JHU POLITIK
the
SEPTEMBER 1, 2014 VOLUME XVI, ISSUE I
the
JHU POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Eliza Schultz MANAGING EDITOR Christine Server ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Dylan Etzel Preston Ge Abigail Sia CREATIVE DIRECTOR Diana Lee COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen POLICY DESK EDITOR Mira Haqqani MARKETING & PUBLICITY Eric Chen Maria Garcia WEBMASTER Ben Lu STAFF WRITERS Arpan Ghosh Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Corey Payne Juliana Vigorito
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13
Letter from the Editor-in-Chief Eliza Schultz ’15 Week in Review: War Dylan Etzel ’17 From Missouri to Maryland: Why Ferguson Matters for All of America Tierra Langley ’15 The Varsity Effect: Examining Housing at Johns Hopkins Juliana Vigorito ’16 The Crenson Report, 30 Years Later: Hostility at Homewood Eliza Schultz ’15 Run, Elizabeth, Run! Corey Payne ’17 A “Modi”-fied India: The Emergence of a New Political Era Arpan Ghosh ’17 Inside Iraq Crystal Lee ’17 The Ethics of Ebola Christine Kumar ’16
Volume XVI, Issue I • September 1, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Letter from Editor-in-Chief by Eliza Schultz ’15, Editor-in-Chief
Dear Loyal and New Readers, We are delighted to present to you our first weekly issue of the academic year. Since it was founded six years ago, the Politik has become the forum for bold and incisive political journalism at Johns Hopkins. We proudly provide a nonpartisan platform for students to engage in the important issues of our time. It remains our fundamental goal to challenge the notion that we as students reside within a cloistered realm of academia, and to amplify the political dialogue that exists on our campus. Over the past few months, Johns Hopkins has erupted with political activity. From transparency protests against the administration at Homewood, to successful wage strikes at the hospital, and to demonstrations in Charles Village over the events in Gaza, we have witnessed an outburst in political dynamism on our campus. We look forward to publishing the Politik during this time of both excitement and uncertainty. Recognizing that our university has a politics of its own, we are looking to increase our campus coverage this year. Toward that effort, we have added a Johns Hopkins section to the homepage of our website. We aim to provide a platform for students to speak and, importantly, be heard about the politics of our campus. We have already begun to actively seek out both investigative articles and opinion pieces about this institution, and to heighten awareness about the issues that so directly impact us every day. We are excited to announce that our broadcast journalism series, the first and only of its kind at Homewood, will produce its videos on a weekly basis this semester. Launched in February, Politik Focus explores the most compelling stories of the week from multiple student perspectives, presenting its audience with candid political discussion on issues that, although seemingly foreign or remote, matter to us right here at Homewood. We thank Vicky Plestis, without whose vision Politik Focus would not be a reality, and we warmly welcome Dana Ettinger and the incoming Politik Focus team. This semester will feature two special issues, which approach a singular topic from a variety of angles. For the second year in a row, we will dedicate one of our weekly issues in October to the intersections between politics and medicine. And at the end of the semester, we will release a printed special issue on the politics of housing and homelessness. As we look toward the upcoming year, we are grateful to our outgoing Editors-in-Chief, Rachel Cohen and Alex Clearfield. Under their leadership, the Politik developed its website, which has transformed the way that our readers interact with our content. Their tireless commitment to the Politik received due recognition in April when we won the Outstanding Student Organization Award from the Office of Student Activities. Their leadership continues to inspire us. Finally, if you are an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins, we encourage you to become involved. The Politik has changed each of our undergraduate careers for the better, and we would love for you to join our team. Thank you for reading! Sincerely, Eliza Schultz Editor-in-Chief
4 the JHU POLITIK
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I
Week in Review: War by Dylan Etzel ’17, Assistant Editor
Shots Fly at Tripoli Airport An alliance of Islamist and Misrata militias have seized Tripoli’s main airport. Ever since the deposing of Muammar Gaddfi, Libya has teetered on the edge of civil war, and pundits claim that this action marks the war’s beginning. The recent fighting was triggered by the parliamentary elections, with citizens aggravated by election of supporters of the deposed Gaddhafi. The alliance has claimed to create a government. Unfortunately, the government lacks the military strength to retake the airport without soliciting the help of tribal militias. The Libyan government has declared the aggressors “terrorists.” The alliance, however, insists that they are patriots and not extremists.
