The Kenyon Observer - 1/28/14 Edition

Kenyon Observer the

January 28, 2014

In Spite of Us

How the American Right Failed to Support South Africa’s Greatest Democrat

Alex Pijanowski | page 8

Kenyon’s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine

Kenyon Observer the

January 28, 2014

5

The Kenyon Observer

From the editors

January 28, 2014

5 From the Editors

Dear Prospective Reader,

Cover Story

8

alex pijanowski

In Spite of Us How the American Right Failed to Support South Africa’s Greatest Democrat conrad jacober

Editors-in-Chief Jon Green, Sarah Kahwash and Gabriel Rom Managing Editor Sofia Mandel Featured Contributors Conrad Jacober, Ryan Mach, Julia McKay, Alex Pijanowski, Gabriel Rom and Sam Whipple

6 Reagan Academics

The Neoliberalization of College Admissions gabriel rom

10 Ray Kelly, Brown University and Unchecked Privilege

Illustrations Brianne Presley, Ethan Primason and Peter Falls

julia mckay

12 Reform? Or More of the Same?

China Lifts the One Child Policy

Faculty Advisor Professor Fred Baumann

sam whipple

14 In Transit, In Crisis

Citizenship in the Dominican Republic ryan mach

The Back Page Oscar Ballot 2014

The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College.

The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and lettersto-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to tko@kenyon.edu

Cover Art by Brianne Presley

As the new semester gets underway, the Kenyon Observer is pleased to publish our first issue of the new year.

As we move toward the spring months, we look forward to both continuing our exchange of ideas through print and online media and opening other avenues of discourse through upcoming projects to be announced in the near future.

Leading off this issue, Alex Pijanowski notes the American Right’s lack of support for Nelson Mandela during the Apartheid era. Also in this issue, Conrad Jacober points out the inequities of merit scholarships, Gabriel Rom discusses an incident at Brown University in which New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was shouted down by student protesters, Julia McKay provides an analysis of China’s recent decision to abandon the One Child Policy and Sam Whipple highlights an ongoing immigration crisis in the Dominican Republic.

We invite our readers to consider the topics discussed and the views expressed here, and to use that knowledge to form their own opinions on the matters they find most important. It is our hope that our contributors’ words will provoke debate among students, professors, and community members alike. As always, we welcome letters and full-length submissions, both in response to content and on other topics of interest.

Jon Green, Sarah Kahwash and Gabriel Rom Editors-in-Chief, the Kenyon Observer

6

7

Conrad Jacober

Reagan Academics The Neoliberalization of College Admissions

In recent years, merit aid has increasingly appropriated from college budgets for need-based aid. The effects of this have been profound; in 2005, a team of researchers led by Ronald Ehrenberg found a high correlation between levels of institutional merit aid and a loss in enrollment of lower class students. To make matters worse, merit aid is increasingly awarded for reasons other than student achievement, namely for family wealth. To compete with other schools for students who can pay full tuition, many colleges are awarding merit aid to lure wealthy families. Former President S. Georgia Nugent recently stated, “Financial aid available to the lowest–income students has plummeted, and financial aid to the highest has soared.”

Kenyon and many other liberal arts colleges have not been immune to this change. On the contrary, they have been on the cusp of these changes. With smaller endowments and greater dependency on tuition revenue, schools like Kenyon compete for students who can pay by awarding tuition discounts.

As journalist Stephen Burd said recently, “Either a school offers tuition discounts to students from aff luent families, or else those students (and the

revenue they could provide) wind up going to other institutions that offer similar or more generous discounts.” These “tuition discounts” are offered as merit scholarships. The end result? More affirmative action for the wealthy, in both acceptance rates and in merit scholarships awards.

As though matters could not get any worse, lower class students who do receive merit scholarships reap no benefits for their added efforts; all merit aid awarded to financial–aid dependent students is taken out of their need–based financial aid package. Imagine, for example, that two students are accepted to a college which charges a tuition of $40,000. Student A is able to pay full tuition and is awarded a $10,000 merit–aid package. Student B is unable to pay full tuition and has an estimated family contribution of $30,000, meaning the college would likely offer the student $10,000 in need–based aid. However, Student B also receives a $10,000 merit aid package.

