November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
JHU POLITIK
PALESTINIANS ACCEPTED INTO UNESCO
ISSUE VII INTERNATIONAL KENYAN INVASION OF SOMALIA by Hilary Matfess ’14 - Page 3 LIBYA AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE NATO MISSION by Virgil Doyle, ’14 - Page 4
NATIONAL REFINANCING RULES AIM TO HELP HOMEOWNERS & THE ECONOMY by Colette Andrei, ’14 - Page 5 EXECUTIVE ORDER ADDRESSES DRUG SHORTAGES by Chloe Reichel, ’15 - Page 6
OPINION Last Monday, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized the Palestinian delegation as a member after a vote of 107-14, sacrificing $70million in funding from the US and Israel. (SOURCE: http://pomed.org)
by ERIC FEINBERG, ’12 Staff Writer
T
here was an eruption of applause in the General Assembly of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) when it was announced Monday that a vote of 107-14 had confirmed the Palestinian state’s application for membership. The vote was a clear, if symbolic, political victory for the Palestinians who, in the face of stalled negotiations with Israel, have been trying to pursue statehood through unilateral appeals to the United Nations. The United States and Israel opposed the admission of Palestine into UNESCO and have argued that premature moves toward interna-
1
tional recognition of Palestine could undermine the peace process. “Peace depends upon compromise among the people who must live together long after our speeches are over and our votes have been counted,” argued President Obama in his September speech to the UN. “That is the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That is the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is the path to a Palestinian state.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed these sentiments Thursday when he asserted, “The only way to reach peace is through direct negotiations with-
THE PRICE OF HIGHER EDUCATION by Will Hamilton, ’14 - Page 7 CHILD ABUSE IN THE UNITED STATES by Hannah Holliday, ’12 - Page 8
JOHNS HOPKINS’ Only WeeklyPublished Political Magazine
out preconditions.” On news of the vote, both the US and Israel responded by ending their annual financial support to UNESCO. These decisions will remove $70 million from UNESCO’s budget, a full 25% of the total. The US retraction was legally mandated by HR-2145, a bill from the early 1990s that forbids US contributions to any (continued on Page 2) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
THE POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Hannah Holliday
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Will Denton
LAYOUT EDITOR
ASSISTANT EDITORS
Ana Giraldo-Wingler
Randy Bell Jeremy Orloff Matt Varvaro
STAFF WRITERS
Julia Allen Colette Andrei Megan Augustine Michael Bodner Rachel Cohen Robert D’Annibale Eric Feinberg Cary Glynn Ben Goldberg Anna Kochut Hilary Matfess Chloe Reichel Daniel Roettger Ari Schaffer
PRODUCTION MANAGER
Neil O’Donnell FACULTY ADVISOR
Steven R. David MANAGING EDITOR
Alex Clearfield JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those of the author alone.
INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 1) organization that offered membership to the PLO before it achieved the full status of statehood. The Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, issued a statement pleading for the United States to reconsider. “The United States is a critical partner in UNESCO’s work,” she said, and “the withholding of US dues and other financial contributions will weaken UNESCO’s effectiveness and undermine its ability to build free and open societies.” The Paris-based organization funds a variety of international efforts including promoting literacy, history & science education, and cultural diversity. But to Israel and the United States, there is far more at stake than the fate of UNESCO. Prime Minister Netanyahu is under intense pressure from the international community to compromise with the Palestinians, but the pressure is no less intense from his own people who are constantly fearful that their leadership will make too many concessions without sufficient reciprocal guarantees from the Palestinians. President Obama is in a similar conundrum, understanding that negotiation is the only hope for a resolution but having to contend with an increasingly staunch pro-Israel electorate during a campaign season. The two nations have settled on an aggressive response on the UNESCO issue to drive home to Palestinians early on that appeals to international organizations
2
will not only fail to achieve the outcome they want, but may actually backfire in tangible ways. In addition to revoking funding for UNESCO, for example, the Israelis also responded to the vote by accelerating their construction of settlements in the occupied territories. The consensus in diplomatic circles seems to be that the increased tensions will likely delay any hope of peace for the foreseeable future, at least. One American official told Reuters, “It’s not that it’s totally hopeless but there’s very little reason for optimism in the near term.” What remains to be seen is how aggressively the Palestinians pursue this strategy of bypassing formal negotiations and seeking unilateral international recognition. If there are more victories to be had like the one at UNESCO this week, they may start to perceive such a path as a potentially successful one. But if Israel and the US can rebuff these efforts, it could lead to genuine negotiations. s —efeinbe2@jhu.edu
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
INTERNATIONAL REPORT Kenyan Invasion of Somalia by HILARY MATFESS, ’14 Staff Writer
I
n mid-October, Kenya announced that they would be sending troops across its border into southern Somalia. The initial justification for Kenya’s deployment was the recent kidnappings of Western tourists from northern Kenya by al-Shabaab, a militant Islamist group based in Somalia. On the day that the intervention was announced, government officials stated that they sought to “dismantle” and “clear out” al-Shabaab. Given that tourism in Kenya has been on the rise and currently accounts for more than $700 million of the nation’s economy, concern for the nation’s reputation is not surprising. The international community initially greeted Kenya’s launching of troops across its border into Southern Somalia with something akin to a sigh of relief. Even the recognized government of Somalia, based in Mogadishu, publicly supported the intervention. Many in the West hoped that Kenya would be successful and that the dismantling of al-Shabaab would be the first step in ending Somalia’s “failed state” status. Yet as the occupation continues, Kenya’s motivation for deploying troops has become increasingly murky. On October 27, a Kenyan government official stated that the kidnappings were a “good launchpad” for the invasion, but that plans to occupy Somalia had “been in the pipeline for awhile.” An anonymous Kenyan official was quoted by the Atlantic as saying that “this isn’t about tourism. This is about our long-term development plan. Kenya cannot achieve economically what it wants with the situation the way it is in Somalia.” This information illuminates a more sinister side of the lauded occupation and of the world system as a whole. Many scholars have noted that economically integrated nations are less war-prone, suggesting that “if commodities can cross borders, soldiers won’t.” The Kenyan invasion of Somalia presents an often over-looked aspect of that maxim—if an economy is threatened, soldiers will be deployed to defend it. Although the Kenyan troop deployment was originally seen as a potential solution to the chronic instability in Somalia, it now appears that the troops will only aggravate the situation. With no public aims for the invasion, some believe that the troops will simply be chasing ghosts throughout the already chaotic nation. The success of the invasion essentially hinges on
3
