the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
4/28/14
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XV, Issue XI
Volume XV, Issue XI 1
POLITIK PRESS VOLUME XV, ISSUE XI
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
the
APRIL 28th, 2014
April 28th, 2014
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Katie Botto Sarallah Salehi Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato COPY EDITOR Peter Lee MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
HEAD WRITER Julia Allen MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts POLICY DESK EDITOR Michael Bodner STAFF WRITERS Eliza Schultz Dylan Etzel Abigail Sia Adrian Carney Geordan Williams Chris Winer Akshai Bhatnagar Rosellen Grant Preston Ge Corey Payne Mira Haqqani Arpan Ghosh 2
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW: South Asia ....................................................... Page 4 Arpan Ghosh ’17
POLICY DESK: If You Give a Mouse Crimea ............................................... Page 5 Mike Bodner ’14
WHY BARACK OBAMA’S NEW NEW DEAL DEPENDS ON THIS YEAR’S KENTUCKY SENATE RACE ..........................................
Page 8
Akshai Bhatnagar ’14
THE SENIOR CLASS GIFT: What Am I Giving To? .......................
Page 9
Geordan Williams ’14
CIVIL RIGHTS: 50 Years Later .................................................... Page 10 Corey Payne ’17
THE ARAB-ISRAELI STALEMATE ............................................. Page 11 Mira Haqqani ’17
THE NEED FOR AN INFORMED DISCUSSION ON RAPE ......... Page 12 Becky Grenham ’16
A NEW SPAIN CONFRONTS THE PAST ................................... Page 13 Colette Andrei ’15
3
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
WEEK IN REVIEW: South Asia By Arpan Ghosh ’17, Staff Writer The World’s Largest Democracy Tackling Election Graft and Corruption India’s Election for Prime Minister has entered its sixth phase of voting, settings records in Mumbai for the highest turnout rate in 25 years. The uptick in voter turnout has been attributed to the substantial increase in polling booth locations throughout both urban cities and villages. Earlier this week, India’s Election Commission, a regulatory bureaucratic organization in joint cooperation with local police in New Delhi, seized 300 crore (around $50 million) and 66,000 lbs of narcotics in an effort to derail quite possibly one of the largest conspicuous voter-bribery schemes of this election year. Citizens of India have been able to cast their votes without much interference from factional anarchists, although Maoist rebel groups in the northeast state of Jharkhand exchanged fire with Indian soldiers, resulting in the deaths of two polling officers.
Islamic Insurgents Seeking Immediate Release of Prisoners From Pakistani Government Pakistani militants in Tehreek-e-Taliban, with ties to Lokshar-e-taiba and the Pakistani-Taliban, continue to attack Pakistani-soldiers and military personnel, ambushing police stations and refusing to extend the 40 day cease-fire agreement with the government. The cease-fire was established to foster negotiations between the Pakistani Taliban and the government, but has been put on hold due to the most recent attacks. The Taliban is requesting from the Pakistani government the release of 300 prisoners who are suspected to have ties with the terrorist group. In response to Taliban insurgency, the Pakistani Air Force launched a series of air strikes along the Tirah Valley in Peshawar, a suspected hub for numerous militant groups.
Afghanistan’s Presidential Election a Steady Improvement Since 2009, Dangers Still Present Abdullah Abdullah of the left-wing, centrist National Coalition of Afghanistan political party is set to win the preliminary round of Afghanistan’s presidential election. However, he is not predicted to win 50% of the votes needed to elude a runoff election later this year. The introduction of an ultra-permanent ink pen, which bleeds into the special ballot paper and makes it almost impossible to erase/remove the markings, has led to a decrease in voter fraud. An increase in voter turnout in Afghanistan this year compared to the last 2009 election is a promising sign of improvement, although voter intimidation and bribery continues to run rampant in Afghanistan. More significantly, last week, Taliban insurgents attacked the Independent Election Commission headquarters in Kabul, and violence in the country has escalated in recent weeks in response to the elections.
A Year After the Deadly Factory Disaster, Still No Change in Bangladesh’s Garment Industry Almost a year after the country’s deadliest workplace factory-catastrophe, Bangladesh continues to face heavy workplace violations, as corporations continue to elude inspections and hazard checks, primarily due to lack of government examiners and funding for regulation. A new federal initiative in the country was designed with the intention to ameliorate safety conditions in factories through the enforcement of safety standards; however, safety training and change can be sluggish developments. Recent reports by New York University’s Center for Business and Human Rights indicate that international efforts by retailers, some of which are American, have contributed very little to address the countless safety concerns. PP
4
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
POLICY DESK by Mike Bodner ’14, Policy Desk Editor
T
If You Give a Mouse Crimea
he good news is that Crimea has started to fade from the news, and it looks as if Russia and the West are no longer confronting each other over the small peninsula. The bad news is that the Crimean Crisis has been supplanted by the larger and more threatening Ukrainian Crisis, as pro-Russian “self-defense forces” in Eastern Ukraine rise up to occupy territory as small as a single government building in Donetsk and as large as the entire town of Sloviansk. With tensions rapidly building and Eastern Ukraine appearing dangerously vulnerable to civil conflict, the United States, EU, Ukraine, and Russia met in Geneva in an effort to defuse regional and international tensions. The result of the meeting was the April 17th Geneva Statement on Ukraine, an agreement by the four powers to work to take “initial concrete steps to de-escalate tensions and restore security” for Ukrainian citizens. On paper, the statement is indeed a promising start on the road towards peace in Ukraine. The conference attendees agreed that all parties “must refrain from any violence, intimidation or provocative actions,” and that any “illegal armed groups” must disarm and vacate occupied buildings. In exchange, the Ukrainian government will grant amnesty to all protesters and occupiers, with the exception of those who are convicted of capital offenses. If this agreement were to be enforced, it would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction towards Ukrainian stability. Unfortunately, armed separatists have refused to follow the agreement, saying it was signed by an illegitimate government in Kiev and is therefore, void. Three days later, three insurgents were killed in a shootout outside of Sloviansk. Separatist supporters blamed the far-right Ukrainian nationalist group, Right Sector, and claimed to have found stacks of American dollars and Right Sector insignia in the carnage left behind after the gun battle. On Thursday the 24th, five militants were killed as the Ukrainian military resorted to lethal force for the first time in the uprising. Vladimir Putin responded to the incident by claiming “If the Kiev government is using the army against its own people, this is clearly a grave crime.”
Perhaps some in the international community hoped this quote was just a joke, given Moscow’s support for the Assad regime in Syria. Yet Putin’s statement came as 40,000 Russian troops began maneuvers on Ukraine’s eastern border. Later on Thursday, John Kerry accused Russia of using tactics of “distraction, deception, and destabilization” in Ukraine. This allegation was at least partly in reference to the accusation that Russian special forces were on the ground in Eastern Ukraine, organizing and directing local uprisings. The Russian government has categorically denied using military operators or intelligence agents in mainland Ukraine, just as they denied the deployment of similar personnel in Crimea. Yet it is understandable to look at this claim with some skepticism, especially considering Putin’s April 17th admission that Russian troops had been present in Crimea. While this admission surprised very few observers in Europe or the United States, it has served to undermine Russian claims of nonintervention in mainland Ukraine. In order to diplomatically engage Vladimir Putin, it is necessary to understand what the Russian President hopes to gain by antagonizing both his immediate neighbor and the Western world. He cannot realistically hope to annex the eastern half of Ukraine, as he did the relatively small Crimean peninsula. Instead, Putin may intend to use East Ukraine as a bargaining chip. He could offer to withdraw his forces from the country and end his overt support for Eastern Ukrainian separatism, with the condition that the West accepts his annexation of Crimea. While the United States or the EU would probably not formally recognize Crimea as part of Russia, they would likely, with time, treat it as a de facto Russian province. This would be a victory for Putin, as he would have essentially gotten away with Europe’s first example of irredentism since World War II. In addition, every uprising in Eastern Ukraine is an embarrassment to the new government led by Oleksandr Turchynov. Putin hopes that the turmoil in the East may provoke Kiev into making a radical show of force, or that the violence may prove sufficient to cause the public to
5
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
lose face in their new president. This could allow for a return of the ousted Viktor Yanukovych, or a similarly pro-Russian figure. The West realizes that it needs to act in order to prevent Russia’s intervention in Ukraine from setting a dangerous precedent in 21st century international politics. So far, the United States and the EU have placed economic sanctions on prominent Russian individuals, including Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. On Friday, President Obama spoke of strengthening and expanding sanctions, and an anonymous U.S. official said a potential new target would be Gazprombank, Russia’s third-largest lender. Unfortunately, the United States has found the European Union hesitant to clamp down on Russia’s financial institutions. This is somewhat understandable from an economic perspective, as the EU conducted roughly 370.3 billion dollars of trade with Russia in 2012, as opposed to the United States, which saw only about 26.2 billion dollars of trade with Russia in the same year. That, combined with a recovering and delicate Eurozone, has made some European leaders hesitant to rock the economic boat. Still, it is hard to see Europe refusing to expand sanctions against Russia. This crisis is occurring on their doorstep, a geographic fact which magnifies any perceived sign of weakness. Economic sanctions, if targeted at the right industries, individuals, and organizations, can prove effective in deterring Russia from future actions as overtly aggressive as seen in Ukraine. Another possible strategy would be for the United States and Europe to strengthen diplomatic and economic ties with Russia’s neighbors. Russia is a country with few firm friends in Europe; one can make the point that Belarus and Albania are Russia’s only two European allies. While strengthening ties with these two countries would be difficult and perhaps overly provocative (after all, it was the perceived “poaching” of Russian ally Ukraine that started this crisis in November 2013), it would be possible to draw countries like Moldova, Albania, or Montenegro closer to the West through trade deals or other incentives. The United States and Europe need to decide how to handle the crisis in Ukraine. They have massive economic and diplomatic assets at their disposal. All they need now is the will and wisdom to act intelligently and effectively. Whichever path the West chooses to take, it is critical that they do not take, (or rather, sit on) the path of inaction. PP
6
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
WHY BARACK OBAMA’S NEW NEW DEAL DEPENDS ON THIS YEAR’S KENTUCKY SENATE RACE by Akshai Bhatnagar ’14, Staff Writer
I
t was November 24th, 2008. The world economy was collapsing, the American people had just given the Democratic Party historic congressional majorities, and President-elect Barack Obama was on the cover of TIME Magazine. Complete with long cigarette and fedora, the cover showed Obama’s face photoshopped onto a picture of Franklin Roosevelt with the caption “the New New Deal.” That magazine cover perfectly captured the Democratic Party’s enthusiasm in 2008. For the first time in fourteen years, Democrats had regained de facto one-party control of Washington. Backed by a New New Deal coalition of young people, minorities, and liberals, the Obama presidency was supposed to signal the start of a new Democratic era, in which liberal initiatives like healthcare reform would finally be passed into law. Moreover, the New New Deal, like the original version, was supposed to mark a political shift, strengthening the Democratic brand, and Democratic candidates, for decades. Instead, after a few major policy accomplishments, the New New Deal has faltered. Since the 2010 midterms, Republicans in Congress have managed to block even routine legislative action. Major policy initiatives, like immigration reform, cap-and-trade legislation, or gun-control, are frustratingly out of reach. Despite President Obama’s surprisingly comfortable re-election margin, it seems the New New Deal Coalition is not strong enough to pass its own legislative agenda. That means Democrats must expand the political map beyond the current Obama comfort zone. This election cycle, there is no more promising opportunity to do so than the Kentucky Senate race between Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes. Kentucky has the outward-appearance of being a solidly Republican state. At first glance, this seems rather justified: it is home to libertarian ideologue Sen. Rand Paul, went decisively for Mitt Romney in 2012, and counts five Republicans among its six-member delegation to the House of Representatives. However, the state is not quite as conservative as it appears:
Kentucky has an unabashedly pro-Obamacare Democratic governor, is strongly supportive of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and has had a Democratic majority in the lower-house for almost a century. In short, it is not a state inherently unwilling to vote for Democrats. That’s important because Kentucky could truly use more liberal representation in Congress: perhaps no state benefitted more from the original New Deal than Kentucky, and as, one of the poorest, unhealthiest, and shortest-lived states in the country, it also stands to benefit from the liberalism of the New New Deal. Obamacare alone has helped almost half a million Kentuckians sign up for health insurance – and polling shows Kentuckians prefer Democratic positions on economic issues like the minimum wage and pay equity. Kentucky is a state both willing to listen to Democratic ideas and in need of more liberal policies. Just as importantly, it is a state seriously dissatisfied with its senior senator. Despite, or perhaps because of, his position as the Senate’s top-ranking Republican, McConnell is one of the nation’s most vulnerable incumbents. McConnell has led a GOP Senate caucus that has obstructed the president at every opportunity; Senate Republicans used the filibuster more times in 2009 alone than their predecessors did in the entire decade of the 1950s. McConnell’s association with GOP obstructionism has not helped him in the bluegrass. As of last December, no Senator is less popular in his or her home state than McConnell is in Kentucky. His approval ratings have sunk so low, that he is now even less popular among Kentuckians than Barack Obama. The Kentucky Senate race is important because it’s emblematic of the races Democrats need to win to break the gridlock in Washington. Liberals, minorities, and young people may have elected Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, yet that coalition is not yet broad enough to overcome GOP opposition in Congress. Democrats need to win seats in redstates to regain legislative control of Washington and move the liberal agenda forward. If we cannot do that in Kentucky this year – in a state not unfriendly to Democrats, poised to benefit from more liberal policies, and home to the country’s least-popular Senator – it is unlikely we will have more luck elsewhere. For that reason, the future of Barack Obama’s New New Deal hinges on Kentucky this November. PP
7
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
Page 12: Becky’s position of Publicity and Advertising not Staff THE SENIOR CLASS GIFT: WHAT AM isI Director GIVING TO? Writer by Geordan Williams ’14, Staff Writer --Change headline to “Informed Discussion” instead of “Honest Dis cussion”
S
everal weeks back, I went in to Barnes & Noble costs. Consider also that University President Ronald to purchase my cap and gown for graduation earns a base salary that is well over $800,000 PageDaniels 13: this upcoming May. I have endured four years a year. italicize Pacto de Olvido of rising tuition bills and diminishing financial packages. Yet, I am still expected to pay the extravagant In all fairness, despite its relatively small endowment sum of $125.03 for a few yards of thin 100% polyester of just under $3 billion, Hopkins has managed to WOOOOOO!!!! cloth that I will wear for one day, and which may very offer tuition rates and financial aid packages that are well be more expensive than my only suit, which I have competitive with other top tier private universities, been wearing for over six years. It is a little less than the which is largely due to a major influx of donations. amount I was able to spend for food each month when I Michael Bloomberg, who has donated over $1.1 billion was living off campus. On my way out of the bookstore, I to the university, has also bankrolled some 20% of was asked to donate an additional $20.14 as a senior gift. financial aid for the last several years. Because of this Why should I? generosity, financial aid as been able to fully meet 99.2% of demonstrated need; however, the same department Every year, the senior class is encouraged to donate a determines what qualifies as need, a process that is also small sum to their new alma mater, and so begins a long, largely opaque. The issue is not so much the lack of illustrious history of philanthropy. But this tradition financial aid, but the lack of transparency in the process. is based on the assumption that Johns Hopkins University is a philanthropic foundation. Hopkins as Every choice has an opportunity cost. The $20 I an institution is an $8.3 billion education, research, and donate to Hopkins cannot be donated to another medical enterprise composed of a myriad of interests. institution. Therefore, I want to be sure that the $20 I The question is, what part of this institution does my give to Hopkins will cause a greater impact than $20 donation support? I argue that, although we are allowed somewhere else. Given the lack of transparency on to earmark our donations for a specific club or project, our university’s finances, however, I cannot believe $20 to one project is $20 in discretionary funds that that it will. Why would I donate to an institution that could be shifted to another, so that in the end, donations appears to use its funds on excess when I could give to can be shifted to any project. educational institutions in poverty stricken Phoenix? What about Baltimore? Therefore, we need to be comfortable with the administration using our donations in any way. The The Hopkins administration could make a much stronger Hopkins webpage promoting the senior class gift case if it were to bring greater transparency to its claims that our tuition payments only cover 70% of finances. Such openness would encourage donations and our education, and that mainly alumni donors pay the would open Hopkins to constructive criticism that could other 30%. But what exactly is covered in our tuition is be used to eliminate inefficiencies that otherwise remain impossible to know without an itemized receipt. How hidden. Until this is the case, I will not donate; not until do we know that none of it is being used to support my university, which claims Veritas Vos Liberabit as its graduate students, unrelated outside research, or motto, explains why my graduation robe costs more than unnecessary expenses? an entire year’s fees at my high school. PP This mystery is only compounded by the many examples of overspending on campus. There is Sterling Brunch, which regularly treats undergraduates to frivolous ice sculptures and shark fin. Then there are dining dollars, which are more expensive than actual dollars; supposedly, this extra expense is to pay for overhead
8
s-
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
CIVIL RIGHTS: 50 YEARS LATER by Corey Payne ’17, Staff Writer
F
ifty years ago, one of the most iconic pieces of legislation ever to be passed by the United States Congress was signed into law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted barely a year after the historic March on Washington, outlawed segregated public facilities and gave the federal government the authority to enforce public desegregation. The Act seemed to mark an end to institutionalized racism and bigotry by bringing together the work of two parties, two presidents, and the dreams of the masses. But fifty years later, as we celebrate this anniversary, we must ask ourselves how much has really changed. The government of the United States was built upon principles of racism and functioned for well over a century with the most infamous institution of racism in the history of humanity: slavery. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, worked to try to correct the institutional discrimination that was integral to our nation’s founding. But laws on paper can only go so far when the structure of the government has never truly held to its supposed values that “all men are created equal.” As is always the case, there is a disconnect between the ideals we strive to cling to and the reality we desperately try to ignore. Our laws will appear fair and just, but bureaucratic discretion is at the heart of a republic. Those who execute the laws as they are written are able to act within a variance of legislative intention— and when bureaucrats do this one hundredfold, the structure of government grows farther away from the pieces of paper affixed with the Seal of the President. Take, for example, the recent efforts to decrease access to voting. By establishing “voter fraud” laws, many areas of the country are taking active steps to bar minorities from exercising their right to vote. Much like the Jim Crow era restrictive voter laws, the Civil Rights Act does not directly protect Americans from this type of disenfranchisement, which may remain until the courts or legislature act.
Furthermore, the Act does protects not only from discrimination on the basis of race, but also discrimination based on any legally protected trait. However, efforts have been made recently in Arizona and Mississippi to allow business owners to refuse service to members of the LGBTQ community on the grounds of religious freedom. The list goes on. Mandatory minimum drug sentences are incredibly racist in that they assign a longer jail sentence on crack-cocaine use (typically used by black Americans) than powder-cocaine use (typically used by white Americans). Certain school districts in Georgia and Mississippi hosted their first integrated proms in the last five years. Some states had restrictions on inter-racial marriages on the record until 2002. Race also influences the assessment of property values and the zoning of real estate markets, which only serves to increase inequality across races. These represent only a fraction of issues regarding race. When institutional bigotry is expanded to include discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and other legally protected traits, one can easily find similar examples of discrimination. But if there are so many cases of bigotry, despite all of our efforts, is it possible for our government to evolve to a point where these structural disadvantages are no longer present? It’s impossible to tell. In an ideal world, there is such an attainable point. But if that idealism is to succeed, we must proceed without illusions. Racism and prejudice, much like our society, have evolved. No longer are they just a form of hatred or judgment placed upon another by a group or an individual believing to be superior, but also a systemic flaw present to restrict human capability and human choice. If we are to succeed, we must recognize that we are not fighting the same enemy as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We may have mostly won the battle against outward discrimination, but the war on structural disadvantages must continue if we are ever to reach the goals of those who fought and died for a free and equal society. PP
9
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
THE ARAB-ISRAELI STALEMATE by Mira Haqqani ’17, Staff Writer
T
he Israel-Palestine conflict continues to be one of the most daunting political dilemmas faced by the international community. Despite numerous rounds of talks aimed at creating a unanimous solution to the long-lived conflict, little has been achieved to pacify Israel and the Palestinians in recent years. Since he assumed his role as United States Secretary of State last year, John Kerry has worked tirelessly to assist in reaching a settlement between the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. Despite his efforts, the deadlock in this conflict may be attributed to the fact that the Americans are unwilling to present a clearcut solution to the crisis for fear of severing relations with the Israeli side. It can be argued that the primary reason behind Kerry’s failure to deliver prior to his April deadline for creating Arab-Israeli peace is that the United States has not itself presented to either side an ideal plan for bringing the conflict to an end. The US has, for many years, gone back and forth in communicating between the Israelis and Palestinians, without proposing its own ideas about what the ideal solution to the conflict should be. As tensions between the Israelis and Palestinians escalate once again after the former refused to release Palestinian prisoners, perhaps it is time for the Americans to take a clear stand in the conflict and present a coherent plan so that it can be dealt with. While the Americans should take a definitive position in this situation, it is unlikely that they actually will. Proposing a plan may risk their friendly relationship with Israel, particularly if the proposed plan results in a confrontation between the two countries. However, having initiated several rounds of peace talks to solve the situation and failed at doing so, the Americans should realize that a peaceful solution will not be achieved if they are unwilling to compromise some of their special relationship with Israel. In an ideal scenario, the Americans should be encouraging Netanyahu, somewhat forcefully, to make concessions in order to pacify the two sides.
but it is also dominant around the Gaza strip. It is possible for Israel to exercise such power in Palestinian states because of the influence of its powerful intelligence service, Mossad, and its well trained and equipped military. In contrast to the significantly stronger Israeli side, the Palestinians are seemingly weak in terms of leadership, armed forces and political stability. This discrepancy has resulted in deep-rooted resentment amongst the Palestinians and the Muslim world for the Israelis, who are seen to possess an unfair advantage in the conflict. As the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to escalate, it is important for the Americans to step in with a solid plan of action. Not only does a peaceful settlement benefit the Palestinians and Israelis, but also the Americans themselves. It is therefore imperative that they take the first step towards progressing the talks, which they have failed at doing in the last few years. In light of the recent developments in the conflict, John Kerry must divert all his attention to drawing up a final solution to the crisis, one which will be acceptable to both sides, but will not shy out of confronting Israel. It is obvious that the consistent theme underpinning American foreign policy in the Middle East is its close relationship with Israel, especially as a result of the large Jewish population in the USA and the Jewish lobby operating within the country. However, in a difficult situation such as this one, it is fundamental for the Americans to adopt a bolder foreign policy to deal with the crisis, so that further rounds of futile talks, violence and human rights abuses can be avoided, even if their efforts come at the cost of upsetting Netanyahu. Even though the US had much rather enjoy friendly diplomatic relations with Israel, it is the need of the hour for Washington. to engage in cooperative talks with the Palestinians and Israelis by providing a bold solution in an attempt at bringing the conflict to an end so that international peace and security can be maintained. PP
Israel has always enjoyed the upper hand in the ArabIsraeli conflict; not only has it occupied the West Bank,
10
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
THE NEED FOR AN INFORMED DISCUSSION ON RAPE by Becky Grenham ’17, Director of Publicity and Advertising This article could be a potential trigger for some readers, as it discusses the issues of rape and sexual assault.
O
n Friday, Sexual Assault Resource Unit (SARU) hosted a talk led by writer and activist Sara Alcid, a contributor to Everyday Feminism. Presenting to a room full of young activists, including Hannah Brancato of FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture, Alcid played various clips from the popular show Law & Order: SVU, and afterward explained how each clip was based on some misconception about rape and sexual assault. The clips included myths such as the prevalence of false reporting (in rape cases, the federal statistic is the same as that of any other violent crime, which is between 2-9%), stranger rape (less than 15% of victims are raped by strangers), the belief that reporting is the correct and only option for survivors, and the more subtle myth that law enforcement will always respond quickly and kindly to cases of rape and sexual assault. The presentation was followed by a brief question and answer session, where members of the audience asked Alcid about everything from Rape Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)’s recent statement that it does not believe in only addressing rape culture to why the word “rape” is often not used in cultural contexts. One question certainly stood out to me; why do so few people truly understand what rape is? Many people understand that it is a forced sexual act based on power and control. And yes, many people will agree that it is wrong and often leads to very negative consequences for the victim. Far fewer people, however, understand the forms rape can take. Why is non-consensual sex between a couple considered “not really rape?” Why do people believe that men cannot be raped? Why is asking for consent considered “awkward?” Why are we able to define rape, understand that it is an act of power, understand that it is traumatic, and still not clearly see it?
on misconceptions. Similarly, rape is present in modern popular culture, such as in television shows like Law & Order: SVU, but these portrayals are often unrealistic and do not present the issue in a sensitive and accurate way. While some may argue that the media’s handling of the issue does not matter, television portrayals and misleading conversations are subconsciously embedded within our societal understandings of rape. Therefore, such portrayals can be useful tools to understanding how our culture perceives rape. The problem with our inaccurate perception of rape is that it makes us unable to address it when it comes up in everyday contexts. We can watch Law & Order: SVU and say with complete confidence that the scene depicted rape. However, how do we react when a friend comes to us and says that they have been raped by their partner? Or that they think their drink was spiked, and they cannot remember the previous night? Or that they had said yes to one sexual act, but not the acts that followed? If we only see rape through a narrow lens, we cannot address the reality that confronts us. Now is the time to have an open and honest discussion about rape. From Obama’s task force to tackle rape on college campuses, to recent public cases regarding struggles college students faced when reporting their incidents, to recent strides to change policy here at Johns Hopkins, the conversation has definitely begun. It is more important than ever to be honest and critical about rape so that these conversations can help the many faces of survivors. Because despite all the myths, the reality is that rape happens, can happen to anyone, and comes in many forms. PP
According to Alcid and other activists, we fail to see rape for what it truly is--an act that can take place in a deserted alley or a dorm room, between strangers or friends--because we tend to ignore rape altogether. Though we discuss rape, we often base our discussions
11
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
A NEW SPAIN CONFRONTS THE PAST by Colette Andrei ’15, Managing Editor
I
n many ways, there is no period in history so remote as the recent past. What defines the distance between past and present, between what belongs in textbooks and what is still very much experienced, is murky, difficult, and bitterly divisive. History is seen as a timeline of important events, of delineated periods marked by specific dates and certain characteristics. But this neat view of the past comes with the benefit of distance and detachment. When dramatic changes occur within our lifetimes or in our recent memory, it is not so easy to move forward. Such is the case with Spain. Today, Spain is a democratic country arguably at the forefront of international justice. For nearly two decades, Spanish judges have actively invoked the principle of universal jurisdiction to bring human rights cases against everyone from Argentinean military officials to American soldiers in Iraq, and, most famously, to former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. While these cases rarely resulted in any real legal action, they brought human rights violations such as genocide, torture, and murder to the international stage and worked to expose perpetrators and hold them accountable for their actions. But while Spain may be active in pursuing justice abroad, its own citizens are increasingly advocating for the justice they want. The Spanish transition to democracy, which occurred after the death of General Francisco Franco in 1975, was hinged on the idea of forgetting decades of suffering. The political polarization of the Second Republic had given way to the fratricidal tragedy of the Civil War in which dictatorship defeated democracy. Then came Francoism, with its rigidly imposed “Spanishness,” a mix of conservatism and Catholicism, which appropriated national symbols and used propaganda to distort and falsify history. During the dictatorship, and especially in the first couple of decades, the Spanish people suffered years of repression, and had experienced a degree of tragedy, whether through marked hunger, rigid control, or political violence. So when Franco himself named King Juan Carlos his successor, effectively paving the way for democratic transition, these times of hardship and trauma were very much in the minds of all Spaniards, and they were eager to move forward, even if it meant forgetting.
This extremely tense environment and pivotal time contributed to the exceptional nonviolent, consensual nature of the Spanish transition, devoid of retrospective thinking or retroactive justice, and instead representing a highly calculated and concerted effort to ease the nation into a democratic political system that would bear a better future for its citizens. Orchestrated from above by elites within the framework of the existing regime, the transition legally codified “forgetting” through two acts. First was the Pacto de Olvido (Forgetting Agreement), an unspoken agreement in which both sides, left and right, agreed not to look back at their extremely tense past. Second was the 1977 Amnesty Law, which forbade the prosecution of any crime committed during the Franco era. The administration undertook these efforts in order not to jeopardize the stability of the transition, and while they helped to ease the process, they presented problems for historical memory and national identity. Even after some challenges, such as an attempted military coup in 1981, democracy has and continues to prevail in Spain. So with democracy unquestionably in place, many have begun to question the political need to forget the past. Many Spaniards remain bereft of justice, whether unsure if missing loved ones are in mass graves, which have only recently begun to be exhumed, or themselves unable to legally prosecute their torturer for acts of violence they suffered during the dictatorship. Many say Spain has done the least of all former dictatorial countries in confronting and reconciling with its past. But what would close examination of the past mean for the stability of a country reeling from economic recession? In Spain today, strikes and protests against the government and austerity measures occur almost on a daily basis, but there is also the occasional pro-Franco demonstration, put on by the active Francisco Franco Foundation. The Valley of the Fallen, Franco’s tomb, looms ominously outside of Madrid, while supposedly concealing the remains of thousands of Republican prisoners who died during its forced construction. The question now is if opening and working to heal the wounds of the past would help the country move forward or create greater instability and division. The exceptional ease of Spain’s democratic transition is now under scrutiny, and today it is unclear when or how the country will finally close the historical chapter of the dictatorship. PP
12
Volume XV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
APRIL 28th, 2014
WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS
Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division
The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus 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’re 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, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well. While we publish the Politik Press 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 13