NUPR Fall 2015 by Northeastern University Political Review

POLITICAL NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA Hannah Lifshutz and Aren LeBrun

MENSTRUATION AND EDUCATION Olivia Arnold BERNIE SANDERS: THE INVISIBLE MAN WHO WONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;T DISAPPEAR Aren LeBrun

MIZZOU AN INVISIBLE PROTESTS IMPORTANT MAN WHO Aren LeBrun AND THE STEP WON’T ATLANTIC FORWARD DISAPPEAR William Welsh 8 Aren LeBrun 10 5 Prasanna Rajasekaran 7

THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS Hannah Lifshutz

featured essays

RIGHT TO LIFE Hannah Lifshutz

SYRIAN HOW 12 REFUGEE PERIODS CRISIS AFFECT PAY ITDavidBACK Olivia Arnold 16 McDevitt 14 GIRLS’ EDUCATION THE GRAND IN THE OLD PARTY V. SUPREME DEVELOPING WORLD COURT Olivia Arnold 20 Ryan Paolicelli 18

table of

CONTENTS

VOLUME 7, ISSUE 1

IMAGES: via Flickr, WikiCommons

featured columns

WHITEWASHED FEMINISM Eesha Ramanujam

THE RISE OF WAR OF THE ISLAMOPHOBIA WORDS Justin Cook 26 IN EUROPE Lily Moseley 24 22 3

meet the

TEAM

EXECUTIVE board

Neiha Lasharie President Jaclyn Roache Editor-in-Chief Jennifer Heintz Vice President of PR Megan Walsh Design and Layout Editor Harry Quinn Treasurer Anna Bagley Secretary

EDITORIAL board

Emilio Cariati Magazine Editor Wendy Chu Magazine Editor Rachel Dec Magazine Editor Brittany McWilliams Blog Editor Hannah Lifshutz Column Editor Prasanna Rajasekaran Column Editor

MISSION statement

The Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a nonpartisan platform for students to publish essays and articles of the highest possible caliber on contemporary domestic and international politics, as well as critical reviews of political books, film, and events. The Political Review aspires to foster a culture of intelligent political discourse among interested individuals while promoting awareness of political issues in the campus community. The organization envisions itself as a place where students with a common interest in politics and world affairs may come together to discuss and develop their views and refine their opinions. The Political Review hopes 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 webiste: www.nupoliticalreview.com for more articles and the Be Heard blog. Want to be heard? Reach out to NUPR for more information at: nupoliticalreview@gmail.com

FROM THE

EDITOR AND

PRESIDENT Dear Reader,

You have picked up this issue of the Political Review in a time of great uncertainty. Over the past months we have watched a refugee crisis transpire at Europe’s doorstep, witnessed unprecedented terrorist attacks in global capitals, and heard scare tactics and fear mongering employed in political rhetoric all around the world. Even within the microcosm of Northeastern, a crucial debate has emerged between and among student groups, contextualized against the broader academic landscape of the United States. In this time of flux, we are proud to serve as a platform for students to engage in intelligent discussions of these pressing issues. This semester’s featured columnists have explored some pivotal topics ranging from identity politics in Europe, to intersectionality in social justice, to the politics of American pop culture. With the 2016 election approaching, this is a vital time for NUPR. It is easy to become disenfranchised of the elections under the deluge of debates, rallies, and scandals, and yet we must remain seized of the matter. As a collegiate publication we have the ability to present narratives from a demographic that will likely be voting for the first time. We have a great stake in what happens next November, and it has never been more important to encourage dialogue between peers. We hope you enjoy reading this edition as much as we loved curating it. We’re excited to see how our publication evolves and, as ever, welcome your engagement in the future! All the best,