the troops’ ability to promote stability and put an end to al-Shabaab’s reign. If the troops fail, their invasion will probably be considered a provocation of al-Shabaab during the region’s worst drought and famine in decades. If al-Shabaab uses the invasion as a justification for even harsher restrictions on Somalis, the invasion will undoubtedly be seen as aggravating the already dire humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa. If the Kenyan troops fail to bring stability, the invasion will be portrayed as opportunistic in the worst of ways and provoking al-Shabaab to attempt to further entrench themselves as a legitimate authority. If, however, the Kenyan troops are able to “clear out” al-Shabaab and restore stability, their invasion will be portrayed as a courageous intervention to improve the lot of Somali citizens. Their occupation would be used as a model for successful regional intervention and would lend weight to the argument that sovereignty is a rapidly aging concept. Recent reports suggest, however, that the invasion is not a messianic stabilizing force. Kenyan troops are already experiencing difficulties due to the effects of the rainy season. Kenyan officials seem befuddled as to how to fight al-Shabaab; on November 4, BBC reported that a Kenyan military spokesman stated that an increase in the number of donkeys nationwide will be considered al-Shabaab activity. Using Twitter, the spokesman attributed the recent rise in the price of donkeys to alShabaab activity. Kenyan troops have also failed to avoid civilian casualties. In one instance, Kenyan officials reported that no civilians had been injured or killed in their assault. However, Doctors Without Borders reported that three of the five casualties were children and that of the 45 injured people in their clinic, 31 were children. The images of wounded and dead civilians will likely serve as propaganda for al-Shabaab and may strengthen their control of southern Somalia. The Economist has cited Kenyan officials as saying that they are willing to occupy Somalia for as long as it takes to get rid of al-Shabaab. The American withdrawal of troops from Iraq after undertaking a similar mission will undoubtedly serve as a warning to Kenyan officials about the perils of invasion without concrete goals. s —hilary.matfess@gmail.com
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
INTERNATIONAL REPORT Libya and the Conclusion of the NATO Mission by VIRGIL DOYLE, ’14 Contributing Writer
O
n October 31, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) announced the official conclusion of its combat mission in Libya. At a press conference in Tripoli, NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, declared the mission “a successful chapter in NATO history.” He went on to call the months ahead the start of “a new chapter in Libya’s history.” To this point, NATO’s intervention has been a success for both the organization and Libya. Unlike recent Western-led interventions
People take to the streets in celebration following the death of Muammar Gaddafi on October 20, 2011. (SOURCE: http:/flickr.com/rtlnieuws)
in Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO’s operation concluded without falling into a costly military occupation. The removal of international forces leaves Libya’s future firmly in its own hands. While the end of the NATO mission is a major development in Libya’s moving beyond Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s rule, it is one of many steps the country will have to take to create a new government after over 40 years of Gaddafi’s regime. Libya was one of the countries caught up in the protests that swept the Middle East during the “Arab Spring.” Protests throughout the nation in February gave way to armed conflict between Gaddafi’s forces and rebels in March. This conflict and the ruthless tactics Gaddafi utilized against the Libyan people provoked international outrage and calls for foreign intervention. NATO first became involved on March 17, when the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973. This resolution called for the institution of a no-fly zone
4
over Libyan airspace and called on foreign military forces “to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians” in danger of attack from Gaddafi’s forces. On March 31, NATO took over formal control of the Libya mission, which it maintained until this past week. Over the past seven months, NATO’s naval and air support for the Libyan rebels proved critical in their victory over Gaddafi’s forces. NATO involvement also provided legitimacy to Libya’s Transitional National Council (NTC), formed on March 5 in Benghazi to provide leadership to the rebel forces. The NTC’s primary goal, according to its mission statement, was “to liberate every part of the Libyan lands…from the hands of the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi.” In the wake of NATO’s troop drawdown last week, the NTC announced its selection of Abdel Rahim el-Keeb, a professor of electrical engineering, as interim prime minister. He takes over the position of interim prime minister from Mahmoud Jibril, who made good on his promise to step down from the position after the fall of Surt, one of the last Gaddafi strongholds in Libya and the location in which the colonel was ultimately captured by the rebels. After his election by the NTC, Mr. Keeb expressed his commitment to “listen to the Libyan people” and to create a “nation that respects human rights.” Mr. Keeb will be responsible for implementing the NTC’s 20-month plan to form a new Libyan government. Outlined by NTC member Guma al-Gamaty in a BBC radio interview, the first step in the plan is the organization of national elections for a 200-member council within eight months. The NTC and Mr. Keeb will then cede governing power to this elected council and its selected prime minister. This council, in the words of Mr. Gamaty, will have one year to “oversee the drafting of a democratic constitution, that should be debated and then brought to a referendum.” Finally, Gamaty says, this constitution will then serve as the foundation for “both parliamentary and presidential elections,” enabling Libyans to have “the leaders they want to lead their country.” This optimistic future voiced by Mr. Keeb and Mr. Gamaty will not come easily for Libya; the country still faces many issues in its transition from dictatorship to democracy. First and foremost among these challenges, says Hashem Ahelbarra, an Al Jazeera correspondent reporting from Libya, is “convincing NTC fighters to join the army and police force, and [implementing] law and order… across the country.” Emerging from a civil war (continued on Page 5) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
INTERNATIONAL/NATIONAL REPORTS in which regular civilians were called to arms in a rebellion against a dictator, Libya may have trouble realizing law and order across the country. Other key hurdles in Libya’s transition to representative government include what to do with its oil supply, how to properly bring members of Gaddafi’s regime to justice, and how to successfully navigate the complex tribal ties that many Libyans still hold. The conclusion of NATO combat operations in Libya represents a milestone for the Libyan people. With the deposition and execution of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan people are now in a unique position to build up a new government as they see fit and to be ruled how they wish. Though the path to this free and fair government is fraught with potentially divisive issues, the Libyan people remain optimistic about their national future after decades of Gaddafi’s iron-fisted rule. s —vdoyle3@jhu.edu
N A T I O N A L
New Refinancing Rules Aim to Help Homeowners and the Economy by COLETTE ANDREI, ’14 Staff Writer
O
n October 24, the federal government announced changes that would make it possible for the many borrowers who owe more on their homes than it is worth to refinance to lower mortgages. This new housing plan is rooted in the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the independent organization created to oversee the government-sponsored housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after they became subject to conservatorship in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The FHFA announced that it will allow qualified homeowners to refinance their mortgages regardless of how much their homes have dropped in value. The new program is an alteration to the three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which sought to encourage refinancing for up to 125% of the home’s value for mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae
5
and Freddie Mac. However, to date, HARP has fallen 80% short of its goal of reaching five million borrowers. These changes are aimed at helping homeowners who are current on their loans but have been unable to take advantage of historically low interest rates by refinancing because they are “underwater” on their mortgages, meaning they owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth. Ultimately, the federal government hopes this initiative will stabilize the housing market, which has remained stagnant since the economic collapse due to falling home prices and mounting foreclosures. Although the fragility of the housing market is currently considered a major factor impeding economic growth because of its effect on consumer spending, programs to stem foreclosures have fallen short of expectations. For this reason, officials have tried not to raise hopes that the alterations to HARP will be able to help more than a small fraction of the millions of homeowners across the country in danger of foreclosure. The FHFA estimates that these changes will help generate about 900,000 refinanced loans by the end of 2013. These changes came as part of a series of executive branch actions designed to confront housing, education, and other economic problems with which the nation is grappling. With his jobs plan stonewalled by Republicans in Congress, President Obama has announced these proposals as part of a new campaign with the mantra “We can’t wait.” This campaign is the latest part of the president’s thus far unsuccessful effort to pressure Republicans into supporting the jobs package he proposed in September. In the past few weeks, Senate Republicans have unanimously voted to block the plan, while Republican leaders in the House have refused to put the measure to a vote. Polls show support for some of the $447 billion package, which includes expanded tax holidays for workers and employers, funding for infrastructure development, and state support for teachers and first aid responders. However, Republicans oppose Mr. Obama’s proposed financing of the plan, which would be done through higher taxes on the wealthy. This political stalemate is occurring despite forecasts from many nonpartisan economists that without some sort of stimulus, the economy is likely to relapse into recession next year. There is a hole in the economy where the housing market used to be and the European debt crisis continues to cast an ominous shadow over the US. (Continued on page 6) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
NATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 5) In the latest employment numbers, released on November 4, unemployment in the country was revised down to 9.0 from 9.1%, indicating that the job market is still incredibly fragile. Last month’s report on consumer confidence by the Conference Board posted a low confidence index, signifying that consumers are still wary about current business and employment conditions. Additionally, in its latest statement, released on November 2, the Federal Open Market Committee, the committee of the Federal Reserve Bank responsible for open market operations and determining monetary policy, significantly lowered its forecast of economic growth. The Fed predicted that the economy will grow from 2.5 to 2.9% in 2012, well below its June prediction, and that the unemployment rate will be at least 8.5% by the end of 2012, still exceptionally high. Despite this bleak outlook, the Fed stated that it will not take new measures to stimulate growth. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stated that the central bank is already pushing hard to spur economic activity and create jobs, while lawmakers are not doing enough to help with fiscal policy. The alterations to HARP represent such a fiscal effort to provide aid to the struggling housing market. If this plan does not spur refinancing, the Fed stated that it is considering resuming its purchases of mortgage-backed securities to help homeowners refinance and deal with their debt. With the economy teetering on the edge of a doubledip recession, there exists a bipartisan consensus on the need for federal policy to stimulate growth; the exact nature of that policy is, of course, a major point of contention. Many Republicans have characterized the alterations to HARP as another bailout, perhaps in response to polls showing that voters are not interested in bailing out people who bought homes they could not afford. Given the current economic conditions, both Congress and the administration will have to work swiftly to overcome their political disagreements if they seek to enact legislation designed to ward off a potential double-dip recession. s candrei1@jhu.edu
—
Executive Order Addresses Drug Shortages by CHLOE REICHEL, ’15 Staff Writer
O
n Monday, October 31, President Obama issued an executive order to address the drug shortages the nation has recently been facing. Drug shortages have increased dramatically in the past five years, jumping from 61 in 2005 to 178 in 2010. This spike in drug shortages has life-threatening consequences for patients who take the scarce drugs. For example, many of the pharmaceuticals that are insufficiently supplied are critical cancer drugs. Another medication in short supply is anesthesia. According to the executive order, the dire repercussions of drug shortages, combined with a lack of Congressional action, necessitated the document. The executive order reads in part, “This order directs the FDA to take steps that will help to prevent and reduce current and future disruptions in the supply of lifesaving medicines.” President Obama set out guidelines for preventing forthcoming shortages. The three main propositions in the document are “Broader Reporting of Manufacturing Discontinuances,” “Expedited Regulatory Review,” and “Review of Certain Behaviors by Market Participants.” These three tactics are aimed at preventing shortages and limiting the extent of shortages if they do happen. “Broader Reporting of Manufacturing Discontinuances” is one tool for preventing shortages, because if drug companies have to give advance notice of the discontinuation of a drug, other drug companies can develop the technology to manufacture these drugs in the meantime. Additionally, if a doctor knows that a drug is being discontinued they can stop prescribing it to new patients, and create treatment plans for current patients in which they either switch drugs or seek alternative forms of the same drug. The executive order mandates that six months notice be given before discontinuing a drug. “Expedited Regulatory Review” allows the FDA to approve of pharmaceutical companies’ steps to producing scarce drugs in a timely fashion. This will permit more manufacturers to quickly create supply when certain drugs are waning. Finally, “Review of Certain Behaviors by Market Participants,” cuts at the heart of the drug scarcity prob(Continued on page 7)
6
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
(Continued from page 6)
Volume VII, Issue VII
NATIONAL REPORT/OPINION
lem. This measure attempts to eliminate pharmaceutical companies’ hoarding of drugs in order to sell them at a higher price and setting of unfair prices in general. Why have drug shortages become such a problem in the past five years? First of all, while demand for certain drugs has increased, the supply has not. This is because the process of increasing production is costly and slow. Because of the proprietary nature of many drugs, if a manufacturing error takes place in a single factory, there is no other supply of the drug. Furthermore, if a company has a monopoly on a scarce drug, then they have good economic reasons for not increasing supply—as resources grow increasingly rare, the value of the drug goes up. Drug companies can charge what the market will bear (which is often exorbitant) for these pharmaceuticals.
ing them—hence the provision for expedited regulatory review in the executive order, though even with faster review it can still take a significant amount of time to start production. From a political standpoint, Obama’s decision to circumvent Congress on this issue by writing an executive order presents a few interesting points. First, this could be seen as an attempt to garner support for the 2012 election by building up an image of Obama as a strong, determined leader. Second, this could be interpreted as presidential commentary on the state of the bipartisan, often gridlocked Congress that has recently been at the forefront of domestic politics. Obama’s executive order certainly addresses a pressing issue that affects many Americans, but it is also a highly politicized move. Without extensive reform of the pharmaceutical industry, it is unlikely that drug shortages will vanish. President Obama’s executive order does, however, take steps toward preventing future shortages. s —chloereichel@gmail.com
O P I N I O N
The Price of Higher Education President Obama signed an Executive Order this past week in an attempt to address the drug shortage plaguing the United States. (SOURCE: http:// abcnews.com)
by WILL HAMILTON, ’14 Contributing Writer
Increasing supply would lower the price. “Review of Certain Behaviors by Market Participants” is targeted at addressing this problem. Sometimes drugs that are still useful are no longer cost effective to produce. Newer drugs are generally more expensive than older drugs, so companies will cease production of older drugs that many doctors still prescribe. Other pharmaceutical companies will not want to start production of these drugs because of the financial and technological investments associated with producing these drugs. Further, doctors are less likely to prescribe inexpensive drugs because doctors make more when they bill more costly drugs. Even if companies decide to start producing discontinued drugs, it can take years to start manufactur-
s tuition for undergraduate educations has gone up, so has the amount of money the federal government has given to subsidize Americans’ educations. The responsibility for keeping higher education affordable for Americans should not solely belong to the government. Americans simply can’t afford to go to college without the help of the government, and this is true of nearly all universities in the US. Thankfully the government is there when we need it, but it seems only fair that universities assume some responsibility in lowering the price of higher education. Government loans and subsidies are available for consumers in many areas of American industry (e.g. Cash for Clunkers and the 2009 First Time Home Buyers Credit), but these programs are meant to encourage
A
(Continued on page 8)
7
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
OPINION (Continued from page 7) economic growth. The federal government providing grants and loans to students is an entirely different scenario. While the basis for subsidization is just (our government wants to maximize the amount of young people who receive higher education and minimize the cost to American families), the numbers just don’t make sense. In 2008, the Department of Education spent roughly $30 billion subsidizing higher education. Of this $30 billion dollars, $17.4 billion went towards student grants and $9.6 billion went towards student loans. The average cost of tuition and fees for the 2011-2012 school year of a private nonprofit four-year college was $28,500. While this statistic may seem modest compared to what students at top schools pay, it is notable that a full 28% of these colleges charge $36,000 or more for the same tuition and fees. Additionally, the majority of “top-tier” schools charge over $50,000, a price that is more than the average income of most American families. There is a simple solution that could reduce costs for the federal government and American students: higher institutions could charge less. A number of Americans are simply discouraged from applying to their ideal schools because even if they are accepted, they won’t be able to afford tuition. Many prestigious universities claim to be have taken initiatives to allow more students to afford tuition, but these programs are often either unavailable to most students or they simply fail. Thinking back to high school, the majority of my friends chose to attend their college based on how much they liked the school and how much the school cost. Of course the former should always be a factor, but it seems unjust that the latter so often takes precedence. In market economics, when one corporation has something that consumers want, they can arbitrarily raise prices and still profit. This not to say that any one school has a monopoly over the entire higher education system, but top-tier schools do have a monopoly on the top-tier. As with nearly all things in American politics, there is a price to staying on top. It is estimated that in 2005, before the financial crisis, 336 nonprofit colleges spent approximately $34.7 million lobbying. The cost of tuition, donations, and government subsidies allowed these universities to spend this money lobbying: an act that benefits no one besides universities themselves. On October 25, President Obama introduced new changes to the federal student loan program with the ultimate goal of providing increased assistance to students
8
struggling with debt. As outlined by the press release, the two main changes are to “cap student loan payments at 10% of discretionary income” and to “provide a discount on consolidation loans.” The ultimate goal of the measures is to provide assistance to all current students and graduates to help them pay their debts in an affordable manner. While this plan is laudable because it directly helps students pursuing higher education, it ignores the main problem: universities are charging too much for college education. If our federal government is able to subsidize students paying nearly $60,000 a year for undergraduate education, it should have enough leverage to encourage higher education, especially the most expensive institutions, to decrease their costs. As universities have become necessities, they have skyrocketed their prices for attendance. Our government is more concerned with intervening on students’ behalves rather than limiting the ability of institutions to arbitrarily raise prices. Our federal government is in the pocket of higher education, and if it really wants to benefit the American citizens, it needs to get out. s —wjphamilton@gmail.com
Child Abuse in the United States by HANNAH HOLLIDAY, ’12 Editor-in-Chief
T
he economic crisis has given many Americans pause to stop and think about what the future holds for the United States. However, the one demographic in our nation that is most crucial to our future is also the one that we neglect the most and perhaps the one that we hear about the least. The US is literally neglecting one of its greatest resources: children. The US now ranks above most other industrialized nations in the average number of child deaths from abuse and neglect per year, with 2.5 child deaths per 100,000 children annually. According to national statistics, the number of child deaths from abuse and neglect per day has risen from 3.31 deaths per day in 1998 to more than 5 deaths per day in 2010. Eighty percent of these children are under the age of four. Out of 21 of the wealthiest nations, UNICEF has ranked the US last when it comes to (Continued on page 9) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG
November 7, 2011
Volume VII, Issue VII
OPINION (Continued from page 8) the protection of children’s health and safety. Child abuse and neglect contribute to a host of other societal consequences. Eighty-percent of children who have been abused or neglected have a diagnosable mental disorder, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Children who have lived through these circumstances are 30% more likely to abuse their own children. Overall, abused children require more emergency room visits and participate in risky behaviors at a much higher rate, costing the US an estimated $100+ billion per year. These statistics should be more than enough to cause revulsion and outrage. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that we are facing a growing and serious problem, we rarely hear about it. The most recent highprofile news story published on the US’s startlingly high number of child deaths comes from the BBC, not one of our own news sources. Not one presidential candidate has made fighting child abuse and neglect a priority, despite the fact that Governor Rick Perry’s home state of Texas has the highest number of child deaths per year in the US: 4.05 deaths per 100,000 children. There is no excuse for the silence on the issue, though perhaps it is because solving the problem would mean committing ourselves to a broader and more integrated social services system. We know that children from lowincome backgrounds or with unemployed parents are at a higher risk for abuse and neglect. Yet the social programs that help these children’s families are often the first on the chopping block when it comes time to make budget cuts. Beyond that, there are simply not enough child protective services officers to keep track of every vulnerable child. The sheer number of children in need is overwhelming the current system. It will require more funding and more political attention to fully protect the nation’s children. What can we do? The first and most important step is to start a loud and outrage-driven national dialogue. Imagine if there were a movement for the protection of children with the kind of volume and political support that the anti-abortion lobby has. Not only are children the future, they are also arguably the citizens who are least able to advocate for themselves. We will never see children out in the streets campaigning for their rights and for an end to their maltreatment. It is up to us, the grown-ups—yes, we college kids are technically grownups—to advocate on their behalves. As this article goes to print, two women in South Carolina are just beginning to contemplate the bars of their cells as they serve life sentences for the beating and
9
murder of a three-year-old girl. In the hours between when this article was written and when it was published, at least ten American children have died completely preventable deaths. The UNICEF report on child maltreatment in rich countries sums it up the best: “The true measure of a nation’s standing is how well it attends to its children.” —holliday.hannah@gmail.com
g
WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG