JHU POLITIK
the
JANUARY 26, 2015
VOLUME XVII, ISSUE I
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
MARYLAND EDITOR David Hamburger
COPY EDITOR Florence Noorinejad WEBMASTER Ben Lu MARKETING & PUBLICITY Chiara Wright FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
2 the JHU POLITIK
CAMPUS EDITOR Juliana Vigorito
STAFF WRITERS Abigail Annear Olga Baranoff Arpan Ghosh Alexander Grable Rosellen Grant Rebecca Grenham Shrenik Jain Christine Kumar Shannon Libaw Robert Locke Sathvik Namburar Corey Payne
• January 26, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue I
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
4 5 6 7 8 9
Drill, Baby…Drill? Shrenik Jain ’18 Childcare at Homewood, at Last Eliza Schultz ’15 Bold Moves:
Contextualizing Obama’s Acceleration of Guantanamo Bay Detainee Releases
Haziq Siddiqi ’16
A Solution to the Cuban Conundrum? Sathvik Namburar ’18 Je Suis Nigeria Mira Haqqani ’17 Week in Review: Health Shannon Libaw ’15
Volume XVII, Issue I • January 26, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
3
Drill, Baby…Drill?
T
by Shrenik Jain ’18, Staff Writer
he expression “Drill, Baby, Drill!” was coined by Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Michael Steele in 2008. While the Republican Party latched onto the phrase and Steele went on to be elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee, such a perspective on fossil fuel drilling remains controversial at home. The sentiment has recently found relevance in Maryland, where, following a four-year moratorium, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley lay down guidelines to allow heavily-regulated fracking in Garrett and Allegany counties as one of his last acts in office. The regulations, while unpalatable to energy companies now, can nevertheless be used to set guidelines for sustainable fracking practices in the future. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process by which a pressurized mixture of water, sand and chemicals is injected into the ground to extract crude oil and natural gas. First employed in 1947, fracking has benefitted from recent technological advances that have both made it commercially feasible and allowed the extraction of previously unreachable deposits. Fracking has facilitated a boom of cheap energy in the U.S., and while some states welcome fracking as a source of employment and tax revenue, others are leery of groundwater contamination and other environmental externalities. One of the most active sites for fracking and one of the U.S.’s largest sources of natural gas is the Marcellus shale formation, where Maryland’s Garrett and Allegany counties are situated. However, extraction in Maryland was effectively prohibited when Governor O’Malley declared by executive order in 2011 that Maryland could not issue drilling permits until the completion of a $1.5 million study on the possible environmental ramifications. The conclusion of this study in late 2014 had O’Malley declare that fracking could occur in Maryland, albeit under some of the heaviest regulations in the nation. Public opinion on O’Malley’s proposals has been sharply divided. Environmentalists point out that even accidentfree fracking would do significant damage to the outdoor recreation and tourism industries on which Western Maryland relies. Proponents of fracking complain that the current regulations leave Maryland in an uncompetitive position relative to other states. Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding O’Malley’s successor for governor, Republican Larry Hogan. While O’Malley’s Democrats remain in control of the state legislature, it is expected that Hogan will relax at least some of O’Malley’s regulations.
4 the JHU POLITIK
While there are elements of political ambiguity for the future of O’Malley’s regulations, it is important that elected officials think strategically and recognize this debate as an opportunity to establish a precedent for sustainable hydraulic fracturing. The limited natural gas resources contained within Garrett and Allegany counties mean that it is an ideal place to pilot a policy that strikes a balance between the laissez-faire approach that many energy companies desire and the absolute prohibition for which environmentalists clamor. The limited resources of these reserves also serves to reinforce the idea that fracking must be just one part of a balanced economy; there isn’t enough gas to last long enough or create enough jobs to transform the local economy into one based entirely around energy. Moreover, the area’s reliance on industries such as tourism only heightens the need for protections to be put in place against irresponsible extraction processes. Current macroeconomic conditions also mean that the time is right to attempt to reign in unregulated drilling. A current oversupply of natural gas suggests that gas companies have become focused on cutting costs rather than expanding. Maryland officials should take advantage of these conditions before an upswing in energy prices buoys fracking companies with profits and incentivizes them to aggressively apply for drilling permits in Maryland again, just as they did in 2010 before O’Malley’s moratorium. Maryland’s tradition of strong state government also reduces the chance of gas companies spending money on lawsuits against the regulation, an action previously taken against municipal governments attempting to curb extraction. It is foolish to forbid fracking completely. Fracking has already caught on as an industry-wide practice, and simply banning it from one’s borders is a needlessly heavy-handed government action. While the price of commodities may fluctuate with circumstance, growing global demand for energy means we are in no position to simply ignore natural resources. The technology driving modern fracking is very new, and there is no reason companies couldn’t begin innovations to make the process cleaner if forced to comply with regulations. As fracking shifts from an imperfect technique to a staple in energy extraction, it is important that there exists a precedent by which to regulate it. And currently, while heavy fracking regulations stand to delay the immediate usage of Maryland’s meager gas reserves, lawmakers in Maryland have a unique opportunity to provide a template that could govern fracking regulation for years to come. ■
• January 26, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue I
Childcare at Homewood, at Last by Eliza Schultz ’15, Editor-in-Chief
J
ohns Hopkins has broken ground on a new childcare center, the first of its kind on the Homewood campus. Set to open this August, the Homewood Early Learning Center will help to satisfy a decades-long demand for an on-campus childcare facility – but it is unlikely to meet the needs of most Homewood parents. By some measures, the Center has been in the works since 1989, when the Committee on the Status of Women recommended daycare to improve the work-life balance for female employees. A 1994 Report of the Committee for the 21st Century later identified childcare as a “pressing problem for many faculty and staff.” Nearly 20 years later, in 2013, a faculty-sponsored petition propelled the University into action. Endorsed by 257 faculty members, the petition highlighted the fact that, of the top 50 research universities in the country, 45 offered childcare services – and Johns Hopkins was among the five that did not. The University is not entirely devoid of childcare services. A downtown facility known as the Johns Hopkins Childcare and Early Learning Center has served the faculty and staff of the East Baltimore campuses for 14 years now, but Homewood employees remain barred from use. An additional facility opened on the Henderson-Hopkins campus in September 2014, but it, too, is reserved for East Baltimore employees. Although a partnership between Johns Hopkins and the YMCA of Central Maryland on 33rd Street reserves 50 spots for University affiliates, the facility does not accept children younger than two years, which puts parents of young children who have already exhausted their parental leave in a bind. Faced with relatively few high-quality childcare options in the Baltimore area, many prospective faculty members – particularly women – have declined positions at Johns Hopkins. Others have left the University for the same reason. The Homewood Early Learning Center, then, will help to draw preeminent academics to the University, says Michelle Carlstrom, who directs the Office of Work, Life, and Engagement. Located on the southwestern edge of campus, the Center will initially occupy a multi-million dollar modular facility,
to be replaced by a permanent structure some fifteen years from now. Architecture firm D.W. Arthur Associates, whose other clients include Harvard University and JPMorgan Chase, has been commissioned to design the temporary space. The Center will enroll 94 children, ages ten weeks through five years, and will be run by Downtown Baltimore Child Care, a group that offers a play-based curriculum and has thrice been voted “Best of Baltimore.” Tuition is no bargain. For infants and toddlers, the Center charges $1,820 per month, which amounts to $21,840 for a full year – a fee that the Center insists is “market-rate.” Indeed, the Center charges several thousand dollars less than the Bryn Mawr Little School, a comparable childcare center in the area. Tuition may very well be market-rate, but it is far beyond the reach of most Homewood employees. One administrator, who wished to remain anonymous, was “floored” when she saw the price-sticker. “It would cost more than half of my net pay if I were to send my son,” she said in an interview. “I cannot imagine that a supporting or senior staff member at Homewood would find it affordable.” The Center offers neither scaled tuition nor financial assistance, though Carlstrom notes that such programs are “conceivable for the future.” Some employees whose net family income is below $50,000 may be eligible for the Dependent Care Voucher Program, which provides up to $5,000 per year. But for a family that qualifies for this assistance, a discount of a few thousand dollars will not place the Center within reach. While the Center is the product of decades’ worth of reports and surveys, petitions, and informal requests, it will serve just a minority of current Homewood employees – certainly not most staff members, or the many adjuncts that the University plans to hire over the years. As Carlstrom says, the Center is the “Rolls Royce” of childcare services, because it is intended “to attract world-class faculty” to the University. “But does that help the postdocs? Not really. This is just one step along a long road.” ■
Volume XVII, Issue I • January 26, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
5
Bold Moves:
Contextualizing Obama’s Acceleration of Guantanamo Bay Detainee Releases
T
by Haziq Siddiqi ’16, Contributing Writer
his February will mark Shaker Aamer’s thirteenth year at the United States’ detention camp at Guantanamo Bay without trial or charge. Despite being cleared for release in 2007, Aamer remains detained indefinitely, suffering what his lawyer describes as “unfathomable abuse.” Not surprisingly, the experiences of Aamer and many other Guantanamo inmates in similar situations have sparked significant international outrage, with many advocating for the closure of the camp. Although proponents of Guantanamo’s continued existence cite security concerns of transferring potentially dangerous inmates, these concerns are overshadowed by the threat to human rights that Guantanamo Bay represents. The welldocumented abuse of Guantanamo detainees at the hands of American officials contributes significantly to the U.S.’s international reputation and tests our commitment to liberty and equality. For this reason, President Obama’s recent push to close Guantanamo Bay represents his chance to leave a strong human rights legacy in his remaining two years in office. Recently, Obama has markedly increased releases and transfers from Guantanamo, giving wide hope that the detention center may be nearing its closure. Indeed, according to a January 2015 report in The New York Times, Obama made more progress in emptying Guantanamo in the past two months than he has in the rest of his time in office combined. Though the president has fallen short on his campaign promise to close the prison within a year of election, this is notable progress and the coming months stand as his chance to finally follow through. In response to the Obama administration’s recent push in releases and transfers from Guantanamo, some critics have raised concerns about the security threats that inmate releases may pose, especially in light of recent terrorist attacks in Europe. In an interview with Fox and Friends, retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen called Obama’s decision “insane” and argued that released inmates will “want to continue the fight against us.” Such security concerns, however, are unfounded. The Washington Post has previously reported that 86 of the camp’s 166 detainees are cleared for release, meaning they have not been charged of a crime
6 the JHU POLITIK
by the United States. Consequently, there is no legal basis for believing that such inmates pose a realistic threat to our security. This has also been statistically confirmed. As CNN Analyst Peter Bergen has noted, only four percent of released Guantanamo detainees have been confirmed to have re-entered terrorist activities upon release, which is significantly lower than the recidivism rate among the general American prison population. Ultimately, the more significant threat that Guantanamo poses is to our national conscience, for continuing to imprison so many detainees that have been long since cleared for release. Indeed, closing Guantanamo Bay may even improve American security interests. By fueling anti-American sentiment globally, Guantanamo’s continued existence is a sharply counterproductive part of our international reputation. It is well documented that human rights violations in Guantanamo have been used as recruitment tools for organizations seeking to destroy the U.S. According to The Atlantic, Al-Qaeda routinely mentions Guantanamo Bay in its recruitment magazines. As Obama himself argued in his State of the Union address this January, “It makes no sense to spend $3 million per prisoner to keep open a prison that the world condemns and terrorists use to recruit.” Despite this, with only two years of term left, many are skeptical that the Obama administration will be successful in closing Guantanamo. In addition to opposition from a Republican-dominated Congress, the administration must first find countries willing to accept detainees. Despite these challenges, however, there is good reason to believe that Obama may be successful. For example, while it would likely be an unpopular step, Obama is able to use his veto power to counter Congressional opposition; because he is no longer concerned about reelection, this is a possible move. Additionally, the challenge of finding new locations for released inmates may have already been solved. Recently, Pope Francis appealed to the Vatican to accept released Guantanamo inmates, a move that caused other countries to follow suit. As a result, it is feasible that Obama could close Guantanamo before the end of his term, finally bringing an end to this drawn-out chapter in our history. ■
• January 26, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue I
A Solution to the Cuban Conundrum? by Sathvik Namburar ’18, Contributing Writer
O
n December 17, 2014, more than twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Barack Obama reversed a foreign policy stance that dated back to the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, ending one of the final standoffs from the Cold War. Obama promised that America would work to re-establish relations with Cuba, a country just ninety miles from Florida, after 54 years of acrimony. The United States ended relations with Cuba following Fidel Castro’s rise to power and his desire to align himself with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Although Obama suggested earlier in his presidency that he would attempt to work with the Cuban government, it seems that insurmountable obstacles impeded his desire to do so. On December 17, Obama maneuvered past one major issue when he proclaimed that Alan Gross, a CIA contractor jailed in Cuba, would be released in a prisoner swap. This unlikely deal, abetted by Pope Francis, spurred the announcement that the U.S. would work to re-establish relations with Cuba. Many Cuban Americans criticized the announcement, equating it to appeasement of a dictatorship that had forced thousands of families to flee the island. Still, polls found that a sizable majority of Americans supported the decision. Fifty-four years of sanctions had taken a significant toll on the Cuban people while leaving the Castro government intact. As Obama declared in his State of the Union Address on January 20, “When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new.” The announcement makes perfect political sense for the President. It comes on the heels of Democrats’ resounding defeat in the 2014 midterms and Republicans’ vows to ensure that Obama accomplishes little as a lame duck. Obama’s announcement was a way to shift the political momentum and re-focus the discussion on his agenda for his last two years in office. Indeed, polls conducted between the announcement and the State of the Union address found the President’s approval rating to be on the rise. Republicans quickly promised to keep the embargo on Cuba in place, however, which is an action that only Congress can take. As a result, there is little hope of accomplishing the most important aspect of Obama’s proposal in the immediate
future, although most analysts still see the news as a foreign policy victory for the President. When Obama took office in 2009, he suggested many foreign policy changes that are now being lampooned, such as the “reset” with Russia and the “pivot” to Asia. Hopefully the President has learned from his failures in these areas of the world and is able to deal more cautiously with the Cuban government. Cuban Americans who oppose Obama’s decision are correct that he should not support the Castro brothers’ dictatorship in any form. It seems that Obama has taken care not to do so. Many of the immediate policy changes he announced – larger permitted remittances to Cubans from American citizens, direct trade with the Cuban private sector, export of telecommunications equipment to improve Cubans’ access to the Internet – are targeted at directly helping the Cuban people and demonstrating the appeal of democracy and capitalism. On issues specifically concerning the Cuban government, such as reviewing the designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, Obama has made no promises, which is the proper approach. In the short term, Obama’s announcement to begin to reestablish relations with Cuba will likely have little measurable impact. Tourism is still banned, and it will likely take years before the U.S. fully re-establishes relations with Cuba. In the long run, however, the specific changes that Obama suggested have a real potential to influence the Cuban people in pressuring their leaders to end communism in their country. By increasing Internet access in Cuba and showing Cubans the power of capitalism through direct trade agreements, the U.S. could subtly influence change in the country. At the very least, this new strategy will not be any worse than non-engagement. More than 20 years after the end of the Cold War, it is time to consign the Cuban embargo to the history books. ■
Volume XVII, Issue I • January 26, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
7
Je Suis Nigeria by Mira Haqqani ’17, Policy Desk Editor
O
n January 3, 2015, Boko Haram militants stormed the Baga district of northeastern Nigeria and launched a four-day rampage – one of the deadliest massacres in Nigerian history. Despite mass destruction and 2,000 casualties, international condemnation of this atrocity did not come until much later. The sluggish pace at which the world became aware of the Baga massacre was unsettling, especially as it took place at a time when most nations were proclaiming “Je Suis Charlie” in response to the shootings at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris. Twitter and other social media outlets were globally overrun with the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie in support of the 17 victims, and world leaders marched across Paris in a show of international fortitude. However, no such hashtag campaign was launched and no processions were held in solidarity with the citizens massacred in Baga or the innocent ten-year-old girl who was strapped with explosives to destroy a local market. The world’s apathy regarding Boko Haram’s merciless massacre has raised the question of whether non-Western lives matter. There are several reasons why the Baga massacre received comparatively negligible media attention. Baga is an isolated part of Nigeria that is difficult to access. By contrast, Paris is an international hub and a prestigious tourist destination. In addition, mass killing in Nigeria at the hands of Boko Haram has become commonplace: in 2014, Boko Haram claimed the lives of over 4,000 Nigerians. Simply put, the casualties of terrorist activities in Nigeria are less alarming than those in countries like France, where terrorism is far more rare. Boko Haram’s cruelty seems hard to imagine, but the events in France are more striking because Paris looks and functions similarly to other cities near most of our hometowns. It is thus unsurprising that we seem more affected by the attacks in Paris than those in Baga.
attack on Charlie Hebdo, despite its being carried out by those who follow a perverted interpretation of Islamic teachings. The recent rise in Islamophobia, however, obscures one important underlying reality: according to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, between 82 and 97 percent of the victims of “Islamic” terrorism are Muslim. While terrorist groups such as Boko Haram, Islamic State, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda claim to be Muslim, most Muslim nations have repeatedly condemned them. This suggests that the root of terror does not exist within Islam, a religion of 1.6 billion people, but rather within a corrupted and evil interpretation of Islam as a political movement. Political Islam is an international threat whose repercussions are not exclusive to Western societies; rather, the consequences of political Islam are felt all across the world. The December 16, 2014 massacre of schoolchildren in Pakistan, the Baga killings, the attack on Charlie Hebdo – and, of course, the 9/11 attacks – prove this. It is therefore worth asking: can an entire religion be blamed for the actions of a few? Are ordinary Muslims the victims or the perpetrators of such violence? Mourning the 17 lives lost in Paris is certainly warranted, but if doing so means that we fail to weep for those lost in Nigeria, we have failed as an international community. And if we continue to blame 1.6 billion people for the crimes committed by a small group, then we have compromised ourselves and allowed terrorists to win this war. ■
Ill feelings towards Islam have resurfaced in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, along with suggestions that the religion is inherently violent. Anti-Islam campaigners are taking to the streets across various European cities, mosques are being firebombed and pelted with pig heads, and #KillAllMuslims is trending globally. Unfortunately, moderate, peaceful Muslims all over the world have come under fire for the
8 the JHU POLITIK
• January 26, 2015 • Volume XVII, Issue I
Week in Review: Health by Shannon Libaw ’15, Staff Writer Disneyland Outbreak Reignites Child Vaccine Debate A measles outbreak traced back to Disneyland in mid-December is now said to be spreading throughout California. Fifty-nine cases have been diagnosed to date, and eight have been reported in neighboring states. This outbreak has reignited the debate over the safety of vaccinations for children. Dr. Gilberto Chavez, the Deputy Director of the California Center for Infectious Diseases, attributes the measles outbreak to a decrease in vaccination rates, saying, “We can expect to see many more cases of this preventable disease unless people take measure to prevent it. I am asking unvaccinated Californians to consider getting vaccinated against measles.” His words echo the general attitude toward vaccination in the state, which has, in recent years, passed legislation making it harder for parents to obtain exemptions from vaccinations. However, in the wake of the Disneyland outbreak, those opposed to vaccinations have become increasingly vocal.
Report Finds High Rate of Opioid Use Among Women of Reproductive Age On Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that approximately one-third of women of reproductive age had an opioid prescription filled annually between 2008 and 2012. In a study that analyzed health insurance claims, the CDC found significant disparities between women with Medicaid and private insurance: 39 percent of women on Medicaid had a prescription filled, versus only 28 percent with private insurance. The officials also reported that opioids can lead to harmful birth defects; research indicates that exposure to the drugs raises risk for brain and spine defects in the infant, as well as heart and abdominal conditions. A growing epidemic, opioids constitute the largest cause of overdose mortalities in the United States, at more than 16,000 deaths annually. This figure has tripled over the past two decades, though the number of deaths has tapered off since 2012.
Coffee Linked to Decreased Risk of Melanoma, Study Finds A recent study by the National Cancer Institute found that high rates of coffee consumption are associated with a 20 percent decrease in melanoma. At times lethal, melanoma is the fifth most common form of cancer in the country, accounting for 9,500 deaths and 77,000 diagnoses annually. The study examined over 447,000 participants without cancer at baseline, administered a questionnaire about coffee consumption, and tracked incidence rates of melanoma over approximately ten years. Ultimately, the study found that drinking four cups of coffee per day reduced the risk of melanoma. Past research on the relationship between caffeine and melanoma has produced mixed results. This study, however, will prompt further investigation on the subject, potentially adding to a growing list of health benefits associated with coffee. ■
Volume XVII, Issue I • January 26, 2015 •
the JHU POLITIK
9
WRITE FOR the JHU POLITIK
PHOTO COURTESY: UNITED STATES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS’S PRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS DIVISION
JHU Politik, founded in 2008, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins community with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We are lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, the city of Baltimore, the domestic landscape of the United States, and the international community . While we publish the Politik weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested, e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org
10 the JHU POLITIK
• November 17, 2014 • Volume XVI, Issue XI