Second Front Ukrainian officials claim that Russian forces have entered southeastern Ukraine with tanks bearing the Donestk People’s Republic insignia. Ukraine alleges that this is overt proof that Russia is actively aiding the rebels, just days before Vladimir Putin plans to meet with Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Both sides have claimed they plan to move away from open military conflict. This development comes only days after Russia acted unilaterally by sending aid convoys to eastern Ukraine, leading to suspicion that they were covertly supplying the rebels with weapons. The vehicles did not comply with Ukrainian inspections, despite that Russia claims to be agreeing to all of said regulations.
Nigeria’s “Caliphate” In Nigeria, the militant group Boko Haram has declared Shariah law in a northeastern town under its control and has declared the establishment of a caliphate. The Nigerian military, however, rejects the caliphate’s legitimacy. Within the first six months of the year, Boko Haram killed more than 2,000 people in its war against Nigeria, and plans to initiate an offensive at the beginning of next year. Boko Haram’s ideology is comparable to that of the Islamic State, and it utilizes a similar attack-and-plunder military strategy to obtain weapons and supplies. In response, Nigeria has requested one billion dollars of foreign aid to purchase military supplies.
Volume XVI, Issue I • September 1, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
From Missouri to Maryland:
Why Ferguson Matters for All of America by Tierra Langley ’15, Contributing Writer
I
n Ferguson, America is burning. At 12:01 pm on Saturday, August 9, Officer Darren Wilson confronted Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson for walking in the middle of the street. Michael, 18, and Dorian, 22, were unarmed Black men on their way to visit a friend. An altercation arose and by 12:04 pm Michael Brown had been shot six times and was fatally wounded. All over the city, citizens are protesting and their efforts are met with tear gas and rubber bullets. People are outraged and demanding justice for the late Michael Brown. But what about all the other Michael Browns for whom justice has not been granted? It is time for us to recognize that what is happening in Ferguson matters everywhere in America.
The killing of a Black man in Ferguson is neither an isolated nor a new event in the United States. Over the last few decades there have been more than twenty high profile instances of unarmed Black men being killed by White police officers: Johnathan Ferrell, Kimani Grey, Amado Diallo, Eric Gardner, and Sean Bell are just a few of the most familiar cases. And that is not to mention those unarmed Black men whose deaths were excluded from the mainstream media. There is little cause to think that such tragedies could not and have not happened in Baltimore City. While it is not known exactly how the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) determines who should be targeted in its more than 100,000 annual stopand-frisks, Sonia Jumar from ACLU of Maryland believes that BPD has abused its own tactics. Current civil lawsuits filed against BPD on behalf of two unarmed Black men lend credence to Jumar’s suspicions. In the cases of Abdul Salaam and Tyrone West, both of whose assaults occurred in July 2013, the victims were pulled over by officers who suspected criminal activity. Salaam, a community activist and father, alleged that while driving home he witnessed BPD officers assaulting someone in the northeast region of the city. He then recalls being stopped by officers some
6 the JHU POLITIK
time later, dragged out of his car, and violently assaulted as his child watched from the car. Unlike Salaam, West actively resisted arrest, and died shortly thereafter from heart complications that arose as a result of police restraint. In both of these local instances of alleged police brutality, there are many possible reasons behind the use of excessive force. Some say that racial profiling with the intent to make an arrest is the extent of the issue, while others believe the devaluation of Black life underlies the problem. Historically, both of those causes stand out as a main source of the issue. Centuries and generations worth of reinforcing the inferiority of African Americans does not vanish after the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Just fifty years later, we cannot ignore the historical significance of race. The problem of police brutality against Black men is widespread, systemic, and far larger than any individual case. It crosses state lines, transcends regional boundaries, and hurts Americans everywhere. It is not the problem of certain towns, cities, states, or regions. It is an American problem and solving this issue requires understanding what allows these cases to happen so often in the country. We need to take a full, hard look at the facts. How many times have police officers stopped African Americans for supposed “criminal activity?” How many times have police officers, guided by racial profiling tactics, gunned down surrendering but armed African Americans who were actually involved in criminal activities? How many times did these incidents go unreported? Why are police officers allowed to turn off their unit cameras at will? Are the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being enforced? These are the questions we should demand answers to from police departments across the country. Each and every instance of police brutality — be it alleged or confirmed — should serve as a catalyst for change — the oxygen to our fire! We must demand a systemic solution to a systemic problem.
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I
The Varsity Effect:
Examining Housing at Johns Hopkins by Juliana Vigorito ’16, Staff Writer
T
he costs associated with higher education in the United States lead us to rightfully assume that access to such is a luxury. Tuition, by far the greatest expense for Johns Hopkins undergraduates, is followed immediately by housing. The latter becomes of great interest when students are unceremoniously booted from their barely off-campus dorms after sophomore year. In moving from dorms to apartment, condominium, or row house living, Hopkins does little to hold students’ hands. An existing but underused feature — in my casual polling of fellow juniors, few were even aware of it — is the Off-Campus Housing Service, an interactive website designed to connect leasing companies with students. The site allows all landlords to advertise through the site, but offers top billing to the most expensive options. New among them this year is The Varsity on Charles, one in a series of amenity-rich student buildings that have sprung up in Ann Arbor, College Park, the Station North area of Baltimore, and now Charles Village. Proffered by the Varsity Investment Group, a subsidiary of Potomac Holdings, LLC, this gleaming high rise barely resembles the Northway Apartments whose skeleton it inhabits. Changes to the somewhat shabby building did not stop at updating decor or replacing the notoriously faulty elevator, but went so far as to up the unit count from 92 to 327 while increasing the price range of a studio apartment from between $600 and $660 to $1550 or more. These two changes mean that the Tuscany-Canterbury neighborhood is about to become much more crowded with Hopkins affiliates, and that the Varsity Investment Group is set to collect a more than comfortable profit margin for years to come. Of the Varsity properties in Maryland, The Varsity on Charles is by far the most expensive per bed. Its downtown counterpart, The Varsity at UB, has partnered with the University of Baltimore in an effort to move from being a commuter campus to a more traditional collegiate setting. Serving UB and Maryland Institute College of Art students since 2012, it claims to be the first market rate student housing option in the city and charges lower prices than its Hopkins counterpart; right now,
a limited-time offer advertises studios for just $1200. This discrepancy reflects neither market rates, which are roughly the same for the respective neighborhoods, nor the amenity packages, which are nearly identical in both buildings. Instead, it seems to be tailored to the targeted clientele. UB students pay far less tuition than Hopkins undergraduates, and MICA, though within the ballpark of Hopkins’ price tag, caters to a student population with potentially lower projected earnings in the future. The cost of The Varsity on Charles, while undoubtedly steep, has done little to dissuade Hopkins students from signing leases en masse and accepting the perks, like free television sets, that came with their new apartments. Clearly the Varsity Investment Group made a smart decision in investing in Charles Village, where sticker shock is minimal when contextualized by tuition and underclassmen dorm price tags. There appears to be a rampant desire among the undergraduate population to stay close to campus, close together, and coddled by amenities, all of which lengthen the on-ramp to adulthood by pushing typical landlord arrangements out of the picture. Small bedrooms and limited living space are gladly accepted in exchange for sleek fixtures, dorm-like security, and features that outdo even Hopkins itself such as unlimited printing in common study areas. What is worth problematizing is the exchange that occurs when so many students are funneled from campus to home across the well-kempt expanse of W. University, decidedly the more affluent and white side of Homewood’s surrounding area. Rather than spreading throughout Charles Village, Waverly, Hampden, and Remington as they otherwise might, patronizing local landlords along the way, students are confined to another year (or likely two) of dorm-style living. While this style of development may be convenient for students, it causes the student community to sequester itself even more tightly away from the greater city. Initiatives for better town-gown relations led by President Daniels fall flat in the face of student attitudes when they seek to avoid rather than embrace the local area, treating living in Baltimore like an obligation rather than an opportunity to experience life in a burgeoning city.
Volume XVI, Issue I • September 1, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
The Crenson Report, 30 Years Later: Hostility at Homewood
T
by Eliza Schultz ’15, Editor-in-Chief
he year 1984 promised to be a time of change for women at Johns Hopkins. In what seemed to be a pivotal moment, an undergraduate came across a note that exposed some of the overt sexism that women regularly faced on campus. An official university report subsequently described Homewood as antagonistic to its female affiliates, and called upon the university to better support them. Today, however, the status of women on campus remains as it was thirty years ago. Written on university letterhead, the note described acts of sexual violence committed against a woman (a “filthy slut”) and her mother (a “rotten old stank box”). It concluded, “I leave my date and her mother in rapture and call it an evening, only left with sweet dreams by which to remember another romantic encounter.” Issued by the Johns Hopkins chapter of the Tau Epsilon Phi fraternity (which lost its charter in 1993 due to its longstanding insolvency), the note had found its way into the wrong mailbox. As an active member of the feminist club, the student promptly photocopied the note and posted it all around Homewood so that it could not be avoided. Within days, the letter had gone viral, and there was outrage on campus. “The protests that ensued were a reflection of a lot of pent-up frustration related to the unaddressed problems of the status of women on campus,” recalls Professor of Humanities Ruth Leys. “Among these were the absence of concern about sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and more.” More than a decade after Johns Hopkins had opened its doors to female undergraduates, the university was finally forced to confront its troubled gender dynamics. Almost immediately, an Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Women was formed, chaired by Professor of Political Science Matthew Crenson. Leys sat on the committee as well, alongside fourteen other members of the faculty, student body, administration, and staff. The committee was given the broad mandate to examine the issues that negatively impacted the women of Homewood, and to put forth proposals to ameliorate their status.
8 the JHU POLITIK
In 1985, less than one year after the note caused uproar at Homewood, the committee published a 91-page document known colloquially as the Crenson Report. It described “a general atmosphere at Homewood that is at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the concerns of women.” Although prompted by an incident that involved undergraduates, the Crenson Report primarily focused on female employees. The committee found that virtually no women held executive positions or were granted tenure status, and discovered disparities in promotion rates and benefits between male and female employees. Women were found to be effectively barred from all platforms from which to influence the university and its priorities. The final concern was that the university failed to adequately support its female affiliates. Indeed, just before female undergraduates were admitted to the university in 1970, the Task Force on Coeducation had predicted that the “assumption that undergraduate life is different for women as compared to men would be patently false.” And so, to welcome women to campus, urinals were removed from bathrooms and a firewall was built to separate male and female dormitories. And that was about all. It was time, the committee decided, to designate a physical space on campus specifically for women. This space, which they dubbed the Women’s Center, would be a resource for female affiliates as well as other marginalized groups that had historically been excluded from the white male bastion. It would serve as a locus for these groups to “work together at identifying and surmounting some of the particular obstacles in their path.” The Women’s Center would enrich campus life through various programming geared toward women, minority men, and gay and lesbian affiliates. It would guide these groups toward professional and educational success through career development services and a mentoring system with faculty members. Its meeting room and library would provide physical spaces in which to gather and find membership on a campus where, despite changes in university policy, these communities were not yet fully welcome. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I
It would also centralize health information and referral services for women. The committee identified important services to have on file, including gynecologists, lawyers, and services for rape victims. Recognizing that female undergraduates utilized counseling services at a rate twice that of their male peers, the committee proposed that the Women’s Center host group forums on issues such as reproductive health and sexual harassment. (The committee reported that Johns Hopkins women were commonly seeking therapy for the latter.) In the grand scheme of things, there was nothing radical about the proposal. Johns Hopkins would not be a trailblazer among American colleges and universities in the effort to improve campus life for female students. As institutions nationwide became coeducational (a result of both heightening social pressures and, finally, the advent of Title IX in 1972), women’s centers were already a common fixture on campuses. By the time the Crenson Report was published, there were already some 600 across the nation. Today, Johns Hopkins stands as an anomaly among its peer institutions. Unlike all of the Ivy League schools (except Columbia, which is affiliated with the all-female Barnard College located just across the street), Duke, Georgetown, and the University of Maryland (to name just a few), there is no space dedicated to women at Homewood. Despite the plight of Johns Hopkins women as detailed throughout the Crenson Report and subsequent documents (the most recent of which was published in 2006), the university has never considered the Women’s Center to be a priority. And yet, similarities between 1984 and the present suggest that the need for one persists. In May, it became known that an alleged gang rape had occurred the previous year at the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity house. Transparency protests ensued, and a group of students filed a federal complaint against the University for its failure to address the incident. The complaint alleges that administrators mishandled several sexual assault cases over the years and thus violated Title IX, the law that prohibits gender discrimination in educational institutions. Johns Hopkins is now under federal investigation because of allegations that it “allows students to be subjected a hostile environment on the basis of sex.” Thirty years after the Crenson Report described the attitude toward women at Homewood as somewhere between apathetic and downright misogynistic, there is reason to believe that not much has changed. A survey issued in 2005 asked students (the vast majority of whom were women) to agree or to disagree with a number of statements related to their experiences at Johns Hopkins. Re-
spondents commonly reported a lack of formal and informal mentorship, which prompted an official university report to recommend a faculty mentorship system for women. Results of the survey also indicated that female students were generally unaware of any support provided to them by the university. Among the statements with the highest level of disagreement in the entire survey were, “I am aware of the resources this university provides to support women” and “I am aware of the resources on campus that are available to respond to cases of sexual assault and rape.” Sexual assault and sexual harassment remain rampant problems at Johns Hopkins. In that same survey, the statement with the highest level of agreement was, “I have been sexually harassed at the university.” The most recent annual Campus Security Report disclosed sixteen incidents of sexual assault, which does not even include those reported to confidential resources such as the Counseling Center. And, more than 90 percent of sexual assault victims on college campuses never report their incidents, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Juniors Rebecca Grenham and Ella Rogers-Fett, Co-Directors of the Sexual Assault Resource Unit, note the importance of centralized services for sexual assault victims. “Aside from the inconvenience of constantly travelling to receive specific services, one problem with the current system is that many survivors do not immediately know which resources they want, making it difficult for them to decide where first to go.” They continue that a “safe and non-judgmental space in which survivors can find peer support groups, socialize, and talk about their experiences…could go a long way in reinforcing the healing process.” Since the time of the Crenson Report, the university has taken important steps toward supporting its most marginalized communities. The Office of Multicultural Affairs offers space, programming, and resources to underrepresented minorities. The Black Student Union has a room of its own in the basement of a freshman dormitory. And last September, the university launched a program to support its gay, bisexual, and transgender students, whose resource center is set to open this year. But women continue to face an unmet need. More than forty years after coeducation, women are no longer a novelty at Johns Hopkins. And yet, the university has not made due effort to support them. It is not enough to fully cooperate with the Title IX investigation, as President Ronald Daniels pledged in a recent email. It is time for the university to take decisive action against the hostile environment for which it has come under fire, even if this action is decades overdue.
Volume XVI, Issue I • September 1, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
Run, Elizabeth, Run! by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
I
t is just a matter of time before Hillary Clinton declares her intent to run for President of the United States. Any political scientist would be kidding themselves if they gave another Democrat a fighting chance against her. In Iowa, 89 percent of Democrats view her favorably; in New Hampshire, that number is a record-breaking 94 percent. But this race, like the rest of those that continue to consume the 21st century, is cursed to be as substantive as a high school prom queen election. If there were a way to turn this election cycle into an intellectual debate about solutions to the most pressing issues of our time, would we not have an obligation to both ourselves and our democracy to embrace it? If it were possible to bring the greatest minds on the left and the right together to discuss our ailing Republic, should we not? Regardless of your position on the political spectrum, a solution lies in a presidential bid by Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren cannot win. But she can change the conversation.