Neiha Lasharie, President

Jaclyn Roache, Editor-in-Chief

featured essays

THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS Hannah Lifshutz, International Affairs and Political Science 2017 Aren LeBrun, Journalism and Media/Screen Studies 2017

ince the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11, the federal government has expended incredible amounts of time, energy and capital on the image of American protection from foreign terrorism. The nation watched on live television as the Twin Towers caught fire and fell to the ground in New York City, and the Bush administration wasted no time in conditioning a chauvinistic fear of the “other” in the national psyche.[1] Regardless of the validity of the narrative we were sold, there is no doubt that those lost lives will carry on in the fabric of the nation’s heart and soul forever. The American government used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretext to enter two wars in the course of three years. Our elected officials insisted that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were imperative to ensure our safety. The federal government was going to protect the American people from attacks on their own soil, no matter what the cost. Let’s talk about American soil. On October 1st, Chris Harper-Mercer, 26, walked into a classroom building at Umpqua Community College in Oregon and killed nine students, leaving many others seriously injured.[2] It was

GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA

the 994th mass shooting in the U.S. in three years.[3] After years of government-sanctioned abstract fears of foreign terrorism, it is time to redirect our conversation regarding who the clear and present enemy is to American safety– well-armed homegrown killers. The official death total on 9/11, the all-time deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, was 2,996 people.[4] However, another number that stands out even more when talking about modern national safety emergencies is 11,208 – the amount of gun-related homicides in 2013 alone.[5] That is over three and a half times the amount of Americans killed in the World Trade Center attacks fourteen years ago. After 9/11, the government took us to war – twice. And those wars cost American taxpayers approximately four trillion dollars.[6] However, after years of sky-high rates of gun homicides, the American government still refuses to use its nearly unlimited resources to take a real stand against the unregulated gun market in this country. This market has proven to be a far more effective killer of Americans than the Taliban ever has. All the while, our leaders sit idly by and allow the NRA to control the

national discourse on gun control legislation, while innocent men, women, and children are murdered daily without a sign of relent.[7] When we scroll through online images and news articles depicting the atrocities associated with the major shootings of the past decade and a half – Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, et al. – we somehow fail to acknowledge the violent reality of unregulated access to weapons. The process is heartcrushingly cyclical. The “incident,” we’ll call it, consumes social media for two or three weeks, maximum. We mourn. We do our part. We send our “Thoughts and Prayers to the Victims” [sic]. We effectively let ourselves off the hook until the problem returns to its rightful place under the amnesiac carpet, where it will stay for two weeks until a new batch of college students, or movie theater patrons, or church goers, or 20 or so second and third graders are once again led to the slaughterhouse by our collective inaction. This cycle has repeated itself now 994 times in three years. That is almost one thousand opportunities to fight for justice, to advocate for victims and their families, and to prevent these heinous, inexcusable tragedies from

occurring week after week. The problem here is not too much gun control, as many so often like to tell us. The fact of the matter is, gun control empirically just works. Between 1994 and 2014, the Brady Bill blocked more than 2.1 million gun purchases, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That is 343 purchases blocked every day. Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and domestic abusers made up nearly 70% of firearm purchase applications denied from 1994 to 2010, according to the most recent data available.[8] Regardless of the irrefutable facts and data from all over our country and planet that indicate gun control is an effective curb to gun violence, that argument is almost overlooking the real point of all of this, the real division that is most disturbing of all. When did compassion for others stop carrying any weight in this country? When did the innocent individuals whose lives were cut short become statistics dehumanized by gridlocked political warfare? President Obama addressed the nation on the eve of the Umpqua shooting. He used the podium to invoke that mass shootings should not – no, cannot – exist in the self-proclaimed Greatest Country on Earth. “Our thoughts and prayers are not enough,” he said. “They’re not enough.”[9] And he’s right, they are not. We should feel angry that members of our legislature are so hypocritically fixated on “protecting” unborn fetuses while ignoring the recent death of nine living, breathing Americans. When the issue is finally addressed, it will be met with partisanship and subsequent stagnation that fails to advocate for those who are no longer able to speak for themselves. However, it must be addressed, and it will be addressed, and here is why. First of all, no Constitutional Amendment is exempt from legal regulation. The freedom of speech granted by the 1st Amendment does not grant you the right to yell “Fire!” in a public movie theater. The 21st Amendment, which ended alcohol prohibitions, does not grant someone the right to drive drunk or sell alcohol to minors. Obtaining a liquor license is an arduous process for reasons of public safety. Providing federal regulations on the 2nd Amendment does not mean that responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to purchase a weapon to hunt or to have as protection. There is tremendous propaganda circulating around the idea that gun control means that the centralized government is going

to overreach and snatch up everyone’s weapons. There is no other word for this besides false. The only purpose of limiting ubiquitous gun access by strengthening laws like the Brady Bill is to prevent mass death from feeling like something we can toss our “T & P” at and be on with our respective days.

We effectively let ourselves off the hook until the problem returns to its rightful place under the amnesiac carpet, where it will stay for two weeks until a new batch of college students, or movie theater patrons, or church goers, or 20 or so second and third graders are once again led to the slaughterhouse by our collective inaction. Nobody is denying that many of these violent incidences have a strong mental health correlation. However, it is the willful negligence of our elected officials that has allowed this concern to go almost completely untouched. The fact that the GOP is using mental health as a distraction from talking about gun control legislation and simultaneously arguing against background checks is astonishing.[10] The last time a universal background check bill reached the Senate floor was in 2013, following the Sandy Hook massacre, and the bill failed to garner the necessary bipartisan support.

There were 46 votes to reject the proposed amendment, and 41 of them were preceded by the letter R.[11] Limiting access to firearms for individuals that have certain mental illnesses or violent tendencies is for the purpose of safety, not to limit Constitutional rights. James Holmes, the shooter in the 2012 Aurora movie theatre killings, was seeing a psychiatrist for serious mental illness when he purchased the gun he later used to murder 12 people. Jared Loughner, the shooter who killed 6 people in Tucson, AZ in 2009 was forced to drop out of community college one year prior to the incident after his teachers expressed concerns that he posed a threat to the community. John Houser, the gunman who opened fire in a movie theater in Lafayette, LA had been ordered by a judge to be admitted into a psychiatric hospital six years prior.[12] Elliot Rodger, the Santa Monica killer, was in psychiatric therapy, medicated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, but despite this he was able to legally purchase the weapon he later used to kill six people.[13] However, this evident correlation isn’t news to our elected officials; this relationship has been long understood. Mass shootings won’t feel so commonplace if universal background checks, medical records and psychiatric assessments are required to legally purchase a firearm, otherwise the heart of the issue is being overlooked. Following the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11, party lines briefly disappeared. Citizens mourned together, bills were passed in a matter of hours, and nobody valued partisan gridlock over national allegiance. Two common goals were seemingly intact: advocate for those who were killed, and prevent further atrocities from occurring in the future. How is it that the American government was so willing to go to war for the nation’s safety then, yet so reluctant now to use its immense power to help legislate domestic safety? It is once again time for that same unity, that same proactivity, and that same decisive inclination so present in 2001. It is our responsibility to speak up for the nine voices at Umpqua Community College that were silenced before their time, and for the thousands of shooting victims who preceded them. It is time to come together, and it is time to demand action, and it is time to stop settling for our Thoughts and Prayers.

SOURCES: [1] The White House. Address To A Joint Session Of Congress And The American People. [2] Vanderhart, Dirk, Kirk Johnson, and Julie Turkewitz. ‘Oregon Shooting At Umpqua College Kills 10, Sheriff Says’. [3] Woolf, Nicky. ‘Oregon College Shooting Is 994Th Mass Gun Attack In US In Three Years’. [4] CNN. ‘September 11th Fast Facts - CNN.Com’. [5] Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Assault Or Homicide. [6] Bilmes, Linda. The Financial Legacy Of Iraq And Afghanistan: How Wartime Spending Decisions Will Constrain Future National Security Budgets. [7] Cillizza, Chris. ‘The NRA’S Influence — In 6 Charts’. [8] Brady Campaign. Brady Campaign Releases A Report Analyzing 20 Years Of Effective Background Checks. [9] Obama, Barack. Statement By The President On The Shootings At Umpqua Community College. [10] McAuliff, Michael. ‘Gun Bill Background Check Amendment Fails, Other Key Provisions Follow’. [11] United States Senate. Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013. [12] Larry, Buchanan, Josh Keller, Richard Oppel, and Daniel Victor. ‘How They Got Their Guns’. [13] Yan, Holly, Steve Almasy, and Sara Sidner. ‘California Shooter Elliot Rodger Thought Plan Was Over In April’. IMAGES: M&R Glasgow on Flickr.