Both students will pay $30,000 in tuition. The student from the lower class family is awarded the same amount of aid as though he or she had been awarded no merit scholarship at all. The merit aid is taken directly out of his or her need–based aid. While

“Sheer ability, spelled i-n-h-e-r-i-t-a-n-c-e.” Malcolm Forbes

wealthy students benefit greatly from merit aid, lower class students are awarded no financial benefit, as need–based packages generally far outstrip merit packages in terms of dollar value. In this new admissions scheme, merit aid serves only to benefit students from wealthy families. No merit is awarded for the achievement of lower class students, achievement that is often the result of a far greater struggle.

The problem of merit scholarships is not an isolated issue. The last 40 years have witnessed a counter–revolution against the lower class, and higher education is only one of the fronts. There has been an utter stagnation in the real wages for the vast majority of working people in the United States. That same time period has seen unprecedented growth in the wealth of the richest Americans. Since the 2008 recession alone, 95 percent of wealth gains have gone to the top 1 percent of wage earners, more than a full recovery for the wealthiest. This is paralleled with a more–than–doubling of corporate profit margins since the recession, coupled with record stock prices.

On the other side, however, the story is reversed.

Opposite the 31.4 percent growth in income for the top 1 percent of wage earners is a mere 0.4 percent for the lower 99 percent of wage earners between 2009 and 2012, according to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez. This pattern is not unique to the so–called recovery. This has been the course of neoliberalism and “Reaganomics” fiscal policy. What we see in higher education today is but one front of this

“with

smaller

endowments

and greater dependency on tuition revenue, schools like kenyon compete for students who can pay by awarding tuition discounts.” political and economic counter–revolution.

The logic of suppressing wage increases for greater profit margins has dominated the past three and a half decades. Coupled with skyrocketing tuition costs, itself a result of this process, the need for need–based financial aid has increased dramatically.

Some claim that by attracting wealthier students with

merit–aid awards, school will pull enough money to fund more lower class students with need-based financial aid packages. However, as Wake Forest econ-

“though

i wish the problems

kenyon perpetuates were as easily fixable as a change in administration , our college is only following the logic necessary

to

compete with

similar institutions : the log ic of capital .” omist Amanda Griffith showed in a 2009 paper, the opposite has been true. Affirmative action for the wealthy results only in lower enrollment of students from lower class families.

The exclusion of good students from high quality higher education based on class division will only further the trend that the global economy is following: the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are staying poor. Though I wish the problems Kenyon perpetuates were as easily fixable as a change in administration, our college is only following the logic necessary to compete with similar institutions: the logic of capital. Through the process of neoliberalization, the logic of capital has further infiltrated higher education. With it come its internal contradictions, which elsewhere have lead to the devaluation of professors through adjuncts, the rise of for–profit colleges, and the predatory practices of private student loans. Here we see drastic rises in tuition, attempted outsourcing of labor, multiple forms of affirmative action for the wealthy, and a slow eclipse of justice for lower class students.

This is not a process that ends itself. Though the economic crisis of 2008 gave hope for a reversal similar to that following the Great Depression, there have been no significant changes in the course of neoliberalism or the dominant centers of thought surrounding it. The phenomenon of merit scholarships seems only to be a sign of what more is to come for small liberal arts colleges. If Kenyon is to maintain any commitment to a notion of social justice, the question of how long we strive to remain competitive before we fight back will have to be answered.TKO

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Krishnamurti

8

9

Alex pijanowski

In Spite of Us How the American right failed to support south africa’s greatest democrat