For liberals, a Warren bid makes complete sense. She would bring income inequality, the failing American welfare system, and out-of-control corporate power — issues that she has famously championed in the past — to the forefront of the political debate. She would energize the liberal base of the Democratic Party — and force the moderate majority to respond by keeping them in check with pragmatic left-leaning policy solutions. Warren would have nothing to lose, so she could continue to nip at the heels of the establishment party and keep the Clinton campaign catering to the progressive base (or, at the very least, making a few leftist remarks here and there). A Warren run would help conservatives as well. Aside from keeping the Clinton campaign busy during the primary season (a necessity if the Republican Party continues to lack a clear frontrunner), she would shift the debate to issues that conservatives clearly want to talk about. As numerous party leaders, including former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, have pointed out, it will be impossible for the Republican nominee to get within spitting distance of the White House if the dis-
10 the JHU POLITIK
cussion is focused on social policy. Screaming “God, guns, and gays” does not really work in their favor when the majority of voters in swing states have previously demonstrated that they disagree with this message. If the Republican Party is able to focus the debate on the economy — entitlement reform, small-business growth, and a jobs plan — then they stand a chance of fostering real dialogue on issues with which they can hope to win over undecided voters. It is tough to sell a Warren run to “Hillary Democrats” — words which are gradually becoming one and the same. There is no doubt that a primary challenger would weaken Clinton right out of the gate — and there are plenty in the party, such as Senator Chuck Schumer, who would call for no primary altogether. But if Clinton’s recent book tour has taught the Democratic Party anything, it’s that she is a little rusty. She could use a challenger on her left to give her practice before the Republicans begin their unrelenting attack the moment the primary season is over, if not before. Along with pushing Clinton in a way she has not been pushed since 2008, facing Warren in the primaries will give Clinton a chance to remind the voters of her resume. Currently, Clinton’s primary argument is, “It’s my turn.” If Warren were to run, the Clinton camp would be able to point out Warren’s lack of experience while promoting her own. Then we would have a reinvigorated party that knows beyond a doubt why Clinton is their candidate — a party ready for an undoubtedly messy campaign. Party affiliation aside, a Warren run is good for our republican pluralism. It would offer another voice in an election that is so often dominated by candidates who are only marginally different from one another. It would shift the focus of the discussion from the aesthetic to the ideal; from the candidates to the policies. It would force us all to come together and talk about the issues in the manner that these elections were intended to invite. It would cause us to question our convictions and ask new questions. It would make our democracy more democratic.
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I
A “Modi”-fied India:
The Emergence of a New Political Era by Arpan Ghosh ’17, Staff Writer
T
he Indian national election of 2014 has catapulted Asia’s oldest democracy into a new political era. After a grueling five-week campaign, the candidate of the right-wing Bharitya Janata Party (BJP), Narendra Modi, was elected Prime Minister of India on May 26th. This marks the first election in the country’s sixty-seven year history in which voters have supported, in a staggeringly clear mandate, a non-Congress affiliated party. The BJP captured an unprecedented 336 of 545 Lok Shaba seats, or 61.7 percent of the total. This sharp turn to the right could spell not only the ascendance of the BJP, but also the end of the left-wing, dynastical Nehru-Gandhi style of governance that has dominated democratic India since its birth in 1947. Modi/BJP achieved such a decisive victory because of innovative campaigning strategies never before used in an Indian election.
As a result of the BJP’s energetic campaign, Narendra Modi and the Bharitya Janata Party won decisively in 2014. There is no doubt that this domination has brought an extraordinary change to Indian politics, one that may be difficult to reverse in the short term. However, the upper house, or the Rajya Sabha, of India’s parliament is not in the hands of the National Democratic Alliance or the BJP. To secure complete parliamentary control, the NDA-BJP will need to undertake sustained coalition building over the next several years. What Modi can do and has already started to do is govern from a position of strength at the national level without having to constantly appease regional parties (as past United Progressive Alliance governments did). Moreover, in dealing with BJP-led states like Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, Modi will succeed in bringing decisive reform.
Modi's campaign was marked by an unusually aggressive and multifaceted appeal to diverse voter demographics, utilizing a dazzling array of campaign vehicles. By contrast, his chief competitor, Congress party candidate Rahul Gandhi, ran a lackluster campaign. Gandhi appeared to voters as a passive contender lacking strong support from his own party — a candidate who seemed to be relying only on dynastic privilege to secure a win. By the time the Congress moved to rally around Gandhi, it was already too late. Voters saw Gandhi and the Congress as disengaged and apathetic. Modi, by contrast, seemed to offer a fresh vision, coupled with a sense of personal dynamism and vigor.
