NUPR Spring 2023

northeastern university political review

SPRING 2023

NORTHEASTERN: PUBLIC FORUM OR WALLED CITY?

ARIEN WAGEN

THE DARK PAST AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN JAPAN

ANDREW SMALL

NU PR

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND THE PRESIDENT

While the peak of the pandemic is hopefully in our rearview, tendencies towards withdrawal or isolation persist among us all. It’s especially difficult for college students to navigate our personal and professional growth amidst a complex social, political, and epidemiological backdrop.

At the Political Review, we aspire to remedy some of that nagging uncertainty. Writing is a critical tool to articulate complicated and abstract concepts; the written word increases our understanding of the world and our peers. Thoughtful political discourse, similarly, allows us to exchange important ideas in a measured and deliberate fashion. Our publication embodies the best of these modalities.

Our energetic ensemble of collaborators—columnists, staff writers, editors, and occasional contributors—continually raise the standards of quality for undergraduate writing. We’re proud to publish work that leaves no topic uncovered. As always, we strive to curate a magazine unimpeded by predetermined themes or prescribed articles. We encourage writers to craft pieces that are suited to their interests and sensibilities, from data-driven election analysis to examinations of popular culture through a political lens.

We adhere firmly to the ideals of open political discourse and hope our work can inject prudence, tolerance, and creativity into Northeastern’s campus and beyond. Thank you to all who have been so passionately involved with NUPR this past semester—we’re so honored to present your Spring 2023 magazine!

Julian Fuchsberg Editor-in-Chief

Grace Horne President

MEET THE TEAM

EXECUTIVE BOARD

Grace Horne President

Julian Fuchsberg Editor-in-Chief

Kimmy Curry Creative Director

Jesica Bak Communications Director

Zoë Goffe Treasurer

Noah Colbert Digital Director

EDITORIAL BOARD

Anjali Aggarwal Managing Editor

Jake Egelberg Managing Editor

Andrew Small Columns Editor

Margaret Barnes Magazine Editor

Camila Blikstad Magazine Editor

Alexander Buckley Magazine Editor

Krishna Prakash Magazine Editor

DESIGN TEAM

Laura Mattingly Designer

Sydney Tomasello Designer

Justine Tam Designer

MISSION STATEMENT

Founded in 2010, the Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a non-affiliated platform for students to publish articles and podcasts of the highest possible caliber on contemporary domestic and international politics, as well as critical reviews of political books, film, and events. We aspire to foster a culture of intelligent political discourse, promote awareness of political issues, and provide a forum for students to discuss their views and refine their options. We hope to reflect the diversity of thought and spirit at Northeastern, including the dual ethic of academic and experiential education our school embodies.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Check out our website at nupoliticalreview.org. Want to write for NUPR? Email nupreic@gmail.com.

Questions about the club? Email nupoliticalreview@gmail.com

Magazines printed by Puritan Capital

The Pharma Parasite: Pharmaceutical Greed and Its Consequences

Senam Apedo

GLOBAL

The Start of a Slippery Slope?: The Supreme Court’s October Docket

Elisabeth McCaw

Question 4: Results, Reactions, and the Future

Xinyi Looi, Claire Stipp, Thomas Ryen

Uber’s Yellow Cab Deal: The Bittersweet Redemption of a New York Staple

Anjali Aggarwal

Dilma Rousseff’s Impeachment and the Brazilian Economy

Camila Blikstad

Tax Evasion and Policy Effectiveness: The European Savings Directive Chengtangchi (Rebecca) Jin

FEATURED COLUMNS

The Dark Past and Uncertain Future of Nuclear Energy in Japan

Andrew Small

Northeastern: Public Forum or Walled City?

Arien Wagen

What Makes a Republican Rowan Van Lare

The Problem with Dahmer: True Crime Shows and the Broken Criminal Justice System

Gya Gupta

THE PHARMA PARASITE : PHARMACEUTICAL GREED AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The United States health care system is a business. Providers and policymakers across the country attempt to improve the quality and accessibility of national health care, but the profitability of these ser vices stands in the way. In 2016, the United States government spent more than $3.3 trillion—which is 17.9 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP)—on health care expenditures, $329 billion of that being prescription drug expenditures alone.

Despite this, our health care outcomes do not match our expenditures, largely because over 30 percent of US health spending is wasted, and overpricing contributes to this waste.

Pharmaceutical companies perpetuate overpricing by setting prescription drug prices drastically higher than they need to be, to the point where many citizens cannot afford nec essary medications. Pharmaceutical compa nies overprice their products seemingly without reason or limitations, and their greed can kill.

Pharmaceutical greed is a plague on our health care system and an unavoidable death sentence for many. To improve nationwide health, we must make prescription medication readily available to those who need it.

HOW THEY FEED: DRUG REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH PHYSICIANS

The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow companies to directly advertise medications to consumers. When prescription drug advertising began, there weren’t many regulations on how companies could promote them. Drug companies didn’t have to provide information about how certain drugs worked, how much they cost, or if there were similar alternatives. Today, still, the FDA doesn't approve prescription drug ads until they first appear in public.

Direct-to-consumer advertising can be dangerous if consumers lack the proper health literacy to question what is being sold to them. Many believe that consulting their doctor about an advertised drug may protect them from potential harm. Unfortunately, predatory drug representatives are already one step ahead.

Physicians are also prone to fall victim to pharmaceutical advertising. Drug

There are many reasons why a physician

possible, and health care is an increasingly profitable market.

For many life-saving medications, FDA rules enable companies to inflate prices to the highest point that consumers can tolerate.

would willingly trust, accept, and distribute a drug that is marketed to them directly. Pharmaceutical companies know that the workload for physicians, especially those with private practices, is intense. More than half of “high-prescribing” doctors look to drug representatives as their main source of information about new medications. Though many physicians benefit from relationships with drug representatives, many are still skeptical of their practices. Physicians ultimately decide which medications to prescribe to their patients, but pharmaceutical companies and drug representatives greatly influence their decisions.

THEIR GOAL: ABOVE EVERYTHING, MAKE MONEY

Pharmaceutical companies push physicians to prescribe as many expensive drugs as possible. Rather than increasing funds for drug development and improvement, pharmaceutical companies spend much of their funding on advertising. Pharmaceutical company owners are no longer interested in, or arguably were never interested in, providing care. Their main objective is to make as much money as

Drug overpricing not only affects those who are older or chronically ill, but also children. Many children have allergies that, when triggered, require immediate medication. In most cases, children can’t avoid whatever substance triggers their allergies and must carry medication in the form of an EpiPen, which are auto-injectable devices that administer epinephrine to treat severe allergic reactions. The pharmaceutical company Mylan has a monopoly over EpiPens and, in 2016, raised its price to $300 per injector. This price tag obstructs access to a life-saving medication for those who need it. State and federal lawmakers tried to impose laws that increase EpiPen availability in schools and other public spaces, but its price made it impossible for these institutions to carry them.

As a response to public pressure, Mylan decided to manufacture a cheaper, “generic” brand of the EpiPen, but ultimately did not improve its accessibility. Although the generic brand was seemingly half the price, it was still three times more expensive than the EpiPen’s original price of $50. Today, the average price of a brand-name EpiPen is $690 and generic alternatives match Mylan’s inflated 2016 EpiPen prices.

Pharmaceutical companies know that their products are essential for many of their

“

“

For many life-saving medications, FDA rules enable companies to inflate prices to the highest point that consumers can tolerate.

consumers, preventing them from losing income when raising prices. This was the case for Daraprim, a life-saving treatment that was the go-to medicine for treating toxoplasmosis, a parasitic infection especially dangerous for people with compromised immune systems.

Since it was approved by the FDA in 1953, only one Daraprim supplier existed in the US. Despite this monopoly, each pill only cost $13.50 until the mid-2010s, when the rights to Daraprim were bought by Turing Pharmaceuticals: a company ran by former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli. Shkreli saw Daraprim as a money-making opportunity and raised its list price by more than 5,000 percent. Shkreli never faced consequences for this outrageous price increase, as there were no regulations in place to stop him.

Today, Daraprim is $750 per pill, which poses a barrier to many. Even with other resources like health insurance, Daraprim is too expensive for hospitals to stock and insurance companies often refuse to pay for it. However, the cheaper alternatives to Daraprim are less effective and come with more side effects.

Dr. Wendy Armstrong, an infectious disease specialist, claims that a rehabilitation facility denied one of her patients after undergoing a kidney transplant because they would not assume the cost of the Daraprim. The high price of Daraprim prolonged the patient’s hospital stay and caused them to suffer further complications.

SYMPTOMS AND SIDE EFFECTS: HOW GREED KILLS

Prescription medications make up around 17 percent of personal health care services. In many cases, people need to sacrifice other essential needs to cover health care costs. And in extreme cases, those who cannot afford life-saving medications go without them.

or reduced prices. Today, patient groups and other organizations still fight for affordable insulin prices.

One of the most notoriously inaccessible drugs on the market is insulin. Most leading insulin manufacturers consistently increase their prices over time, ignoring factors like availability and affordability. In 2017, a group of patients sued Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk for inflating insulin prices. The class-action lawsuit states that these companies raised the list prices of Lantus, Levemir, Novolog, Apidra, and Toujeo by more than 160 percent in the last five years, while pharmacy benefit managers are offered constant

Lack of access to essential medications forces many patients to look towards alternatives that negatively impact their quality of life. Because of inflated insulin prices, some diabetic patients ration their remaining medication, sometimes reducing or skipping doses. Approximately 25 percent of diabetics ration their insulin doses because of financial constraints. Diverting from treatments without first consulting a physician—another expensive encounter— can be harmful and even lethal. Without insulin, type one diabetics are at risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), which kills in weeks if left untreated. Type two diabetics may last months or years with restricted medication access, but a lack of insulin is certain death for those suffering with diabetes. Diabetics who cannot afford insulin must rely on hospital emergency rooms, savings programs, state copay caps, emergency refills, Walmart’s ReliOn brand, and mutual aid to live comfortably. Although there are available alternatives, diabetics shouldn’t have to put their financial security at risk for essential medications.

THE TREATMENT: ACCOUNTABILITY

Although other nations struggle with drug accessibility, pharmaceutical greed is a parasite that uniquely feeds off of the American health care system. Drug prices as high as seen in the US are not common in any other country, forcing many to resort to risky alternatives to get the treatment they need. The US spends too much on health care to have citizens crowdfunding, rationing, or simply succumbing to their illness due to medical inaccessibility.

This greed is at the expense of our economy. Outside of health-related consequences, national health care expenditures increase at a rate that surpasses GDP. This rapid growth is unsustainable since many Americans need to spend their income on medical expenses, leaving little room for other forms of consumption. As a result, pharmaceutical greed crowds out other businesses.

The needless overspending and overpricing is dangerous and often deadly. Pharmaceutical greed is ingrained in the health care system, so addressing and undoing its damage will be difficult. To improve medical accessibility, we must hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their actions and prioritize improving nationwide health literacy.

“

“

Although other nations struggle with drug accessibility, pharmaceutical greed is a parasite that uniquely feeds off of the American health care system.

THE START OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE?: THE SUPREME COURT’S OCTOBER DOCKET

In a post Roe v. Wade world, the Supreme Court has shown a clear push for a society that reflects conservative values. This shift started under the presidency of Donald J. Trump, who nominated enough GOP-aligned justices to create a conservative majority of six to three on the Supreme Court. Since Trump and Republican-led efforts to shift the Supreme Court’s political affiliation, their chosen justices have presided over controversial cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and their legislators moved to enshrine conservative ideology in law.

With Roe v. Wade overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson, citizens now have even more to lose as justices like Clarence Thomas have renewed attacks on precedents and legislation around LGBTQ+ and contraceptive rights. In his opinion after overturning Roe v. Wade, Thomas

stated that they "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," cases that expanded LGBTQ+ and contraceptive rights, clearly demonstrating the degradation of a once progressive society.

While as of now, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell are not on the Supreme Court docket, the cases reviewed in October 2022 could substantially increase the conservative hold on present-day politics. Merrill v. Milligan (and Merrill v. Caster), 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, and Moore v. Harper reflect the power of the Supreme Court to impose a more aggressive enforcement of the GOP agenda.

303 CREATIVE LLC V. ELENIS

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis could enshrine the harmful rhetoric touted by many

conservatives today: that discrimination is a protected first amendment right. Lorie Smith, a Colorado-based specialized web designer, brought the case before the courts claiming that being compelled to create same-sex wedding websites violates her freedom of speech. Smith's argument is that underneath the first amendment, her right to speak or stay silent —a clause within Colorado state legislation that protects an individual's autonomy to choose to speak or not—is being infringed. In other words, she should be able to refuse service to people who she believes violate her Christian beliefs.

However, as the district and Tenth Circuit courts affirmed, her claim clearly violates the fourteenth amendment and Colorado's antidiscrimination laws, causing Smith to lose both of her suits. The courts believe that due to her website's specialization, turning away

ELISABETH MCCAW / INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 2025

same-sex couples because it does not fit with her "message" clearly diminishes the opportunities for same-sex couples. This is because they cannot receive comparable services to heterosexual couples, leaving them a "disfavored group."

Rejecting the rights of the LGBTQ+ community based on “personal issues” with their sexual orientation when it’s directly protected under anti-discrimination laws clearly infringes upon legal precedent. Nonetheless, the escalation of this case to the Supreme Court could wreak havoc on the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. If Smith wins the case, it creates a clear, dangerous, and discriminatory precedent against the LGBTQ+ community. Thus, the Supreme Court, with this case, could open the floodgates of infringing upon human rights, like Justice Thomas aims to do with Obergefell.

On the current Supreme Court, conservative justices Thomas and Alito dissented in Obergefell and have infamously remarked that LGBTQ+ behaviors contradict their religious beliefs. In their opinion of Obergefell, justices Thomas and Alito attacked the decision to allow same-sex marriage on the basis that it would "vilify those with…religious beliefs." They believe that marriage is a "sacred institution between one man and one woman."

For justices Barrett and Kavanaugh—who were nominated by Trump, who attacked nondiscrimination protections for the LGBTQ+ community—it is clear where their political allegiances lie. These judges show a clear bias against the LGBTQ+ community and empathize with religious plights like those given by Smith, so 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis's future outcome is only too apparent.

MERRILL V. MILLIGAN AND MERRILL V. CASTER

This October, the Supreme Court will vote on Merrill v. Milligan (and Merrill v. Caster), which will decide whether they will continue to allow conservative states to implement racist gerrymandering strategies within their redistricting plans. In 2021, Alabama released its new congressional redistricting plan,

claiming to better represent the state's population in voting districts. However, it was apparent that the plan's conservative creators had a racist political agenda, as many Black voting populations, like in Montgomery and Birmingham, were separated to become a minority in other voting districts.

This plan shocked its Black constituents, who are 27 percent of Alabama’s population, as they asked for the redistricting plan to contain two Black-majority districts, which would have represented the population. Instead, within their lawsuit, Milligan and Caster claim that the plan only aims to separate Black majority districts, in turn suppressing Black voting power in electing a representative. As 80 percent of Black voters in Alabama are Democrat-leaning, it is clear that this gerrymandering tactic aims to lessen the Democratic vote and affirm a conservative majority. Nevertheless, Alabama still maintains that the 2021 redistricting plan aimed to be "race-neutral" and contain no more than one majority-minority district, comparable to other redistricting plans.

In an effort to correct this racist gerrymandering, a coalition of civil rights groups and voters sued the Secretary of State and the state's legislative redistricting committee. The

“

“ The cases reviewed in October 2022 could substantially increase the conservative hold on present-day politics.

lawsuit aimed to make sure that the redistricting plan was corrected to be representative of the population in time for the 2022 election. Despite the courts maintaining that the 2021 redistricting plan is illegal and racist gerrymandering in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court issued a stay order of the original opinion by 5–4 on February 7, 2022. The stay order allowed the racist redistricting plan to be utilized in the 2022 elections, undermining the Black vote. The Supreme Court will now determine the outcome of voting rights in Alabama, which is deeply troubling for democracy in the

In essence, the 2021 Alabama redistricting plan separates the Black majority in 2 districts within the Montgomery and Birmingham areas for one reason: to maintain a GOP majority. This plan is directly detrimental to Black voters, who are disproportionately affected by conservative legislation like those concerning contraceptive rights, and continue to be oppressed by the state.

MOORE V. HARPER

In an extreme gerrymandering case, North Carolina is under fire for creating an illegal redistricting congressional map, which was proven to be a statistical outlier favoring conservatives compared to most redistricting maps. While the courts agreed it was an egregiously manipulated map, two conservative state legislators asked for a stay by the Supreme Court based on the independent state legislator theory. The independent state legislator theory proposes that state courts and governors no longer will have the ability to check the state legislature, allowing the legislature to run elections with no interference. The court denied the stay, but the concern for this case does not rest solely on the illegal gerrymandering, but the escalation by inducing the independent state legislator theory. The independent state legislator theory threatens American democracy to an unprecedented level as it aims to give state legislators all power in federal elections.

As mentioned in the last case, Merrill v. Milligan (and Merrill v. Caster), gerrymandering to favor either the conservative or Democratic vote has become increasingly common, undermining the integrity of the American democratic system. The indepen-

in their own home. In essence, the ability of the Supreme Court to fast-track the conservative agenda, as seen in Dobbs v. Jackson, has created a “slippery slope,” allowing Justice Thomas to lay the groundwork for stripping LGBTQ+ and minority rights.

The erosion of minority rights in racist redistricting laws, like seen in Merrill v. Milligan (and Merrill v. Caster) and Moore v. Harper, are only the first of cases taken by the Supreme Court to enforce a conservative majority in states by separating minority Democrats. Additionally, allowing discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals when accessing goods and resources pushes the conservative agenda of legally privileging nuclear families. Thus, these three cases reviewed this October threaten the very livelihoods of many citizens. While landmark cases like Obergefell, Griswold, and Lawrence are not yet on the chopping block, the apparent downslide of the Supreme Court into enforcing conservative values on the entire nation may jeopardize these cases and the fundamental civil rights they uphold.

dent state legislator theory is dangerous to the election process and allows illegal practices to go unchecked at the state level, disrupting the basis of our constitutional democracy. While the case for the independent state legislator theory is weak, as it is incompatible with the constitution, allowing for it to be pre sented at the Supreme Court because of its legal merit is worrisome for American democracy.

THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA

If anything is to be deducted from these cases, it’s that the American governmental system has seen a fissure, harming the integrity of American democracy. The Supreme Court, since gaining a conservative majority, has overstepped into the autonomy of the legislative and executive branches. This is seen in their immense push to implement conservative values into every aspect of citizens' autonomy, like the freedom to vote and one’s privacy

“

“

These judges show a clear bias against the LGBTQ+ community and empathize with religious plights like those given by Smith, so 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis's future outcome is only too apparent.

QUESTION 4: RESULTS, REACTIONS, AND THE FUTURE

On June 9, 2022, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Work and Family Mobility Act, which provides any Massachusetts resident, regardless of citizenship status, the ability to obtain a standard driver’s license.

Governor Charlie Baker initially vetoed the bill, but the Massachusetts senate overrode it by a vote of 32–8. Only a few days after the bill was approved, Fair and Secure Massachusetts, a committee dedicated to nullifying the Work and Family Mobility Act, began a push for repeal. They received 71,883 signatures on their petition to certify a referendum, exceeding the 40,120 required, which pushed the Work and Family Mobility Act to the November 2022 Ballot as Question 4 (Q4).

RESULTS

53.7 percent of Massachusetts residents voted “yes” in favor of the Work and Family Mobility Act, which will go into effect on July 1, 2023. Though this looks like a narrow majority, many counties saw a more decisive vote. “Yes” votes held a larger margin, above 80 percent, in more urban regions like Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Northampton, Amherst, and Provincetown. “No” votes exceeded “yes” votes in smaller areas like East Bridgewater, Wales, Montgomery, Monroe, Rochester, and Southwick. Consequently, the “yes” counties’

majority votes surpassed the “no” counties’ split votes, pushing the act into place.

REACTIONS

Massachusetts organizations had mixed reactions to the Q4 vote. As the numbers leaned in favor of passing the Work and Family Mobility Act, Nicole Caravella, spokesperson

for Yes on Q4, expressed that they were confident in the positive results of their campaign efforts.

Shortly after the results came out, organizations such as Fair and Secure Massachusetts expressed their disapproval. Henry Barbaro, a climate scientist volunteering with Fair and Secure MA, voiced concern that the law would incentivize illegal immigration by allowing those without legal documentation to exploit their “American” identity and bypass the immigration process.

A recent Facebook post by Fair and Secure MA criticized the FORWARD economic development bill’s 9.2 million dollar request for the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) to implement the Work and Family Mobility Act. This budget allegedly ensures that the RMV meets staffing and procedural requirements for new services, but Fair and Secure MA questions how much the RMV needs to increase its annual budget to handle the new law. Former Governor Charlie Baker admitted that inaccuracies affect longterm predictions, but was confident that the budget requested in the bill will be sufficient to address the influx of new families in need of assistance.

In California, expanded license access correlated to 10 % fewer hitand-run crashes each year. “ “

Results of Question 4 election in Massachusetts by town. Source: The New York Times

UNDER THE Q4 LAW

To learn more about new state regulations under the Work and Family Mobility Act, we contacted Debra O’Malley, Director of Communications at the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. According to O’Malley, the Registry of Motor Vehicles publishes

regulations after consulting the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. A specific date for the regulations’ release has not yet been determined, but the regulations will be published before the act goes into effect in July 2023.

Amidst illegal voting concerns, O’Malley described how the current automatic voter

registration system works. The RMV screens registrants for citizenship documentation before submitting them to the Secretary of State for voter registration purposes. O’Malley pushed back against the prospect of illicit voting or citizenship, asserting that “a citizen is only automatically registered to vote if they have submitted to the RMV a US Passport, US birth certificate, or US naturalization papers.” This process ensures that any noncitizen or citizen who does not demonstrate evidence of citizenship to the RMV will not have their name and address sent to the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth for voter registration.

TRENDS AND PREDICTIONS

As of now, sixteen other states have laws that allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver’s license. These states reported general decreases in the frequency of automobile hit-and-run accidents. The impact of laws similar to Q4 in other states foreshadow its potential impact on Massachusetts road safety; they also influence the opinion of Massachusetts residents on giving undocumented immigrants driver licenses and other recognitions. Depending on Q4’s outcome, political parties supporting or opposing the law may find themselves thrust into the limelight again.

In California, expanded license access correlated to 10 percent fewer hit-and-run crashes each year.

Graph shows a horizontal increase in licenses provided to undocumented immigrants and a vertical decrease in hit-and-run rates in California.

Source: Leuders et. al

A similar act in Connecticut correlated to a 15 percent decrease in hit-and-run crashes across ten cities with the greatest density of drive-only licenses provided to undocumented immigrants. These licenses are not valid for federal identification and cannot be used to vote. Massachusetts has not yet revealed whether the RMV will offer drive-only licenses or modify the appearance of the standard license for new applicants.

Both states saw a downward trend in hit-and-run accidents. California, Massachusetts, and

Connecticut are within the top ten states with the highest percentage of foreign-born population, making it likely that Massachusetts’s trends will follow suit. Both immigrants, making up 13.7 percent of the U.S. population, and Q4 supporters hope that the Work and Family Mobility Act will make Massachusetts safer, but its effects are not guaranteed. It will take years for researchers to come to credible conclusions about the act’s impact on road safety.

As more Massachusetts residents apply for driver’s licenses, licenses will soon identify

undocumented immigrants that had not been counted in the census, painting a clearer picture of Massachusetts’s vast immigrant population. These individuals will also be required to contribute towards automobile insurance tax for the state, supporting state infrastructure and upholding the budget for the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

As residents use the effectiveness of the Work and Family Mobility Act to evaluate their newly elected state leaders, they will watch the RMV closely for the next few years. With time, we can analyze Q4’s long-term impact to continue to make informed voting decisions. The next time you vote, remember that your voice counts.

Licenses will soon identify undocumented immigrants that had not been counted in the census, painting a clearer picture of Massachusetts’s vast immigrant population.

“ “

The graph shows a decrease in hit-and-run rates in some towns in Connecticut over a two year period. Statewide in Connecticut, hit and run rates have decreased 9 percent between 2016 and 2018.

Source: Connecticut Crash Data Repository, Department of Motor Vehicles

UBER’S YELLOW CAB DEAL: THE BITTERSWEET REDEMPTION OF A NEW YORK STAPLE

On March 24, Uber announced that it would add NYC taxicabs to its app this summer to increase user accessibility. This partnership, referred to as the “yellow cab deal,” kills two birds with one stone: it creates new customers for cab drivers while simultaneously tackling Uber’s driver shortage. Though the deal appears to revive the oncedoomed taxicab industry, it actually bolsters Uber’s reputation at taxi drivers’ expense: Uber preys on cab drivers who are willing to work for less and undermines existing labor movements to improve working standards for all Uber drivers.

This isn’t the first time Uber tried to downplay its negative impact on the taxi market, especially in New York City. Uber denies that the rise of ridesharing apps reduced the value of taxi medallions and refuses culpability for the troubling increase in cab driver suicides that followed. The yellow cab deal only builds upon this trail of destruction.

THE RISE AND FALL OF NYC TAXICABS

In the years before ridesharing apps gained popularity, the NYC taxi industry was

lucrative. In the golden age of taxicab driving, many drivers traded taxi medallions, which are transferable permits for operating a yellow taxi. Low-income, middle-class, and immigrant families viewed taxi driving as a safe investment in economic stability, increasing the value of NYC taxi medallions to over one million dollars. Today, however, the value of a taxi medallion has dropped to around

Uber entered these markets with aggressive and legally questionable business tactics. For instance, Uber provided first-time passengers with free rides worth up to $25 to avoid violating existing city agreements with payment processors, but wouldn’t answer questions about how they planned to handle more expensive rides. By testing the limits of local laws, Uber pushed through just enough to gain traction and assert its competitive advantage. Uber also launched a series of persistent lobbying campaigns to get their cars onto city streets. Eventually, lawmakers voted in support of ridesharing operations.

one hundred thousand dollars, making the industry less profitable and putting those with medallion mortgages at a severe disadvantage. Analysts attribute this rapid depreciation to the growing abundance of rideshare services in urban areas—including, most notably, Uber, which launched its services in New York in 2011. Within five years of Uber’s NYC debut, medallion prices fell by 50 percent.

Many cities across the US protect local taxicab industries from competition and

These market disruptions disempowered drivers who still had mortgages to pay off on their medallions. With significant losses in income and worthless permits, rideshare companies left cab drivers with no money, no options, and no hope. In 2018, eight NYC cab drivers committed suicide over the span of eleven months. In 2021, NYC taxi drivers spent weeks on a hunger strike to advocate for greater debt relief by the city. Drivers that work tirelessly for limited wages are pushing themselves to the brink because of how quickly and mercilessly the industry collapsed on them.

In defense of the taxicab industry, former

Left vulnerable, medallion-owning drivers have no choice but to agree to Uber’s yellow cab deal despite its significant drawbacks.

ANJALI AGGARWAL / ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 2025

NYC mayor Bill de Blasio claimed in 2018 that Uber became an unregulated “corporate giant” at the expense of the general public. Uber responded to this claim with a public relations campaign against the mayor, employing lobbyists and elected officials to take a united stance against him. These attacks were highly effective and showed Uber's growing political influence.

Despite de Blasio’s statements, Uber’s supporters argue that Uber provides value for the average consumer, bringing newer technology, greater convenience, increased safety, and lower fares for long rides, which are typically trips below $35.

However, these perceived benefits are just that: perceived. Cab drivers are subject to more thorough background checks than Uber drivers and cab rides tend to be cheaper for shorter rides, the most common type of trip. In terms of convenience, you can call a taxi the same way you would book an Uber—with your phone.

Uber, Lyft, and other ridesharing companies antagonized the taxicab industry, allegedly to promote convenience and

affordability for consumers, but ultimately putting low-income and unprotected drivers at a disadvantage. Left vulnerable, medal-

Currently, Uber and other ridesharing companies use a dynamic pricing model with a surcharge during periods of increased demand. Once the partnership officially goes into effect, taxicabs will also begin to adopt a demand-based pricing model, potentially skyrocketing prices when consumers need a ride the most.

UBER’S FINANCIAL GAINS

lion-owning drivers have no choice but to agree to Uber’s yellow cab deal despite its significant drawbacks.

THE YELLOW CAB DEAL

Uber’s yellow cab deal will integrate NYC’s existing yellow cab apps, Curb Mobility and Creative Mobile Technologies, with its own software to give consumers the option to select a yellow cab. Although the deal appears mutually beneficial, it has the potential to create issues for consumers and drivers.

For instance, the push to include taxicabs on the Uber app may disrupt cab fares.

With rising operating expenses and a decline in revenue, taxicab drivers already struggle to stay afloat. Uber, conversely, is seeing huge gains. When the agreement was first made public in March, Uber’s shares rose five percent. The yellow cab deal launched towards the end of this year’s first fiscal quarter, so many of the immediate and long-term impacts of this partnership cannot be fully assessed.

Despite these gains, Uber plans on elevating the “user experience” rather than improving driver benefits, like raising wages, to address their driver shortage; instead of paying workers more, the yellow cab deal lets Uber manipulate the workers that they had previously put at a disadvantage.

Instead of paying workers more, the yellow cab deal lets Uber manipulate the workers that they had previously put at a disadvantage.

The yellow cab deal is a strategy that Uber will continue to use in the future. In Uber’s announcement, they claimed that they plan on including every taxi on their app by 2025 and added 122,000 new taxicabs to the app in 2021. The inclusion of taxicab services may boost Uber’s financials, but it dismisses the concerns of Uber employees and cab drivers in NYC and beyond.

LABOR CAMPAIGN CONCERNS

News of Uber’s alliance with the NYC taxi industry has conveniently drawn attention away from labor campaigns that threaten their bottom line. The campaigns’ main criticisms of Uber’s labor practices revolve around the inability of drivers to join labor unions and receive typical employment benefits, such as basic healthcare. Uber gets away with denying their drivers full-time benefits by hiring only flexible-time drivers, a characteristic of the gig economy.

A 2018 study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute found that Uber drivers are undercompensated and often receive wages of around 9.21 dollars per hour. Groups like NYC-based Justice for App Workers fight against the exploitative nature of ridesharing companies and do not believe that the yellow cab deal will be used in the best interests of cab drivers.

In addition to Uber drivers and other ridesharing workers, taxi drivers in New York immediately voiced their concerns about the yellow cab deal when it was announced. According to a statement by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA), Uber’s current cost structure fails to appease their own drivers and cannot, as it stands, serve the needs of cab drivers. Bhairavi Desai, the

executive director of NYTWA, points out that cab drivers deal with higher car costs and a stream of medallion payments, both of which cannot be covered by Uber’s existing business model.

The NYTWA requests that Uber implements a fuel surcharge for all NYC drivers (not just standard Uber drivers), adjusts driver payment rates to account for varying operating costs, and secures both Uber and yellow cab drivers from dismissal without warning under Just Cause protections. Uber and Lyft members have begun to join the NYTWA in their pursuits, joining the #RaiseforAll Drivers Campaign.

Uber’s yellow cab deal is still in its early stages. As it officially launches, its actual consequences on consumers and cab drivers can be more clearly observed and addressed by labor campaigns, government officials, and the general public. The forecasted impacts of this partnership paint the yellow cab deal as a ploy for Uber to cut costs under the guise of creating a better world for the taxi industry.

DILMA ROUSSEFF’S IMPEACHMENT AND THE BRAZILIAN ECONOMY

CAMILA BLIKSTAD / BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMICS 2023

In 2011, Dilma Rousseff was elected the first female president of Brazil. During her tenure, Rousseff advocated many popular policies including economic stability, poverty reduction, a decrease in unemployment, and political and tax reform. She went on to enjoy an approval rating of over 70 percent in the beginning of her first term, which eventually enabled her reelection in the 2014 presidential election.

During her second term, however, her approval ratings plummeted quickly, first to 12 percent and later just 9 percent. This huge drop from her first to second term can be attributed to the country’s poor economic performance, as well as the numerous corruption scandals that emerged from Rousseff’s government. Throughout 2015 and 2016, protests broke out across the country, some reaching upwards of six million attendees demanding her impeachment.

As exemplified by Dilma Rousseff’s ultimate impeachment, the economic conditions observed in a country can deeply affect the outcome and overall support of a government. Brazil is a useful case study for this theory, as

the same was observed during the Brazilian military dictatorship, a period of political turmoil remembered for the extensive human rights violations by the regime. Higher public

DILMA ROUSSEFF, THE BRAZILIAN ECONOMY, AND CORRUPTION

Not long before Rousseff assumed office in 2011, the Brazilian economy began to slow down. While the country recorded relatively elevated numbers before and after the 2008 recession, reaching a growth rate as high as 7.5 percent in 2010, the economy grew just 2.1 percent annually between 2011 and 2013.

support by the middle and upper class indicated a willingness of citizens to overlook corruption and scandals as long as the country was doing well economically.

It wasn’t until mid-2014 that the situation truly began to worsen, with Brazil entering a severe economic crisis that saw GDP growth decrease by over 3 percent in both 2015 and 2016. The presidential election was held the same year, which resulted in a second term for Rousseff, though by a much narrower margin of only 51 percent of the popular vote compared to her previous victory with 56 percent of the vote.

The 2014 economic crisis is believed to have been caused by the inconsistent macroeconomic policies implemented by Rousseff during her first term. Her administration’s decisions reduced Brazil’s economic

“

“

Higher public support by the middle and upper class indicated a willingness of citizens to overlook corruption and scandals as long as the country was doing well economically.

competitiveness, deteriorated fiscal outcomes, increased inflation, and contributed to an overall decrease in the administration’s political credibility. The president was criticized for abandoning many economic principles, such as stabilizing inflation, and ignoring important reforms that would have ensured competition. Furthermore, her government continued to spend despite decreasing tax revenues, with the hopes that public investment would spur growth.

POLITICAL SCANDAL, PROTESTS AND ROUSSEFF’S IMPEACHMENT

In March 2014, a money laundering and diversion scheme of approximately four billion dollars involving the petroleum company Petrobras surfaced. Rousseff was closely tied to the scandal as she was the chairwoman of the company’s board between 2003 and 2010, the period when most of the corruption was believed to have occurred. Although she was not found to have personally been involved or profited from it, her competence was called into question. Furthermore, a number of politicians from her political party were exposed

to have been involved in the scheme, which further damaged the reputation of the party as a whole.

Due to the corruption scandal, much of the attention that should have been dedicated to monitoring and repairing the economy was instead placed on the investigation of political leaders. Both the political and the economic situation continued to worsen throughout 2014, and by March 2015, the Brazilian population began to voice their displeasure of the administration through protests.

The first demonstration was reportedly attended by roughly three million people, with other protests continuing to have high attendance throughout the year and into 2016. At the movement’s peak in March 2016, its organizers reported nearly seven million people joined a demonstration criticizing the administration.

The protests and additional outrage from within the Brazilian government resulted in the start of the impeachment process against Rousseff in late 2015. By that time, public opinion of the president had been completely tainted by the controversies her administration was involved in, from the corruption scandals to the alleged responsibility she had in

Brazil: Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in current prices from 1986 to 2026 (in U.S. dollars)

the economic crisis. Notably, a July 2015 poll showed that roughly 62 percent of Brazilians wanted her impeached. However, it was only in August of the next year that she was officially impeached by the Senate after being found guilty of breaking budgetary laws.

PARALLELS WITH THE MILITARY DICTATORSHIP

By looking at Brazil’s history, it is not difficult to find similar instances where economic conditions also affected an administration’s support.

Unlike the Rousseff years, in which poor economic conditions created political and social instability, the otherwise brutal military dictatorship between 1964 and 1985 saw generally high public approval as a result of booming growth. During this period, the government seemingly enjoyed support from the public despite reports of widespread human rights violations. Contemporaneous information is

somewhat limited due to the opaque nature of the dictatorship; however, the purported Brazilian reaction is in line with indications

These ranged from policies to stimulate international financial investments to increasing foreign loans. Growth rates during this period reached an annual average of more than 11 percent per year (for reference, China grew at a high of 8 percent in 2021). Interestingly, this period of financial growth coincided with some of the most oppressive and violent years of the dictatorship.

The extraordinary level of economic growth swallowed up any attention that would have otherwise been focused on human rights abuses. For example, the globally renowned The Economist almost entirely ignored reports of the oppressive government to focus on economic prosperity instead.

that economic conditions can significantly sway public approval.

In the 1970s, the administration reached the height of its support due to the “Brazilian Miracle.” This phenomenon refers to the remarkable economic growth achieved from 1969 to 1973 as a result of government intervention in the economy and the establishment of a number of measures to promote growth.

Although the corruption scandal factored into Rousseff’s impeachment, her role in the downfall of the Brazilian economy created the basis for her removal from office. However, it is interesting to question whether the public would have had the same reaction to the corruption scandal if economic conditions were positive instead. Unfortunately for Dilma Rousseff, she found herself in a situation where both the economy and politics were working against her, which eventually resulted in her impeachment.

“ “

The extraordinary level of economic growth swallowed up any attention that would have otherwise been focused on human rights abuses.

Though it is a significant political and economic union that prides itself on democratic state cooperation, the European Union sees astounding quantities of tax evasion across its member states. While its international reputation evokes welfare for the poor, national healthcare systems, and free college education, these public goods face the danger of disintegration as EU corporate tax policies remain weak in addressing massive tax avoidance across the region.

Tax evasion is a global phenomenon: around 8 percent of the world’s total wealth is held in tax havens. In Europe, Switzerland is dominant in hidden wealth management, attracting new business globally with an emphasis on customer secrecy. A 2015 study shows Switzerland houses approximately $2.3

TAX EVASION AND POLICY EFFECTIVENESS: THE EUROPEAN SAVINGS DIRECTIVE

trillion of foreign wealth.

In the global south, this fraction is often much higher, with Africa’s offshore wealth nearing 30 percent. For regions with consistent conflict and inequality, such as Russia, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, the fraction of hidden wealth approaches a whopping 50 percent, money that could help with maternal death during labor, infant mortality, or public education. Many of these offshore wealth operations are closely connected with EU member states, Switzerland, and European overseas territories. The EU's failure to combat corporate tax evasion creates massive public wealth losses in the world’s most impoverished communities. The EU should leverage its economic power and close alliance with the United States to initiate

TAX FRAUD 101

In 2007, Starbucks’s United Kingdom accounts showed their tenth consecutive annual loss, despite the company being the second-largest restaurant or cafe chain globally. UK tax accounts show that since Starbucks opened in the UK in 1998, the company has profited over £3 billion ($4.8 billion) in coffee sales, opened 735 outlets, but paid only £8.6 million in income taxes, well below the expected quantity of profit tax. That same November, former Chief Operating Officer Martin Coles told analysts that the UK unit’s profit was the main source of capital funding Starbucks’s

global action to hold multinational corporations accountable.

expansion in other overseas markets.

The UK caught Starbucks red-handed in a massive international tax avoidance scheme. Its major methods boil down to inflating costs and transferring profits to shell companies. First, Starbucks records 6 percent of its sales profits as “royalties” for the use of its own brand and business model. Then, it transfers the profit to the Netherlands and Switzerland, where earnings from royalties are taxed at rates as low as 2 percent. On top of this, Starbucks inflated its recorded expenses such as staff, roast processing, and coffee bean purchases, relative to the average market prices. It also shifted profit from one balance sheet to another via intercompany loans, finally placing it in tax havens or offshore hidden accounts. Upon UK tax authorities’ investigation, Starbucks’s spokesperson and auditors have all declined the accusations and refused to comment further.

The European Union is riddled with companies like Starbucks, doing the best that they can to extract money that should fund public goods and repurpose it for their own gain.

KEY DRAWBACKS AND MISTAKES

In the EU, member states retain the power to decide their own national tax rates. The incentive to attract more business and financial activity creates competition for low tax rates and other forms of corporate benefits. However, national actions against tax fraud are ineffective, allowing corporations to exploit this independent-tax-code model.

The Hidden Wealth of Nations by Gabriel Zucman explores the history of tax havens and regulatory efforts to combat wealth loss. When France passed an anti-fraud law, French wealth quickly poured out to foreign banks who happily took depositors’ money and kept them anonymous. A century later, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) instituted on-demand exchange of information, which mandated that countries release client information when concrete evidence of illicit acts are presented. However, the OECD initiative proved to be ineffective. In reality, concrete evidence is often found through thorough investigation of foreign accounts, so this strategy was insufficient in stopping tax avoidance.

With all of these lessons taken to heart, the EU initiated the European Union Savings Directive in 2005, which required every member state to cross-inform national tax authorities of foreign client account details. Due to the EU’s strict democratic system, major decisions can only be made on the basis of unanimity. This made authoritative enforcement of the directive virtually impossible as tax haven states inevitably deadlocked negotiations. In the end, lobbyists watered down this EU-wide policy to negligence. The directive granted tax haven countries such as Luxembourg and Austria favorable terms and the directive did not apply to non-EU

how many shell companies, hedge funds, or intercompany loans the money flows through in disguise, it would eventually arrive as personal income in a privately-held checking account. Therefore, the design left general international trade unharmed while targeting money laundering by high corporate officials. In reality, due to differing tax rates across countries and the fact that the withhold tax was flat—it applied equally to different levels of wealth—the new directive created confus ing and disproportionate reward-punishment incentives. In some cases, tax evaders paid less withhold tax than they would have legally paid through the normal taxation process, rendering the tax negligible. Moreover, the directive violated EU countries’ fiscal sov ereignty by stripping their right to choose appropriate tax rates. It also only applied to wealth-generated interests, not dividends and other forms of investment revenue. This made shell companies, trusts, and hedge funds the obvious substitute for tax evasion.

LESSONS LEARNED

member states who are heavily involved in the European tax fraud process, such as Switzerland and Singapore.

The directive gave Luxembourg and Austria the choice to either identify foreign citizens' accurate income streams or make foreign citizens pay a tax to remain anonymous, called the “withhold tax.” In 2011, the EU raised the withhold tax from 15 percent to 35 percent.

On the surface, providing a withhold tax option seemed to be the perfect compromise. Offshore banks could maintain customer secrecy while tax authorities received their lost national revenue. And, the tax only affected households unwilling to report their off-shore interest income—tax evaders— while leaving compliant households unaffected. Most significantly, the directive only applied to accounts held by individuals, not organizations. Assuming tax evaders would like to spend this money eventually, no matter

Tax haven countries have no interest to cooperate with the rest of the world in disclosing their client information. And their clients, often rich and powerful, may aggressively lobby to prevent such changes. Therefore, the EU should implement a powerful enforcement mechanism to secure compliance. This could be in the forms of high economic sanctions, country-specific tariffs, or other mechanisms that compensate victim nations for the cost that tax havens impose on global public goods. Further, since multinational corporations transfer profit across borders as a core strategy to evade tax, companies should be taxed by their global profit. This could readily decrease the effect of profit manipulation, and combined with a global information registry it would ensure that there is no hidden vault for evaded wealth.

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS

Thankfully, in 2021, the OECD initiated a new global tax regulation named the two-pillar solution. This new directive aims to ensure a fairer distribution of taxing rights among jurisdictions over the largest and most profitable multinational corporations, and put a

“

“

The European Union is riddled with companies like Starbucks, doing the best that they can to extract money that should fund public goods and repurpose it for their own gain.

floor on tax competition by creating a global 15 percent minimum effective corporate tax rate.

Pillar One targets multinational corporations who exceed €20 billion in revenues and have profitability exceeding 10 percent. It intends to reallocate parts of their profit to the countries where the sales and services occurred.

Under Pillar Two, a much wider group of multinational corporations—those with over €750 million of annual revenue—would be subject to a global minimum corporate tax. Now, even if the jurisdiction has lower tax rates than the global minimum, those profits would still be taxed at 15 percent. In October

2021, 137 countries agreed to impose this new directive, paving the way for the most significant overhaul of international tax rules in a century. The EU reached unanimity in December 2022 after cutting off EU funds to Hungary and Poland, who eventually dropped their objections.

The OECD estimates the minimum tax could boost government revenues by $200 billion annually. The reform would likely lessen international tax competition, clarify national tax revenue, reduce convoluted maneuvers in the international tax system, and help increase global GDP by up to 1 percent annually.

The OECD needs strong political backings from both the EU and the US to push the directive to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, despite the Biden administration’s best

efforts, the legislation faced massive GOP rejection and died on the congressional floor. As a host and major beneficiary of many multinational corporations, it is time for the US to shoulder its responsibilities and stop US-based multinational corporations from exploiting vulnerable communities. Not only would this directive boost government revenue domestically, its contribution to foreign economies would facilitate more economic activity and lift global standards of living, a goal the US has touted for years.

Following the breakthrough would be years of efforts to incorporate these rules into national law. While many legislatures have agreed to the “big ideas” of such policy, there’s no consensus on the specifics of executing these pillars. Nonetheless, the U.S. government must acknowledge its keen responsibility to bring momentum behind this long-overdue resolution against corporate tax evasion.

“

client information. And their clients, often rich and powerful, may aggressively lobby to prevent such changes.

THE DARK PAST AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN JAPAN

In October 2020, then-Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide declared that Japan would reach net-zero greenhouse gas emission by 2050, an extremely high hurdle for the country to achieve in just thirty years. Japan is among the world’s largest carbon emitters, with forty percent of its emissions coming from energy production; in 2019, fossil fuels composed 88 percent of the country’s total primary energy supply. Overhaul of the country’s energy production systems is thus an integral part of the Government of Japan’s (GOJ) plan to achieve carbon neutrality.

A critical part of the GOJ’s overhaul plan is restarting and expanding nuclear power, which halted after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Given the immense amount of carbon-free energy nuclear produces, the Kishida administration has prioritized enhancing Japan’s nuclear power capacity. However, the GOJ faces an uphill battle in restarting and expanding nuclear: unsafe systems and regulations destroyed most of the Japanese public’s trust in nuclear energy, and for good reason

The Fukushima disaster was a wake-up call to the public on the exploitative and unsafe nature of Japan’s nuclear power industry. The private energy utilities sustaining the system employ dangerous and corrupt practices. The national regulatory mechanisms designed to protect the public fail to implement basic safety policies and hold companies accountable. These conditions directly resulted in the 2011 disaster and exposed the system’s dark underbelly.

On the other hand, Japan—both as a member of the global community and an island nation vulnerable to climate change—must decarbonize its economy. Given the current lack of robust renewable energy infrastructure, experts estimate that Japan must restart thirty of its nuclear reactors by 2030 to reach its obligations under the Paris Climate Accords. At the moment, the country operates just nine.

Thus, as the country looks toward its decarbonized future, two profoundly complicated realities emerge. Japan’s nuclear energy system is exploitative of low-income

communities, technically unsafe, and politically unpopular. However, in the context of global climate change, decarbonized economies are clearly the future, and Japan’s current energy infrastructure is incapable of going green in the short term without nuclear power.

Therefore, the future of nuclear energy in Japan is uncertain. Its sustained existence jeopardizes public safety and contradicts democratic practice. Its removal threatens the country’s efforts to decarbonize. The GOJ is at a crossroads, trapped between Japan’s dark nuclear past and the short-term need for it in the country’s fight for survival. Which path it chooses will bring long-term implications for the country’s energy independence, democratic practices, and path towards carbon neutrality.

SYSTEMICALLY FLAWED

The state’s predatory policies sustain Japan’s nuclear infrastructure and drive economic

ANDREW SMALL/ ASIAN STUDIES 2023

inequality. Across the country, one trend persists in any community that hosts a nuclear power facility: they are rural and socioeconomically insecure. The country’s poorest communities shoulder the burden and danger of producing electricity for Japan’s urban centers. This deeply unequal system is by no means a coincidence. In fact, this was very much by design.

To expand nuclear power capacity, Tokyo has employed a policy toolkit to override local resistance in nuclear host communities since the 1970s. By targeting poor municipalities, the central government created economic dependence on nuclear power plants.

The state did so through financial and economic incentives for towns to host new projects, mainly hefty national subsidies with a uniquely predatory structure. The GOJ paid enormous sums of money to local governments during the construction of new reactors. The immense size of the construction projects at nuclear facilities likewise contributed to

local economies by bringing unprecedented employment levels. Most towns spent this money on desperately needed public works projects, otherwise impossible investments. However, the GOJ structures payments such that upon a reactor’s completion, funding reduces to a fraction of the original amount. Most of these small-town governments had no prior experience in handling such tremendous amounts of money and opted for much-needed capital investments rather

than ones targeted at long-term economic growth. As the national payments shrank, so did local governments’ ability to pay for newly steep budgets and costs. Local governments had no other choice but to construct more nuclear reactors at these power facilities to maintain cash inflow from Tokyo. For example, Kashima City in Ibaraki Prefecture received up to $90 million in the early 1990s for constructing an additional reactor at local facilities—this was nearly half of the city’s municipal budget.

This quick cash from Tokyo quickly restructured economies away from their industrial bases; nuclear host economies never stood a chance to develop robustly. Exploitation and economic inequality are the foundation of Japan’s nuclear production capabilities; the system itself drives unequal development.

The state implemented other coercive policies, including soft social control techniques in host communities. Tokyo held pro-nuclear

The GOJ is at a crossroads, trapped between Japan’s dark nuclear past and the short-term need for it in the country’s fight for survival.

public relations campaigns, dispatched highlevel bureaucrats to implore opposed citizens, and created “atomic energy centers” for politicians to meet with local residents. The state also established fish farms and published pro-nuclear articles in fishery magazines to appease local fishery cooperatives, which hold significant political power in rural Japan. In doing so, Tokyo worked to forcefully coerce public opinion at the local level to accept nuclear plants.

The Japanese state thus employed a twopronged approach to developing the country’s nuclear infrastructure. It used predatory financial incentives to force economic dependence on rural municipalities while shaping local opinion to pacify its citizenry. There are thus major, systemic issues of economic exploitation and inequality built in the country’s nuclear energy system.

INSTITUTIONAL FAILURES

As the 2011 Fukushima disaster revealed, much of Japan’s nuclear power system is built on and sustained by unsafe practices and poor regulation. Two sets of institutions are to blame for the dangerous state of affairs: private power utilities and national regulatory mechanisms.

Japan’s national power system consists of ten privately-owned utility companies that hold monopolies over regions of the country. By far the largest of the ten is Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. (TEPCO), the former operator of Fukushima Daiichi. TEPCO, along with other utility companies, have consistently endangered the public through reckless and corrupt practices.

After the 2011 disaster, an independent panel of the National Diet concluded that TEPCO was well aware of the structural vulnerabilities at the plant stemming from the outdated earthquake safety codes from the time of Daiichi’s construction. However, the company failed to implement proper earthquake safety checks and maintenance protocols despite regulations that required it to do so. In 2008, TEPCO ran simulations that proved Daiichi was at immense risk of a tsunami disaster but did not report this to regulators for nearly three years. The company willingly left the plant unprotected. This overwhelming negligence resulted in the 2011disaster.

The government likewise had a significant role in allowing TEPCO, the country’s largest energy utility and producer of nuclear energy, to act so recklessly. Through a process that the Diet panel labeled as “collusion,” regulators failed to implement the most basic oversight in nuclear safety. The since-disbanded Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) was responsible for both the promotion and regulation of nuclear power, a clear conflict of interest. Accordingly, NISA failed to hold TEPCO accountable for updating earthquake safety features at Daiichi. The agency accepted substandard safety reports from TEPCO and allowed the company to voluntarily follow safety regulations. The GOJ allowed TEPCO to jeopardize the nation’s safety by failing to regulate it properly.

The disaster at Fukushima Daiichi was profoundly man-made and preventable. To state otherwise would ignore TEPCO’s reckless behavior and nuclear regulatory mechanisms’ complicity in creating the conditions

and untransparent in its decommissioning efforts at Daiichi. The company lied about the radioactivity level in the stored wastewater used to cool the melted uranium fuel, which reached up to 20,000 times the legal limit. For two months, it claimed that the tsunami caused mere “core damage” even though it had data suggesting up to 55 percent of the uranium fuel melted down, a clear worst-case scenario for any nuclear plant.

The company’s recovery efforts featured unsafe practices and lacking transparency. TEPCO made dangerous mistakes like spilling three hundred tons of highly radioactive wastewater, leaving earthquake detection instruments broken for months, building drinking water stations in hazardous areas, or dangerously miswiring electrical equipment at Daiichi.

Though certainly the clearest examples, TEPCO’s constant failures are by no means limited to Daiichi. At Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the largest nuclear power plant on earth, cases of unauthorized access to highly sensitive areas continue to occur. In multiple instances, unauthorized personnel even gained access to the plant’s central control room by using other employees’ identification. Such relaxed security practices jeopardize national safety and greatly contribute to the lack of public trust in TEPCO.

that caused the disaster. It was a direct result of Japan’s unsound nuclear energy systems.

Despite the clear failures of national institutions that caused the Fukushima disaster, these same institutions fail to implement adequate change. One would assume that mankind’s second-worst nuclear disaster would motivate these parties to implement safe and strict procedures.

TEPCO’s immediate crisis response was reckless and seriously endangered the Japanese public. Thankfully, workers at Daiichi ignored much of the company’s incorrect emergency recommendations, which ultimately averted catastrophe. After the immediate crisis, TEPCO remained reckless

In 2019, the public’s little faith in Japan’s nuclear industry further diminished when Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.’s (KEPCO) officers accepted payoffs from a municipal official of a nuclear host town. In total, the official paid some ¥4 million (around $27,691 in 2019 dollars) in cash and expensive gifts to KEPCO executives after the company started nuclear construction projects at the Takahama Nuclear Power Station. In addition to government collusion, internal corruption persists in Japan’s nuclear energy producers. Japan’s nuclear energy system continues to be sustained by dangerous, reckless, and corrupt practices. Even a disaster on the scale of that at Fukushima Daiichi has done little to motivate nuclear institutions to systemically reform.

POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR

Nuclear power remains deeply unpopular among the Japanese public. The public perception of nuclear power’s safety deeply shifted after the Fukushima disaster and

Japan’s nuclear energy system continues to be sustained by dangerous, reckless, and corrupt practices. Even a disaster on the scale of that at Fukushima Daiichi has done little to motivate nuclear institutions to systemically reform.

subsequent exposure to the failures of Japan’s government and energy utilities.

Nationally, the public is clearly against restarting and expanding nuclear power production. As of 2020, a mere 2.2 percent of the Japanese public support the expansion of nuclear power. Meanwhile, some 48 percent support the phasing out of nuclear power in the coming years, by far the most popular preference. Further, on the tenth anniversary of the triple disaster in 2021, five former prime ministers—among them, the famously conservative and previously pro-nuclear Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro—jointly called for the country to phase out nuclear power. It is politically unpopular even among some nationally recognized conservatives.

Nuclear power also remains deeply unwanted at local levels, particularly in host

communities. Since Japan’s nuclear plants shut down in 2011, locals have consistently lobbied against their restarting out of safety fears. In 2012, locals from Fukui Prefecture sued KEPCO to prevent it from restarting two reactors at its Oi plant. In 2020, residents surrounding the Shikoku Electric Power Company’s Itaka plant filed multiple lawsuits with the Hiroshima High Court to halt restarting the plant’s reactors. Last year, an Ibaraki Prefecture court ordered the suspension of the Tokai Nuclear Plant following lawsuits from local citizens. Across the country, a clear trend is emerging: both the local host commu nities and the broader public no longer trust nuclear power.

AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE

The country’s nuclear production system is unpopular given its exploitative and technically unsound state. Democratic norms dictate that the GOJ would divest from Japan’s nuclear infrastructure. However, as the country moves towards a decarbonized model, it has few short-term options for supplementing its fossil fuel-based energy production. Japan is at a crossroads and faces two complex choices for achieving carbon neutrality; either path will bring long-term impacts to the country’s democracy and energy systems.

The first choice is for Tokyo to implement policies that are receptive to public opinion: phase out nuclear power. In Japan’s context, this is by far the most democratic and safe

option for transitioning its production model. However, doing so would deeply jeopardize the government’s decarbonization efforts.

Ironically, Japan’s current energy infrastructure creates a reality where the safest and most democratic approach to producing energy is one that acts against long-term national interests. Therefore, if the GOJ divests from nuclear, it should also rapidly invest in other renewables like wind, solar, geothermal, and hydrogen. It has already made strides in this field; the Kishida Cabinet made “clean energy” and a commitment to decarbonization a core element of its growth strategy. Other governmental bodies have likewise committed to this effort, like in April of this year, when the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry changed the incentive structure for renewable suppliers to reduce costs on consumers and promote renewables. Additionally, at the end of 2021, the Bank of Japan introduced a green bond scheme to foster investments in clean technology.

While such measures are steps in the right direction, they serve a renewables-focused model that includes nuclear power and fall short of the systemic change necessary to make nuclear obsolete. Further and widespread investment from Tokyo to replace nuclear power would require rapid infrastructure development and regulatory structures

to enhance market competitiveness for renewable companies. Even then, Japan would face a serious uphill battle in reaching its carbon-neutral goal.

The second choice is the course that the GOJ is already embarking on: to move against the public’s wishes and push nuclear onto the country’s decarbonized production model. In 2021, the GOJ’s Sixth Energy Plan called for 20-22 percent of Japan’s energy to come from nuclear power. While this could greatly aid the country’s rapid transition from fossil fuels, doing so would throw the weight of the Japanese state against public opinion, setting a dangerous precedent for undemocratic practices in national decisions. The GOJ has not implemented systemic change in Japan’s nuclear production system and the public has little reason to trust Tokyo and energy utilities with their safety blindly once again.

If the GOJ continues with its unpopular nuclear energy policy, it must also implement systemic change. First, regulatory mechanisms must thoroughly regulate Japan’s energy utilities. The recklessness and corruption shown by these companies actively endanger the Japanese public, as was proven at Daiichi in 2011. Transparent practices, increased safety regulations, and strict government oversight are necessary to prevent further disasters and rebuild public

trust. If the Japanese state undemocratically embraces nuclear, it must also embrace change.

Recent global developments further complicate Japan’s future relationship with nuclear power. The Russian-Ukrainian war has sent the cost of domestic energy—most of which is imported—soaring. Additionally, in March of this year, around two million households under TEPCO’s grid lost power after a magnitude 7.4 earthquake disrupted the regional power supply. Under such conditions, public opinion slightly moved towards restarting nuclear power. Ruling Liberal Democratic Party members seized the opportunity and doubled down with pushing for nuclear restarts. However, they have done so without releasing comprehensive, effective plans for addressing the systemic issues with nuclear power in Japan. Therefore, Tokyo seems poised to continue down its dangerous path of pushing for nuclear power without creating safe conditions for its sustained usage.

Whichever course the GOJ adopts for its nuclear policy, its decision will deeply impact the country’s democracy and course towards decarbonization. Japan is at a crossroads and will need to confront its dark nuclear past to reckon with its carbon-neutral future.

Private universities, not being bound by the First Amendment like public schools, can choose to regulate speech as they see fit on their campuses. Some campuses adopt free speech protections similar to those of public universities and choose to function as public forums. Others choose to limit the range of discourse on campus and function as walled cities.

The first pillar of Northeastern’s strategic plan, Experience Unleashed, is “Build on the power of diversity.” Northeastern claims

NORTHEA STERN : PUBLIC FORUM OR WALLED CITY?

ARIEN WAGEN/ BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 2023

that, to benefit from diversity, there must be “constant interaction among people who bring their own diverse contexts and experiences to the conversation.” Additionally, Northeastern’s student handbook claims that “students enjoy the same basic privileges . . . as all citizens.” These basic privileges surely include the rights to expression and assembly protected by the First Amendment.

Northeastern’s demonstration policy, however, contradicts these statements. The policy prohibits university community members

from holding peaceful demonstrations on campus without the Center for Student Involvement’s permission. To receive permission, CSI requires student organizations to submit a demonstration permit application form “at least 7 days before [the] organization intends to demonstrate on campus property.”

In 2013, Northeastern used this policy to indefinitely suspend Students for Justice in Palestine following a peaceful demonstration.

This might seem like a minor inconsistency,

but it reveals a deeper contradiction in Northeastern’s self-conception. Northeastern is torn between two models of the private university: the public forum and the walled city. Northeastern’s failure to adhere to either model impedes speech and inquiry on campus without furthering other well-defined purposes, such as student safety or diversity. This contributes to self-censorship on campus. To effectively pursue its goals, Northeastern should adopt either model of the university—the public forum or the walled city— and act accordingly.

THE PUBLIC FORUM MODEL

The public forum model envisions the university as a free space for constructive conversation and criticism. This model can help create functioning marketplaces of ideas that aid in the pursuit of truth by promoting open discussion.

In his essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues in support of free speech and expression. He writes that silencing someone from speaking an opinion is “robbing the human race” of benefit. If the opinion is right, then others are “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.” If the opinion is wrong, then others lose the chance to grow their “impression of truth” by rebutting errors.

Mill’s arguments are frequently used to defend academic freedom. Effective learning requires understanding both sides of an argument. In On Liberty, Mill writes that “he who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” If a student is unable to refute an opponent’s argument, then he “has no ground for preferring either opinion.” Argumentation theorist Chaïm Perelman supports this view, saying that beliefs that at first seem objective and impartial end up appearing “one sided” in the face of counterarguments.

All public universities are bound by the Constitution to the public forum model. In Widmar v. Vincent (1981), the Supreme Court overturned a University of Missouri at Kansas City (UKMC) policy prohibiting religious groups from using campus buildings. In their

ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that “the campus of a public university, at least for its students, possesses many of the characteristics of a public forum.” This means that to justify any content-based exclusion, public

boundaries designed to help them attain their goals.

Notre Dame political science professor Patrick Deneen believes that Catholic universities should restrict campus discourse and adopt the walled city model. In his essay “Against Academic Freedom,” Deneen writes that Mill’s conception of liberty is fundamentally opposed to Christian institutions. Because Mill’s liberty was designed to overturn traditional forms of culture and belief, Deenen thinks that it has no home in Catholic universities.

Deenen goes on to say that because universities hire teachers and select students, they can never be truly neutral. Instead, universities that defend academic freedom inevitably orient themselves “toward progress and transformation of society.” To many, this

universities must show the restriction serves a “compelling state interest” and is “narrowly drawn to achieve that end.”

This model is also adopted by private universities that aren’t legally obligated to do so. The University of Chicago (UChicago) has famously adopted the public forum model. In 1967, UChicago released the Kalven report, stating that “the university is the home and sponsor of critics.” According to the report, universities “must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry” to effectively promote “the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.” In 2014, UChicago released another statement reaffirming “the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas.”

Over eighty institutions have since adopted or endorsed the 2014 UChicago statement, including Boston University, Brandeis University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If Northeastern wants to align itself with public universities and many other elite academic institutions, they should adopt the public forum model and adjust their policies accordingly.

THE WALLED CITY MODEL

The walled city model of the university envisions the university as a group of students and scholars working together on some common pursuit. In this model, universities adopt

Northeastern is torn between two models of the private university: the public forum and the walled city.

RESOLVING NORTHEASTERN’S INCONSISTENCY

In its high-level statements, Northeastern seems to align itself with the public forum model of the university. Northeastern’s strategic plan targets creating a responsive infrastructure to “achieve fluidity of ideas and discoveries.” If Northeastern’s purpose is solely to foster social change and academic inquiry, it should adopt the public forum model. Northeastern can promote discussion, conversation, and innovation by adopting robust free speech protections. The development of knowledge requires critics.

If, instead, Northeastern wants to prioritize safety and other concerns over discourse, Northeastern should

However, the policy is not narrowly written to serve its stated purpose. As written, the policy prevents Northeastern students from planning demonstrations with less than seven days notice and without a sponsoring student organization. Neither of these restrictions seem necessary to prevent “unreasonable disruption.” The policy also fails to guarantee

the reasonable instructions of University personnel,” further discouraging students from demonstrating.

Zachar Hankewycz, the president of Northeastern’s Ukrainian Cultural Club, said that Northeastern’s “unrealistic and counterproductive” protest policy makes members of the Ukrainian Cultural Club feel excluded from the Northeastern community and like “a nuisance to be shunted aside.”

This is because “it’s simply not feasible to respond to real-time, real-world events on such a delayed timescale.” To express themselves, many students “must turn to other groups in the area, like the Ukrainian Cultural Center of New England.” Students are organizing a petition encouraging Northeastern to change its demonstration policy.

Northeastern should determine

Excessively broad policies like Northeastern’s demonstration policy dissuade and prevent students from engaging in constructive conversation

WHAT MAKES A REPUBLICAN

Picture this: you are a young adult going to college in Boston. Maybe your parents are conservative and you have a Trump flag in your house. Maybe they aren’t, but you’ve always seen your parents as bleeding hearts. You love your country—this is the place where freedom is key. You can speak ill of your government without fear of persecution. You can stand up for your rights. But everyone around you says that America is bad. They say that, because a few hundred years ago people had slaves, we can’t love our country anymore.

All of your friends find out that your family supported Trump. Or, that you find his rhetoric refreshing relative to other sleazy politicians like that old man Joe Biden or Barack “Woke” Obama. They suddenly don’t want to hang out with you anymore. In fact, they say they hate you for believing that America is the greatest country on earth!

So, you go to the College Republicans. The Grand Old Party, named for their

support of the Union during the Civil War, was founded on March 20, 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin. Back then, “Republican” was synonymous with social liberation and probig-business economics. As big business and

are known as the “conservative” party.

A lot of young Democrats like to think that the Grand Old Party is full of old people with old values—but that isn’t true. According to 2020 voter demographics, almost one third of young voters identified themselves as Republican. And those Republicans exist right here on Northeastern’s campus.

economic prosperity (think Reagan) pushed for nationalism and a sense of nostalgia for the ‘olden days’ of America, their socio-political position switched and now Republicans

Hard stop: my name is Rowan and I am the President of the Northeastern College Democrats. More importantly, I’m writing a column on the psychology behind ideology. I am, in this article, trying to figure out the psychological differences between Republicans and Democrats. I am not here to villainize the Republicans for their beliefs, although they are not mine. I am here to get into their heads for just a moment, so I can relay their machinations back to you.

After attending their meeting, there are two things I can say for certain about

They think very logically, with few passion-driven arguments, and they victimize themselves as the political minority. “ “

ROWAN VAN LARE/ INDEPENDENT MAJOR 2023

Republicans on Northeastern’s campus: they think very logically, with few passion-driven arguments, and they victimize themselves as the political minority.

That sounds harsh, but it isn’t meant to. And these are not original thoughts. Both major parties in American politics portray themselves as victims of the press. I even brought this up in the College Republicans meeting I attended, and most of them agreed: Republicans and Democrats alike villainize the other party and victimize themselves, which only strengthens the divide between them.

I saw this victim-villain perception forming itself right there in the room where they regularly meet (which I will be keeping private per their wishes). Their slides included a stolen bike count, a discussion of other crime in the area, and some political memes making fun of the “woke agenda.” One meme featured a movie poster of Tangled, the Disney movie retelling the story of Rapunzel, except she would be bald to represent people

with Alopecia—clearly making fun of the new Little Mermaid movie, where Ariel is played by Halle Bailey. They also included a discussion of current events.

I wondered why they spoke so heavily about crime rates around Northeastern; is it possible that it is because Northeastern’s campus is set very close to a historically Black neighborhood and that this is an example of fear mongering? I would ponder that the Republicans would see that as a leap in logic—I’m not trying to put words in their mouth, but I assume they would say “now you’re just looking for ways to make us the bad guys!”

They are too focused on a fear of being villainized to see that, even unintentionally, reminding their members that they are unsafe around campus is subliminally telling them that they are not safe in a historically Black neighborhood. This same thing could be said for a conversation we had on representation (i.e. Native American names on sports teams or characters on popular foods like Aunt Jemima’s or Land of Lakes). They cared a lot

about defending their position on things, and not discussing what that position actually was.

That all being said, I’ve never had a more rational discussion of politics than I did that one specific meeting. There was almost no emotional aspect to their arguments. They were more methodical in their approaches than Democrats—which has neurological backing. They talked about international and national politics without much of a visible bias in either a conservative or liberal direction. They obviously care very greatly that they not present themselves as a raging mob of conservatism, which made them easy to talk to. When I couldn’t take it anymore and admitted that I was pro-choice in a discussion of abortion, they were welcoming of different ideas, which I know is not always true of other groups on campus.

They talked extensively about life-at-conception, which seemed to be the reigning mindset. They even said (and I wrote it down, so this is verbatim): “honest libs and biologists

are agreeing that life is at conception.” I consider myself an ‘honest lib’ and let me tell you, that is not my belief. I think the person who said it may be referring to an experiment in which a scientist had over 5,000 biologists answer a survey about whether they believed that cells in a woman's uterus were alive post-conception. I found that statement as surprising as when one member of the club said that they knew of a baby who survived being born after just 14 weeks in the womb. I won’t speak on the validity of these arguments because I am not an expert, but there is evidence to the contrary if you’re interested.

I do not wish to spend too long focusing on my personal beliefs as opposed to theirs, but I would like to commend them for not jumping down my throat. Did they try to refer to my beliefs as ‘eugenics’ and scoff and shake their heads a little bit? Yeah, and I assume they would receive a similar treatment if they attended a left-leaning meeting. But as long as I stayed calm, so did they—and I have the utmost appreciation for them for that reason.

The psychologist in me was most

fascinated by how fundamentally different I, as a liberal person, was to them. Conservatives and liberals could attend the same movie and leave with completely, unpredictably, different ideas of what that movie was trying to convey. In fact, as I walked home, I couldn’t shake it: they were conservatives to their core, and everything they watched or read was impacted by that. It made me wonder… is that true of me as well?

If I could, I’d have assigned each of them to take the MBTI personality test (which has little psychological standing but is both fun and educational). I’m interested in seeing if they all have similar personalities to each other, and if those results are incredibly different from mine. I’m an ENFJ, by the way.

I’d be eager to see their results for that second letter—the N for intuition vs S for sensing, which I would argue is the most important letter of those four as it determines how we view the world around us. In theory, those with the “S” trait are more likely to remember facts and figures, specifically those that impact them. Those who use intuition instead will remember the impression or the feeling they experienced when they learned the fact. I’d also love to administer an OCEAN personality test, which would show me what level they had of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. As one of the most substantiated personality tests, it would be fascinating to see the results of both conservatives and liberals.

My takeaway is that conservatives are not necessarily bad people. They are not uneducated, and they are not illogical. They can view

the same facts and figures that Democrats do, and make their own assessment, which is fundamentally different—at a psychological level.

When a Democrat reads the news, they have a certain interpretation of things. For example, they may see “a Black man running in the street was gunned down by racist, conservative men thinking he was escaping a crime.” A Republican will see the same news article, but read it as “Neighborhood watch accidentally shoots Black man seen running from crime scene.” The Republicans are identifying the victim of the crime as the neighborhood watch, not the Black man, and the Democrats are doing the opposite.

Perhaps both are biased. That is not for me to say—whether one is more accurate than the other. But

it does indicate a pattern to me about how Republicans may see themselves in a world full of Democrats.

Most of all, Republicans are afraid. That is why the College Republicans hide their meeting from other people, it is why they recently

got a new Slack account, and it is why they can come across as bigoted. It is why they talk about crime so much in their meetings, and it is why I was so surprised when they were welcoming and kind to me.

I wonder if the College Republicans truly feel less safe around campus, and that’s why they talk about crime so much. I wonder if they feel more logical than Democrats because they are neurologically more methodical than liberal-minded people. Maybe we can’t always get along. Maybe liberals and conservatives actually are wired differently. If you are unsure where you want to identify, I really do recommend you attend one of their meetings, as well as one of the Northeastern University College Democrats’ meetings (shameless plug)!

Conservatives and liberals are not necessarily bad people. I sincerely recommend checking them out (and taking

They can view the same facts and figures that Democrats do, and make their own assessment, which is fundamentally different—at a psychological level. “

THE PROBLEM WITH DAHMER: TRUE CRIME SHOWS AND THE BROKEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Agrowing number of American adults are watching true crime dramas, based on theft, kidnappings, or serial murders, on a regular basis. In recent years there has been a rapid increase in production and consumption of the true crime genre.

Most recently, Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, a true crime drama revolving around notorious cannibal and serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, became Netflix’s second biggest show debut, with 196 million hours of viewership during its opening week.

Dahmer is not alone in its popularity. The Girl from Plainville on Hulu, The Staircase on HBO Max, and Dr. Death on Peacock, are all true murder chronicles released this year that were acclaimed by both audiences and critics.

In the same way drivers morbidly observe car crashes safely from behind their window, Americans may be becoming apathetic towards violence that is displayed on a screen.

The interest in true crime may not be a product of curiosity, but rather an opportunity to disassociate crime from justice issues in the present. Looking at the crash through our car window allows us to separate from a destructive reality, and feel comfortable in a bubble of safety.

In an era where constant visual reports of crimes flood our

social media feeds, violence has become a ubiquitous, unavoidable reality. The influx of violent crime reporting, and feelings of mistrust towards the criminal justice system, have led to an increased interest in true crime series. Instead of allowing viewers to develop empathy for victims and disgust for criminals, these shows sensationalize violence without mobilizing change.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TRUE CRIME GENRE

The sensationalization of violence isn’t new. Crime pamphlets were all the rage in sixteenth century England. These were mostly circulated amongst the upper class, who were out of touch with the masses and the justice system. These pamphlets acted as narrative stories and ballads, filled with emotional, explicit descriptions of violence and witness testimonies. They often ended with a form of divine justice, where good overcomes evil,

and criminals pay for their crimes.

Despite the crime pamphlets’ notorious accounts, audiences began to take particular interest in the criminals. They did not seem to care about the brutality of the crime or the consequences the criminals received, they were interested in their motivations, social life, and emotions, or lack thereof.

Having the time to think from a criminal perspective was a luxury the illiterate lower class could not afford, yet most of the ballads were derived from the struggles of the poor and marginalized. While the masses grieved the loss of a loved one, or walked to their workplace in fear of their life, upper class crime connoisseurs discussed different reports, press, and witness accounts while posing as amateur detectives.

The true crime fascination amongst the elite pulled attention away from the human element of the justice system, and instead created imprecise political discourse around the aptitude of the law enforcement and the effectiveness of trials.

TRUE CRIME CREATES A FALSE SENSE OF SAFETY JUSTICE

There is no harm in watching true crime shows. In fact, some can even be informational, and they can help provide self-defense techniques and increase people’s chances of survival.

The issue with true crime arises when viewers ignore news about crime in their city, state, and country, though will watch hours

The interest in true crime may not be a product of curiosity, but rather an opportunity to disassociate crime from justice issues in the present.

“ “

GYA GUPTA / JOURNALISM AND MEDIA SCREEN STUDIES 2025

of brutal murders and trials on their devices. Unlike local news, viewers feel safer when they watch true crime.

Wow, I’m glad that isn’t me.

People feel a false sense of safety. The victim on their television could very well be them in the future, yet the narrative style makes the situation seem far away.

The truth is, Dahmer is not set in Gotham City or Atlantis; all the events in the series took place in Wisconsin. These murders happened to real people in a real city, on a real street, in someone’s neighborhood.

Wow, the police are so inefficient, why did it take them so long?

When an incident is narrated, it isolates the characters and institutions in a single moment, place, and situation. The police force depicted in one true crime show could very well be the same as the audience’s local station. With this voyeuristic mentality, people forget to associate and critique the institutions they see on screen because they seem distant from them.

True crime like Dahmer may try to highlight the racism and homophobia that is historically rooted within United States law enforcement, but the narrative style of the reenactment creates an emphasis on the crime instead of the justice. Until true crime shows foreground justice over violence, and

help viewers acknowledge the continuation of police violence within their own communities, these shows will not have an impact on a justice system that remains negligent towards vulnerable communities.

NARRATIVE TRUE CRIME IS HARMFUL

Just as it began, the true crime genre remains a form of entertainment for the upper class, an inefficient critique of the justice system, and a narrative style that exploits marginalized communities. The viewers are not the issue. In a world of streaming platforms and digital media, audiences will consume new content every

as clickbait.

In exchange for monetary gain, true crime creators have bred national apathy towards violent crime, to a point where eBay had to ban the sale of serial killer Halloween costumes. Aviator glasses and blonde wigs, which were dubbed Jeffrey Dahmer Halloween costumes, violated eBay’s policy, which condemned the promotion or glorification of violent acts. The fact that a multinational e-commerce giant had to stop Americans from dressing their children as cannibalistic serial killers speaks to the extent of damage true crime shows have made.

The Halloween costumes are just a single product in a line of exploitative Dahmer side effects. Most recently, a Texas pizzeria’s “Jeffrey Dahmer Special,” a pizza covered in fake blood, edible eyeballs, and ramen noodles, has received backlash for its insensitivity.

hour, and forget about it just as quickly. The creators, who wrote, shot, and released the show without the victims’ consent, are using America’s broken criminal justice system as a plot device, and the LGBTQ community

Audiences keep creators accountable. The complaints, criticisms, and backlash are hopeful signs for a brighter, less violent future. When victims voice their opinions on social media, or when viewers turn their attention to political subplots, they help reform the genre. Once true crime becomes less insensitive and more insightful, it can help eliminate apathy and mobilize change that finally benefits the communities that the genre exploits.

“ “

NU PR

SPONSORED BY THE STUDENT ACTIVITY FEE