At the time of his death last month, Nelson Man- South Africa as an ally in the Cold War.” dela was probably the most widely revered living Essentially, American conservatives considered statesman on the planet, to such an extent that The solidarity with Mandela a betrayal of the existing Onion’s article titled “Nelson Mandela Becomes regime, which, while pathologically racist and disFirst Politician To Be Missed” was only partially criminatory, had for many years been a loyal ally satirical. So I was surprised to discover that some in the global fight against Communism and continindividuals had negative, and even thoroughly un- ued to serve as a countering force against Soviet kind, things to say about him in the aftermath of inf luence in Africa. Add to this that his personal his passing. associations with some elements of leftist ideolWhat I discovered after becoming aware of these ogy were poorly received by those same crusaders attacks was that the United States was not, at all against Communism—even to this day, Mandela’s times, an ardent ally of Mr. party (the African National president ronald reagan ve Mandela. According to an Congress) counts the South article by Matt Gertz in toed a resolution in African Communist Parthat Media Matters for Amerity (SACP) as an ally. This ca, President Ronald Rea- would have imposed sanctions ideological opposition is gan vetoed a resolution in on south africa if it did not perfectly in keeping with 1986 that would have imAmerican foreign policy posed sanctions on South agree to among other terms throughout the years—we Africa if it did not agree to, freedom for mandela have habitually supported among other terms, freehorrid regimes in order to dom for Mandela. Meanwhile, columnist George combat the Communist specter. Among other misWill and public intellectual William F. Buckley, deeds, in 1973 the CIA orchestrated an overthrow Jr.—perhaps the most prominent conservative com- of the democratically-elected Marxist government mentator in American history—expressed intense of Salvador Allende in Chile, and in 1979, we proopposition to any such bill. As Gertz points out, vided arms to the Taliban in order to stymie the the American right of the 1980s was no friend to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Mandela and his sympathizers, and members of The Soviet Union, particularly under the dictathe movement “ultimately determined that end- torship of Joseph Stalin, was frequently a repressive ing [apartheid] was less important that preserving and violent regime which, to the extent which its

“

1986

,

.”

-

,

“What does an actor know about politics?“ Ronald Reagan

crimes were known, merited the opposition of any conscientious nation or individual. But whenever a country combats one repressive regime by supporting another repressive regime, that country cannot hope to have any claim to meaningful moral authority. Besides committing a moral transgression, the U.S. government also failed to realize that it was overtly supporting a regime that denied the foremost ideals of American liberalism and representative government, all while refusing to offer a hand to a man who represented the best chance for introducing democratic freedom to South Africa.

Furthermore, what was lost in all of the vitriol is that Mandela was anything but a hardline Communist. As a matter of fact, he defied the general will of his party on multiple occasions in order to seek peace, and described himself as a “democratic socialist.” If anything, Mandela should have been embraced by all Americans alike. He was an ardent supporter of true democracy, because that was the only means of abolishing the grossly unjust election system which had taken hold in South Africa. An essay by Mandela, published on Sep. 24, 1953 is titled “Towards Democratic Unity.” The essay, which can be found on the website of the African National Congress, affirms that democracy was the solution to oppression in his country. In the statement he gave at the famous 1964 R ivonia Trial, Mandela said “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for. But, my lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” Finally, in his 1995 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, he wrote, “The victory of democracy in South Africa is the common achievement of all humanity.”

These three pieces of evidence alone confirm his credentials as a democrat.

It would, of course, be grossly unrealistic to argue that the American far right was solely responsible for perpetuating the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and the imprisonment of black South Africans within their own country, and I do not intend to make this claim. The system of apartheid was implemented by white leaders in South Africa, and survived as easily during the tenure of Democratic Presidents (Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Carter) as during those of Republican Presidents (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan). However, I come down as harshly as I do on Mandela’s conservative critics of the 1980s because

widespread American support could have made a substantial difference, and also because, at that time, support of the apartheid regime as a buffer against Communism was rapidly becoming an obsolete justification. In 1986 —the same year Reagan

“mandela

was anything but a

hardline communist.” vetoed sanctions against South Africa—Mikhail Gorbachev began implementing his policy of perestroika (“restructuring”) which reformed and liberalized the government of the Soviet Union. The excuse of protecting American interests—a rather poor one to begin with—had very nearly run its course. This is yet another fact which points to the error of those who opposed freedom for Mandela; in short, these conservative commentators should have known better.

The image of Nelson Mandela as one of the greatest moral leaders in world history—and one of the great democrats—will far outlive him. Praise of his many exceptional characteristics has overwhelmed the few negative criticisms, and will continue to do so. So if history is safely on Mandela’s side, what is the point in taking to task those among our ranks who once opposed him? Some will be quick to point out, quite justly, that someone like myself who was not yet alive at the time has no place criticizing some of those who were, when he has the benefit of twenty years’ hindsight. Beyond that, it would be rather hubristic of me to assume that my personal approval of Nelson Mandela should be the sole reason for defending him retrospectively.

Nevertheless, I believe there is a benefit to be gained by evoking the memory of past injustice, and that is to heighten our sensitivity to future injustice. Although I will not make any concrete recommendations regarding world leaders or regimes, I do know that our unique position of global inf luence bears with it the obligation of vigilance over the corners of the world where another Mandela-like figure labors in obscurity. For the time being, and for as long into the future as we are a world superpower, we ought to remember that some Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into opposing Mandela. We should also remember the danger of withholding support from those who most vigorously embody American ideals abroad and who need our help most.TKO

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy.” Mandela

10

11

Gabriel Rom

Ray Kelly, Brown University and Unchecked Privilege On Monday October 28, former New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was scheduled to speak at Brown University. He hardly got past “Hello.” In an auditorium with standing-room only, a group of over one hundred protesters disrupted Kelly’s talk until it was aborted. One after another, they stood up, took out pieces of paper, recited statements, sung spoken verse, chanted, cheered and jeered.

Eventually, a lone voice from the back of the auditorium called out, “Let the man speak!” There was a brief, almost ashamed silence, and then a handclap or two. As if on cue, a protester stood up and pointed his finger at the suits on stage: “This pig’s policies oppress our people and shut us down!” Applause. “Well we’re here to shut you down! This is not civil discourse.” Applause.

“You gunna bring the Gestapo here next?” Applause.

“Who is the terrorist? You are the terrorist!” Applause.

A young man in the audience, his arms folded across his chest, pleaded with the protesters, “You all have a voice. You have the spark of social injustice and awareness, that’s why you’re here today and you’re angry for a good reason. But your volume and your inability to listen has quieted my voice and people that want to hear Ray Kelly.” A chorus, bitter and unforgiving, drowned him out. “Anybody that has a problem with protesters speaking is just part of the problem. They’re not part of the solution. So go now.” Applause.

From the perspective of the protesters, if someone wanted to hear Kelly, never mind agree with him, they

became the enemy. This view is protest as censorship and it represents a world of absolutes: It’s our way or the highway. If you disagree, you’re no better than the fascist Kelly himself. You’re a revolutionary or a reactionary, a fighter or a coward. The Brown protesters challenged a policy that is nothing more than legislated white supremacy drawn up by an unrepentant white supremacist. Disagree? Sit down and shut up like a good activist ought to.

There is a shrill fanaticism behind such moral righteousness and yet it resists critique because those who question the protester’s methods are reflexively cast on the side of evil. The protesters see discourse itself as nothing more than a bourgeois defense of the status quo.

Since they conceive of themselves as “simply right” and Kelly as “simply wrong,” discussion becomes a rationalization for oppression – and merits invective, rather than argument. According to this logic, one cannot support some aspects of Stop and Frisk and protest others. A moderate is reduced to a stiff-necked shill for oppression. Debate and discourse get in the way of perfect justice.

Doreen Saint-Brown, one of the protest’s leaders, wrote in a piece for the Guardian newspaper that “protest is discourse on the terms of the oppressed, and it takes a ‘disruption’ for marginalized communities to have their voices heard.” What Saint-Brown did not mention is that opinions on Stop and Frisk are by no means uniform, not even within the ethnic and lower class communities she supposedly speaks for.

“Let man keep his many parts and you’ll have no tyrant states.” Ralph Ellison

According to a December 2013 amNewYork poll, 64 percent of Bronx residents believe that Stop and Frisk is “beneficial,” but needs to be “improved or modified.”

Only 20 percent believed it should be outlawed. According to the same poll, 60 percent of black voters in New York support Stop and Frisk but similarly want it modified.

In an August 2012 New York Times opinion poll, 48 percent of blacks and 58 percent of Hispanics approved of Ray Kelly and Michael Bloomberg. There is ample empirical evidence that the debate over Stop and Frisk is not over. It remains ongoing in the courts, in the media, and on the streets. Why then is it being snuffed out at Brown?

What might the protesters say to these New York residents who see some value in the program? Their behavior would suggest something along the lines of, Hush now; you’re just living under false consciousness. We, the freedom fighters from Providence, know what’s really best for you.

This line of thinking is not alien to the far-left.

It has strong similarities to the Leninist view of the revolutionary vanguard whose goal is to make the ignorant oppressed conscious of their oppression. There is a connection between ideological reeducation and the protesters, because both groups are essentially reducing the individual to a political tool rather than a thinking being. In the protesters’ quixotic quest for justice, variations in opinion — the distinctions that make people…people — are only obstacles to be overcome or annoyances to be ignored. C.S. Lewis put it well when he wrote, “to be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Is it in fact true that to choose discourse over action is to be complicit in injustice, as the protesters seem to believe? Consider the white moderates of the civil-rights era, or the collaborationist governments of pre-war Europe. It cannot be denied that some issues demand action and nothing less. As Ralph Ellison writes in Invisible Man, “Without the possibility of action, all knowledge comes to be labeled ‘file and forget,’ and I can neither file nor forget.” But when do we drop

the pen and pick up the gun? Where does that line get drawn? Consider if you tried debating an anti-abortion activist who refused to talk because they claimed innocent babies were being killed while you spoke. Beneath his fanaticism is a belief that dialogue legitimates injustice. The only difference between him and the Brown protesters is what he views as unjust.

Notwithstanding the foregoing justifications for radical action over discourse, the case of Stop and Frisk does not fit the bill. While we can’t expect the democratic process to address every question of injustice, an unpopular and flawed policy is on an (admittedly slow) track to reform. In August, 2013 New York District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled in a scathing 179-page report that Stop and Frisk was a “policy of indirect racial profiling” and she offered an extensive list of reforms. In October, an appeals court ruled that Scheindlin’s impartiality was compromised and halted her proposed modifications.

In November the New York Attorney General released a report, calling Stop and Frisk “flawed,” and sought to “advance the discussion about how to fight crime without…violating equal justice under the law.”

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has now promised that he will drop the City’s appeals and reform the policy.

There is an essential paragraph in Judge Scheindlin’s ruling: “to be very clear: I am not ordering an end to the practices of Stop and Frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much-needed police protection.” The ruling gives a legal corroboration to the popular opinion that Stop and Frisk should be reformed but not done away with. The legality of the policy hinges on finding a balance between police protection and the protection of individual rights.

The Brown protesters are tolerant in principle but not in practice. They believe in open minds and the exchange of free ideas only when the exchange suits them.

When it doesn’t, it ought to be stopped. This is a claim to force, not reason, and when debate is discarded the democratic machine grinds to a halt. It’s hard to find common ground when you are being yelled at.TKO

“When force threatens, talk is no good anymore.” Ransom Stoddard

12

13

julia mckay

Reform? Or More of the Same?

China lifts the one child policy

the policy, the gender imbalance and the loss of free- occurrence of corruption. Officials are often allowed dom for the Chinese people, it is not clear the policy access to medical records of women in their jurisdiction was worthwhile. The OCP put many under strict con- to ensure they are complying with the law; this policing trols simply to expedite a natural process and the family of women’s bodies allows the government to control planning commission will continue to do so only with an extremely personal aspect of their lives and subverts their right to their own bodies. Some women are even one more child allotted each family.

The depth of this gender imbalance cannot be over- forced to have abortions and sterilizations, and stories emphasized. Patriarchal tendencies and economic incen- of abuses by family planning officials have enraged the tives are at the root of a desire for sons and a rejection public. One woman, Feng Jianmei, was forced to have of daughters, leading some to exercise measures such as an abortion at seven months—well into her third trisex-selective abortions. Though illegal, these abortions mester—because she could not afford the fines. Her are believed to be the main cause of the skewed ratio. story created international outrage and added signifiNot only is this trend dangerous and discriminatory, cant pressure to reform the policy.

The independence and freedom to choose abortion but it has a potentially disastrous impact on the population. Young men, for example, have difficulty finding or contraceptive methods such as sterilization are critiwives because there are simply not enough women. The cal to women’s reproductive health. And yet it is apdeficit of women disrupts traditional marriage practices parent that many women in China are denied these liberties as they are often, instead, and increases competition among men, who face pres- the government also hopes forced or bullied into them by the government. The Chinese sure to gain higher wages and present themselves as more that the change in the policy health ministry reported that suitable husbands. Those will counteract such nega 336 million abortions and 22 million sterilizations have been who remain single grow old without a support system to tive side effects as growing performed in China since 1980.

Would these numbers be so high act as a safety net in the long gender imbalance the na if women had more control over run.

Moreover, the OCP cre- tional bureau of statistics their reproductive lives? Unfortunately, we won’t find out soon ated dire consequences for families who had unexpected reports that the birth ratio enough. Even if the OCP is pregnancies and could not in china is boys for every lifted, government family planning will remain in the Chinese afford to pay the fines that girls Constitution. The only change came with having a second implemented will be the number child. Wealthy families were often able to circumvent the law, paying fines or fly- of children some families are allowed to have. Women ing to other countries to give birth. This exacerbated and their husbands will still not be able to make deciincome inequality in an intangible way, as the policy hit sions about a crucial part of their lives.

The reforms to the OCP are a small step forward, poor families hardest. The fines required after having a second child vary by province, but according to a June but ultimately, the Chinese government has control article in the Economist, they can amount to between over a major aspect of its citizens’ lives. Though the three and six times a family’s annual income. Needless policy may have prevented the births of many infants, to say, these “social maintenance fees” (SMFs) are sim- the prevention came at a high cost. Birth rates natuply too much for many families, giving many women no rally decline as nations become more developed, sugchoice but to abort. The Economist also estimates that gesting that some of the drop in birth rate would have the Chinese government has collected 2 trillion yuan occurred naturally. Overpopulation is a major issue and ($314 billion) in SMFs since the policy’s implementation will continue to be for years to come because of the in 1980. The policy thus not only a way to restrict popu- strain it will continue to cause on the environment and lation growth but a source of revenue for the govern- natural resources. However, China’s method of dictatment, one that is ethically questionable given the fact ing the number of children is invasive, and unplanned that it is collected at the expense of China’s neediest pregnancy is never completely preventable. This fact makes punishing women and their families for having citizens.

To complicate matters, the SMFs are handled by local unplanned children unjust. Major changes need to be officials in each province, increasing the likelihood and made before all the wrongs of the OCP are righted.TKO

“

Last November, the Chinese government announced reforms to its infamous One Child Policy (OCP), as well as changes to its re-education labor program. The former, adopted in 1980 in an effort to curb rapid population growth, restricts families to one child, allowing exceptions for families in rural areas. It was believed that the policy would allow for more economic growth and reduce poverty. According to China’s governmentrun news agency, Xinhua, a couple with one or more members who were only children will now be allowed to have two children themselves. The government regards the policy as a success; according to Xinhua, it is estimated that 400 million births were evaded as a result, causing a reduction in population growth that is purportedly responsible for economic expansion and improved quality of life in recent years. The Chinese legislature decided to reform the policy, however, in light of changing demographics in China, which include a rapidly aging population. The government also hopes that the change in the policy will counteract such negative side effects as growing gender imbalance; the National Bureau of Statistics reports that the birth ratio in China is 118 boys for every 100 girls, compared to the average worldwide birth ratio of about 106 boys for every 100 girls. Thus, through reforms, China hopes to achieve two objectives: encourage the births of more girls by allowing families to try again for a boy, and increase the size of future generations so they will be able to support an increasingly large aging population.

This shift in policy, however, is not the end of the Family Planning Commission, which enforces the laws

that dictate the number of children Chinese citizens are permitted. The Chinese government still has every intention of controlling the reproductive lives of their citizens. In a Nov. 12 article on Xinhua.net, Nankai University population studies professor Yuan Xin said, “Issues surrounding how many children a family can have will, for a long time, still be decided by the government rather than the family itself.” Though implemented to conserve natural resources and bolster economic growth, China’s mandatory family planning policies have led to gender and limitations on the liberty and privacy of its citizens, particularly women. While the change in policy provides some additional control for some families, it seems clear that the new reforms will not right the wrongs of the past.

Chinese government insists firmly that the OCP was necessary to curb population growth. However, when examined more closely, the birth rates over the past few decades suggest that the policy might might not have been necessary. China experienced its biggest drop in the fertility rate during the 1970s before the policy was implemented. Suggesting that government control over births is not necessary for significant decline in population growth. As, China modernized the economic pressures of having more children became greater and families naturally wanted to have less children. According to the Washington Post, the current fertility rate of 1.7 children per women is only expected to rise to 1.9 in the coming decades, inferring that limiting women to only one child has not made a major difference in the number of children born. Considering the high cost of

“Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.” Ronald Reagan

-

;

-

118

100

.”

“Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” Abba Eban

14

15

Sam Whipple

In Transit, In Crisis Citizenship in the Dominican Republic You know that big country just to the north of the tation as a citizen but was turned down because her United States? The one with the red maple leaf on Haitian-Dominican parents were considered by the its flag? Well, imagine for a moment that instead of government not as citizens, but rather as “in transit.” passionate hockey fans and polar temperatures, that Ruling against her, and effectively any Dominican of country was actually known for Earl Grey and Big Haitian descent born in the country after 1929, has Ben. Imagine that every year, the people of Britain made stateless some 250,000 former citizens of the could watch us celebrate our victory in the Revolu- Dominican Republic. Many more are completely untionary War, and could watch the fireworks go off aware of their new status under the law.

Of all the questions posed by such a controversial from right across the border.

Were that to suddenly become true today, given and significant decision, the most obvious is simply: our current relationship with the United Kingdom, why? The evolving relationship between the Dominiit would be a bit awkward at least. But let’s add an- can Republic and Haiti, specifically in terms of immigration, has seen tens of other variable: what would this look like in, say, the year “ ruling against her , and ef - thousands of Haitians pouring into the DR every year, 1800?

If this sounds like a sce- fectively any dominican of easily lured by the prospect nario that might easily dis- haitian descent born in the of steady wages and living conditions that far surpass solve into chaos, your best country after 1929, has made the current quality of life in evidence would likely be the stateless some 250,000 for Haiti. The only apparent racurrent relationship between the Dominican Republic mer citizens of the domini - tionale for the decision can be traced back to an amendand Haiti. These two counment to the Dominican Contries, together on one piece can republic .” stitution in 2004. As reported of land and separated by a border that has proven tenuous at best, have clashed by the Nassau Guardian, this amendment extended the repeatedly over the course of the past couple centu- definition of “in transit” citizens to encompass not ries, stemming back to the invasion of the Domini- only diplomatic employees but also, “all persons who can Republic by the Haitian Army in 1822. A little enter and remain in the Dominican Republic without more than 20 years later, Dominicans would finally proper documents.” Ruling against Ms. Pierre’s recelebrate their own Independence Day. As they con- quest to obtain documentation effectively revived the tinue to celebrate that holiday to this day, the fragile question of who else may be entitled to such docucountry shows no sign of stopping its battle to ensure ments, and has now left the Dominican government with the task of sorting out the rights to citizenship they retain that independence.

Last September, the Constitutional Court of the for a vast amount of its population.

The most immediate consequences have become Dominican Republic handed down a ruling in the case of Juliana Deguis Pierre, who wanted documen- clear in the three months since the court handed

“A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.” Albert Einstein

down its decision. The obvious and probably most widespread reaction has been confusion; the decision largely affects people who, despite their Haitian heritage, have lived and worked in the Dominican Republic their entire lives, and who may have little or no ties whatsoever to neighboring Haiti. Still, while many have chosen to stay and try to battle their way through thickets of red tape to obtain proper citizenship, the Miami Herald has reported that Puerto Rico is already seeing cases of emigration attempts by Dominicans arriving by boat.

The international response has been fairly widespread but, so far, ineffective. Organizations ranging from the United Nations to human rights groups such as Amnesty International and the Caribbean community’s own regional body, CARICOM, have spoken out against the Dominican Republic’s actions.

They’ve declared the court’s decision to be one of the most sweeping and devastating blows to collective citizenship rights in recent years. The Venezuelan government has also taken steps to facilitate dialogue between Dominican and Haitian officials, but as the case cannot be appealed, no direct resolution to the problem seems clear. Dominican officials have stated that they will try to give temporary work visas to Haitian-Dominicans in the interim, but this is hardly a permanent solution. As long one is of Haitian origin, this “in transit” status could become a fact of his or her life.

Yet, of course, Haitian descent is only part of the story. The hot water in which the Dominican Republic currently finds itself has been brought to a boil by issues ranging from economics to full-on murder. The sugar cane fields on which many Haitian-Dominicans have worked or continue to work, called bateyes, represent one of the main sources of profit for the Dominican Republic, and yet this ruling would deport thousands of the very workers on whom they’ve depended for trade since the 1920s.

These are people who chose to stay in the Dominican Republic even after their own dictator ordered a massacre of Haitians in 1937. As tourism continues to flourish on the Dominican side of the border, the government will be interested in controlling violence, which may prove difficult as more people are buffeted by the process of obtaining the citizenship they believed they already had.

Adding to the confusion are ever-present undercurrents of race. Haitians typically have darker skin than Dominicans and, as public officials comb

through stacks of birth records, it seems all too likely that those of darker skin will be profiled as Haitians.

This could lead to an increase in the number of applications for citizenship, As for now, the walls seem to be closing in for many who live, internally exiled, in the Dominican Republic. Progress from the Haitian-Dominican talks remains stagnant, and the only recent resolution from their discussions has been to close all but a few of the border crossings between the two countries to allow Haitians to profit further off import tariffs. As the backlog of citizenship requests continues to build in the Dominican legislature, many are also likely unaware of their new status, and thus will have to wait in line to get a chance at reinstating their status as Dominican citizens.

The international community has taken the appropriate response, but limbo is still the prevailing state of affairs. Condemnations will not be good enough.

Hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in a country that they only believe to be their home because the government will recognize it as such. There should be no issue of clarity here: the actions taken by the Dominican High Court amount to a genocide of identity, leaving much of the Dominican population without a home, a country, and or a desire to leave the place they have called home for so long.

Let’s go back to the analogy we made with the United States. While we don’t share a border with Britain, we do share one with a nation whose dealings with the United States are far more emblematic of the struggles faced by the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Mexico and the United States, too, have been wrestling with immigration policy for decades. The latest iteration of an immigration reform bill, which might address the growing number of children who have grown up in the US despite improper documentation, has yet to be brought before the House. As reform continues to stall here at home, the crisis in the Dominican Republic should remind us of the enormous consequences of statelessness and of the tragedy faced by people across the globe who want nothing more than to live and work in a place they are familiar with. Both in the U.S. and the Dominican Republic, immigrants from all countries and cultures have lived and grown in a place they believe they can call their home, and for the time being, the Dominican Government should revise its policies to make sure those people can continue to call it home for years to come.TKO

“There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.” Ralph Nader

R yan M ach S hares H is P icks for T he 2014 A cademy A wards Best Picture: “Gravity” This film is significant this year chiefly because of its use of intensely mesmerizing visual effects.

What will undoubtedly earn it the Oscar nod, however, is its tantalizing imagining of a world in which Sandra Bullock is sent deep into space without any way of contacting other human beings.

Best Actor: Christian Bale in “American Hustle” and Matthew McConaughey in “Dallas Buyer’s Club” The choice is a toss-up this year: it all comes down to whether or not the Academy is more impressed with actors who gain unhealthy amounts of weight to play a role or actors who lose unhealthy amounts of weight to play a role. More importantly, it comes down to the fact that no one knows how to pronounce “Chiwetel Ejiofor.”

Best Actress: Meryl Streep in “August: Osage County” There is no earthly precedent for the human anomaly that is Meryl Streep. Her name and person shall breathe the eternal truth to the goodly part of each and every soul even ere her pristine mortal shell hath passed. We shalt not put any actress before Streep, for Streep is a jealous actress, visiting the iniquities of Academy members upon the third and fourth generation, but showing steadfast love to the hundreds of those who actually saw “August: Osage County.”

Best Supporting Actor: Jonah Hill in “The Wolf of Wall Street” There is no actor in Hollywood today who better deserves this honor, having completed the storied transition from “boy-man who masturbates in his parents’ house” to “man-boy who masturbates in a multi-million dollar Hamptons mansion.”

Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Lawrence “American Hustle” Following such greats as Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway, the young actress will be the latest in a line of stars to be beloved by the greater American female population only to be suddenly and arbitrarily despised by it.

Best Animated Feature Film: “The Croods” In this reviewer’s opinion, it is inconceivable how this film did not receive a nomination for best picture – you know what, fuck that, this is a bullshit Oscar season. This movie had heart, a lot more heart than that stupid “Nebraska” had. Are you fucking kidding me? You’ll put on a piece of trash in black and white starring MacGruber, but you stick up your goddamn nose at “Croods?” Have you people ever heard of Nicolas Cage, for Christ’s sake? No? Well how about Emma Stone? Up and coming superstar? Ring any bells? Does that mean anything to you, you snooty, heartless, ivory tower imbeciles?