In the future, every challenger to Modi and the BJP will need to take notes on the extraordinary success of the 2014 campaign. On top of the party’s massive electoral defeat, Gandhi himself has suffered from vast attacks on his character, and many pundits have suggested that he may not have a political future. At a minimum, Gandhi and his party will need to reinvent themselves politically, especially among the young adult demographic. Moreover, they must be willing to spend far more money on election campaigns, an idea that is controversial with the Indian electorate despite the BJP’s recent victory.
Although Modi's policy platform, which included strong appeals to Hindu nationalism, clearly resonated with many Indian voters on an ideological level, his success also reflects a new style of “brand” politics that emphasizes controlled management of Modi’s public image and targeted media messaging to diverse voter groups and geographic regions. The BJP constantly marketed Modi as the dynamic new face of the party while organizing mass “chaiwala” rallies to promote him as India’s humble “savior” and conducting below-theline campaigning through social media and integrated digital technology. Just as Gandhi’s lackluster campaign reinforced the Congress’ image of political stagnation, the BJP’s dynamic technology-based campaigning magnified Modi’s image as a forward-looking change-agent.
Modi and the BJP have clearly helped “Westernize” Indian elections. How well that will sit with the electorate over time remains to be seen. Time will also tell whether Modi and the BJP can deliver on their far-reaching promises of governmental reform and economic prosperity — in part, by successfully winning control of both chambers of the parliament. However, it can be postulated that Modi has almost singlehandedly transformed how Indian elections will operate henceforth. Modi’s campaign is sure to be studied, dissected and analyzed by political scientists for years to come, and it is unlikely that Indian elections will ever be fought in the pre-2014 mode again.
Volume XVI, Issue I • September 1, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
11
Inside Iraq by Crystal Lee ’17, Contributing Writer
I
f waging genocide against fellow Muslims failed to capture the world’s attention, posting a video of American journalist James Foley being beheaded certainly did the trick. The Islamic State (also known by various other monikers, such as ISIS) has rapidly risen to notoriety as the terrorist group that makes even Al-Qaeda seem moderate. The question, though, is how scared should we be exactly? And what should President Obama be doing about it? ISIS is an extremist Sunni Muslim terrorist group that rose to power in the midst of the Syrian Civil War, pledging to create a new Islamic state in the Middle East. Earlier this August, up to 40,000 Yazidis, an Iraqi minority, were forced to seek refuge in the mountains to escape ISIS jihadists. Although U.S. bombing runs helped end the siege, the Islamic State retaliated by killing American journalist James Foley. Videos of the beheading were widely publicized online on August 19. Earlier in June, ISIS militants conquered vast chunks of Northern and Western Iraq. They have amassed a fortune of around $2 billion and an army of 80,000 fighters. They force all they encounter to convert to their extremist vision of Islam or die, destroying shrines and mosques as they progress. The human rights abuses they have committed are many, and they routinely carry out crucifixions, beheadings, rape, child abuse and slavery.
In light of this threat, Obama maintains his stance that countries bear the primary responsibility for their own security — meaning that Iraqi troops will fight their own wars and American soldiers are a last resort. However, Senator John McCain has accused Obama of “ignoring the threat” by acting incrementally, allowing the Islamic State to grow stronger. Certainly, Obama’s actions so far have been reactionary compared to those of former President Bush, cautiously responding to events rather than initiating them. The apparent inconsistency of America’s recent actions have contributed to a generally nebulous conception of Obama’s foreign policy. In order to deal effectively with the international crisis at hand, Obama must tackle several issues and articulate a comprehensive strategy against the Islamic State.
12 the JHU POLITIK
First of all, it is important for America to work with other Middle Eastern countries against ISIS. While cooperation with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey are likely, there may be more questionable allies on the table, such as Syria and Iran. The border between Iraq and Syria is paper thin, allowing ISIS fighters easy access to the country. However, attacking the Islamic State in Syria could end up aiding Bashar Al Assad’s brutal authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, insofar as Obama’s primary interest is to protect American citizens, buddying up with Assad may very well be reasonable, as the dictator has never posed a direct threat to American national security. Even Iran is a possible ally; the Shia Islamist government is opposed to ISIS, and holds great influence in Iraq. At the same time, though, it also provides military support to Assad and Hezbollah in Lebanon. U.S. airstrikes are another matter. Obama has unrelentingly extended airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, aiming to destroy the Islamic State’s havens. Polls show that the American public is relatively supportive of striking ISIS. However, other countries have mixed opinions. Russian President Putin, ironically, has been an early critic of American strikes in Syria, accusing Obama of undermining multilateral peace efforts and destabilizing the Middle East. Considerations of morality and delicate international stability aside, the immediate benefits of airstrikes are also dubious. U.S. intelligence has very limited visibility in Syrian airspace, which is guarded by Assad’s missiles and aircraft. It is doubtful that the strikes could provide a major setback to the Islamic State. Instead, they could drag the United States into the bloody Syrian Civil War. One thing is for sure: any American intervention needs an end game; not just an escape route for Americans, but an actual conception of a functioning Iraq. Going in and then getting out is not a plausible plan for peace. Shortsighted intervention is a major root cause of the problem of terrorism. Instead, Obama needs to do what he failed to do in Libya: create a plan for long-term peace and stability, hand-in-hand with the Iraqi government and regional allies.
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I
The Ethics of Ebola by Christine Kumar ’16, Staff Writer
T
his July, while working in Liberia to contain the Ebola epidemic rampaging through West Africa, two Americans — one doctor and one missionary — became infected with the virus. Immediate action took place: within two weeks of their infection, they were flown to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, which is close to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s main headquarters. The Americans were then treated with an experimental drug named ZMapp in order to counter the swift-acting virus. They have since been released from the hospital and pronounced cured. ZMapp, despite its success in these two cases, is not an approved drug. While it has undergone some animal testing, it has not been submitted to the proper clinical tests required to prove its efficacy. Since proper testing has not been completed, we do not know about any adverse side effects and must regard ZMapp as a considerably experimental drug. However, despite the fact that ZMapp is still under development, it remains the only viable drug treatment for Ebola — and was already in short supply before these two Americans began their treatment. Since then, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures ZMapp has exhausted its supply. The World Health Organization recently gathered its Ethics Review Committee to discuss the ethics of this unauthorized Ebola treatment. The Ethics Review Committee eventually concluded that because of the high death rate associated with Ebola (about 55 percent for the current outbreak) and the scarcity of other options, it is not only ethical, but also imperative to provide ZMapp to those infected. It is similarly of vital importance to gather data about ZMapp and its effects in order to learn about possible universal treatments. There was also great concern about which patients received the limited amount of the drug. While the two aforementioned Americans, as well as a few health pro-
fessionals from Europe and West Africa, were treated with ZMapp upon infection, other patients were denied that same treatment. While the Ethics Review Committee did not discuss who specifically should have received the limited supply of the drug, Johns Hopkins bioethicist Dr. Nancy Kass recently wrote an opinion piece in the Annals of Internal Medicine in which she argues that giving ZMapp to the American patients and not to the West African patients was, in fact, completely ethical. Kass believes that, due to the experimental nature of Zmapp, to treat the West African Ebola patients with the drug might have instigated another ethics debate. These patients would have been regarded as guinea pigs, receiving unreliable, under-tested, and potentially dangerous health care. Although Kass does raise some important points about the ethical dangers of using under-tested drugs such as ZMapp, the urgency of Ebola and its growing number of cases is much too risky to ignore. When Ebola first began to spread in March, there should have been a stronger push not only to treat infected patients with ZMapp in order to prevent a full-fledged outbreak, but also to create more medical treatment options and carry out more research to ensure the health of all patients — not just those who come from better circumstances. All Ebola patients deserve the medical expertise of global health professionals and pharmaceuticals to help curb the spread of the disease. The West African victims of Ebola deserved attention upon contracting the disease, not just when it began to cross borders or when more seemingly important people became infected. Ebola is a global health crisis, not just a West African health crisis. All Ebola patients, regardless of their nationality or career, deserve equal media and medical attention. Health organizations everywhere should aggressively seek treatment options and help all Ebola patients obtain quality health care. Otherwise, we risk allowing this deadly disease to spread across the globe.
Volume XVI, Issue I • September 1, 2014 •
the JHU POLITIK
13
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
14 the JHU POLITIK
• September 1, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue I