profound period of significant peace and stability. While Jordan has escaped the brunt of the violent conflict in the region, this is not to say the country does not face many of the same issues confronting other Middle Eastern countries, including water shortages, economic underdevelopment, and a growing refugee crisis. So, what is the force keeping Jordan together? Jordan has a long and storied history of monarchy. The current monarch, King Abdullah II, comes from a long line of descendants of the Prophet Mohammed. Abdullah assumed the role after the death of his father, King Hussein, who ruled the country for 47 years. Hussein is considered the father of modern Jordan, having guided the country through a variety of challenges, and holding the position of Middle East peace broker. An important question to ask here is why and how has Jordan’s constitutional monarchy lasted so long? The Jordanian political system is quite interactive and inclusive when compared with the other governments of the region. For example, a set number of seats in the Chamber of the Deputies are specifically reserved for women and ethnic and religious minorities. However, freedom of speech is limited, the king has a stronghold over his own public perception, and is rarely – if ever – challenged. With violent conflicts unfolding on all sides of Jordan’s borders in Syria, Gaza and Iraq, Jordan is particularly prone to find itself in economic and social turmoil, especially with the inevitable strain of hundreds of thousands of refugees in an already beleaguered economy. The instability in the
10 the JHU POLITIK
region, however, is no small part of exactly why Jordan is stable and why the king has been able to maintain his rule without much resistance. Jordanians are quite reluctant to voice opposition to the current system because their daily life is not subject to the deadly threats that the bordering countries currently present. Jordanians are known for being quite politically active, but the prevailing mentality seems to be, “Why challenge the system if we can live in a relatively well-off and, more importantly, peaceful environment?” Additionally, the quality of health care is considered of superior quality for the region. Some of the most common food staples (rice, pita bread and falafel, for example) are subsidized and the overall high standard of living supports the status quo and serves as the king’s main source of influence and control. While Jordan suffers from a myriad of problems, such as water shortages, a significant shortage of natural resources, a high poverty rate and corruption (it is important to note that Jordan ranked higher than every other neighboring country except Israel in the 2013 Corruption Perception Index), Jordan can and most likely will play a role in promoting and constructing a lasting peace in the region. Contingent on renewed peace and stability in the region, Jordan can set out to focus on continued economic development, further economic relations abroad, and perhaps even allow the general population greater input in charting the course of their nation. Whether or not the king and his government can chart a course for reform without the accountability typically associated with a Western democratic system, Jordan will continue to remain a model of stability in the Middle East. It will also be important to keep watch on whether or not other countries attempt to move closer towards the Jordanian governing model of strong monarchies or push Jordan and the region closer in the direction of democracy. Only time will tell.
• September 22, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue IV
Those Yearning to Be Free… and Alive by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
M
other Jones reports that 70,000 unaccompanied minors seeking refuge will enter the country this year. The Huffington Post says that almost all of these children en route from Central America will be sexually abused on their journey. Fox News reports the story as a matter of “illegal immigrants” who pose a “problem in the classroom” for American students. The difference in what the media is concerned with changes across the left-to-right spectrum. The liberal media writes about the plight of these children. The conservative media reports on the fears that Americans may inherently have toward them. This is where the problem begins. Who cares that these are children? Who cares that they are being abused? Who cares that they are fleeing some of the most violent countries in the world? If they’re sitting next to my kid in a classroom, it’s a problem. We lose our humanity when we degrade others out of fear. These are children – not drug smugglers, welfare queens, or terrorists. But when we start throwing labels at them to serve our own purposes – when we resist the basic human rights of other people – we become that which we claim not to be. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” are the words etched onto the Statue of Liberty – words that many of our own ancestors read when they immigrated to this country. Where did that mentality go? What if, instead of worrying about whether our tax dollars are going to be spent on food for a child, we worried about whether our tax dollars are going to be spent on a corporate subsidy? What if, instead of protesting a bus full of children driving through our towns, we protested a CEO moving his company overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes? There are plenty of problems in this country when it comes to power and control. The refugees from Central America are not one of them.
When are we going to accept that it isn’t the poor, the foreign, or the different that pose a threat to us, but our own apathetic complacency? Those who think that feeding refugee children is the reason our economy is in a decline need to turn off Fox News. If some Americans truly believe that the best thing for the country is to send these children back into the murder capitals of the world, they need to look at themselves and ask: “Why?” Is it because they are afraid of a threat these children could pose? Is it because they think their tax money should be better spent on their own children? Or, are they prejudiced against these children? Some of these questions are valid. If these children posed a serious health risk to the masses, it would be a reasonable complaint. But, as the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact reports, “CDC and independent epidemiologists say there is zero evidence that these migrants are carrying [deadly viruses] to the border.” As for tax money, no parent would put their child into the arms of a smuggler with the knowledge that they will likely never see their baby again unless it was their last choice. Sending these children to our borders was not for purposes of exploitation, but reasons of survival. Does that leave only prejudice? Diversity makes us stronger. Difference breeds innovation. This country may not be the greatest place on earth, but it is enough to attract the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses – those around the world yearning to be free. The opportunities we offer make us great. The day we stop offering them, what do we become? Ours is a nation of immigrants. Our democracy means that we screw up sometimes. I hope we remember who we are – remember who we were – and make the right choices for the lives of the people who are only seeking the fundamentals of life that this country offers.
Volume XVI, Issue IV • September 22, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
11
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
12 the JHU POLITIK
• September 22, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue IV