featured essays

MIZZOU PROTESTS AND THE MISGUIDED REACTIONARIES OF THE ATLANTIC

Prasanna Rajasekaran, Economics 2018

ver the last four months, The Atlantic magazine has published a slew of articles lambasting college students for their political oversensitivity. Caitlin Flanagan states, “today’s college kids can’t seem to take a joke.”[1] Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt claim trigger warnings and protests against microaggressions exacerbate mental health problems.[2] Conor Friedersdorf questions the vitriol of Yale students in their charge to remove a professor who sent a controversial email.[3] Friedersdorf, in a more recent article, took aim at the protesters at the University of Missouri.[4] On November 9th, the President was forced to resign for failing to address racism on campus. A few hours later, an Asian American student-journalist was forcefully blocked from taking pictures of the tents set up by protesters. Friedersdorf writes, “In the video of Tim Tai trying to carry out his ESPN assignment, I see the most vivid example yet of activists twisting the concept of ‘safe space.’ They have one lone student surrounded. They’re forcibly preventing him from exercising a civil right. At various points, they intimidate him. Ultimately, they physically push him. But all the while, they are operating on the premise, or carrying on the pretense, that he is making them unsafe. It is as if they’ve weaponized the concept of ‘safe spaces.’” Friedersdorf, along with his colleagues at The Atlantic, suggest that we — the collective university student — have gone too far. They claim we are too sensitive to microaggressions, too abrasive in our protests. In colleges throughout the country, what was once a well-meaning movement to police offensiveness on campus, to stand up for the marginalized, has, in their eyes, devolved into a monstrous attack on free speech and open dialogue. We’ve abused the idea of “safe space” to create our own hierarchy of power, in which we silence the voices of others. Many would be inclined to agree with

these views, and it’s not difficult to see why. Friedersdorf is standing up for free speech, for the innocent reporter who is just trying to do his job, for the newly disempowered. That is the narrative he has created, that on college campuses, the world is flipped on its head. That if you disagree with the Social Justice Warriors of your leftleaning university, you will be marginalized, threatened, spat on. According to him, this is the overarching trend in today’s (coddled) American university. But for a minority taking classes at a university, living in the confines of a college campus, that idea is absurd. This is because Friedersdorf, and the rest of the aforementioned Atlantic writers, fail to understand why racial protests occur. They are not, despite what one might think, a response to specific incidents. At Mizzou, black students were called the n-word in various circumstances, and the media has often portrayed this as the reason for protests.[5] But this is just the spark. The fuel is more subtle. The fuel is this statistic: 77% of Mizzou students are white. 7% are black. As a minority, you grow up in the reality of these statistics, the reality of living in a country where you’re well outside the cultural and racial norm. But it is your reality. You don’t question it because it’s all you know. College — for a moment — takes the fish out of water. It places you in an intellectual setting where you begin to understand the historic realities that have shaped your life in unspeakable ways. This act of enlightenment, of “being woke,” is a common experience for minorities during college. So it’s not just that black students feel pain over their oppression, it’s that they are just beginning to understand the realities of their situation, the inescapability of it. And when they’re called the n-word on their own campus, in their home, these abstract feelings become concrete horrors. Their reactions, if at times brusque, are a response to an intolerable environment.

That is the broader context that Friedersdorf ignores. He’s right that some people are barred from entering protest zones, yelled over when trying to argue their viewpoints. But that’s the whole point. The Mizzou protesters have, for once, created a space on campus in which they have power, in which they are the authority, in which they can tell their own narrative. To protect that space is their prerogative. For Friedersdorf to call that protection a “weaponization,” as if it is used to subjugate other people, ignores the fact that every other space on campus is unsafe for black students. And that is not an overstatement. On November 11th, a Mizzou student was arrested for threatening to attack protesters.[6] Mizzou is ablaze with rumors of attacks and acts of intimidation, even chants of “white power.”[7] [8] Many black students feel threatened for their physical safety.[9] Aside from that, Friedersdorf’s indignation over the protesters’ aggressiveness is misplaced. Yes, the student journalist who was pushed was treated wrongly. But he was simply stopped from taking a picture. For him to be turned into a symbol of free speech and bravery, while the students who opposed him are literally driven off campus in fear of their lives, is representative of how skewed Friedersdorf’s perspective is. The reactionary Atlantic writers tell us our protests need to be quieter, less abrasive, more accepting. “Compromise” and “discussion” are thrown down like boons to minorities, as if we should be grateful that white people simply listen to us. I cannot speculate as to why The Atlantic has been so up-in-arms about student politics, why they think it necessary to publish so many features on issues confined to the relatively isolated environments of college campuses. But perhaps it’s because for the first time in recent history, privileged, white voices are being drowned out by the shouts of those who have never been heard. And perhaps that frightens them.

SOURCES: [1] Flanagan, Caitlin. “That’s Not Funny!” [2] Haidt, Greg. “The Coddling of the American Mind.” [3] Friedersdorf, Conor. “The New Intolerance of Student Activism.” [4] Friedersdorf, Conor. “Campus Activists Weaponize ‘Safe Space’.” [5] Vandelinder, Emma. “Racial Climate at MU: A Timeline of Incidents This Fall.” [6] Alcindor, Yamiche, and Doug Stanglin. “2 Suspects Arrested in Social Media Threats at Missouri Campuses.” [7] Cauthen, Christine. “Blavity.” [8] “Two Suspects Arrested for Racist Social Media Death Threats.” CBS St Louis. [9] Stewart, Mariah, and Tyler Kingkade. “Mizzou Students Say Turmoil Following Protests Shows Culture Change Still Needed.” IMAGES: John Herrick for The Maneater.

AN IMPORTANT STEP

FORWARD

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED SENTENCING REFORM AND CORRECTIONS ACT

William Welsh, Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 2019

n the politically polarized city that is present day Washington, D.C., compromises are hard to come by. The need for criminal justice reform, however, is something that maintains near universal acceptance. From John Oliver to Ted Cruz, people throughout the country have spoken publicly of the need to mend the broken criminal justice system. While a multitude of ideas have been proposed and debated, one commonality among calls for reform is the need to reduce existing mandatory minimum sentences. Introduced in the 1980s and 1990s era of the“toughon-crime” mentality, mandatory minimum sentencing results in the (often unwarranted) extended incarceration of individuals, leading to prison overcrowding, in addition to affecting racial minorities especially harshly. In response to this need for reform, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee wrote and passed the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, a bill which solves some of the justice system’s problems. However, to understand its potential benefits and shortcomings, the issue must be better understood in the context of criminal justice legislation and the current state of the justice system. While the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act is well intended and accomplishes many reforms, the bill is merely a stepping stone to broader reform. In the 1980s and 1990s, the nation was locked into the War on Drugs. Declared by President Nixon and furthered by President

Reagan, a new wave of “tough-on-crime” legislation was written and passed with bipartisan approval. The Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 declared the policy goals of eliminating drug abuse and established harsh mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for many drug-related offenses.[1][2] A few years later, the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act, though mainly geared toward preventing violent crime, established more mandatory minimum-eligible crimes and expanded the three strikes rule to a broader array of offenses. [3] The impact the new sentencing guidelines created was immense; more and more people began serving longer and longer sentences. As a result of these laws, the number of prisoners at the federal level grew from 35,555 in 1985 to 205,020 in 2014, over 5.5 times as many inmates.[4][5] The contrast is even more stark with drug offenders; the population ballooned from 9,491 in 1985 to 93,262 in 2015, a factor of nearly ten. Due to the minimum sentencing guidelines established by these two bills, 48% of federal inmates are in prison for drug offenses.[6] While some are appropriate, many have been handed a punishment far harsher and lengthier than their crime would otherwise warrant. Directly because of tough-on-crime legislation, federal prison overcrowding has become an issue. In 2013, a Federal Bureau of Prisons report estimated that the system was housing inmates at 36% overcapacity.

This overcrowding jeopardizes the safety of correctional institutions both for inmates and correctional officers. Additionally, the large incarcerated population places a heavy burden on taxpayers. In the fiscal year 2014, the Bureau of Prisons estimated the cost of incarcerating a person at $30,619.85 every year, or $83.89 per day.[8] At the federal level, this results in an annual expense to taxpayers of over $8.5 billion to maintain our current detention programs.[9] A more troubling result, however, is the racial disparity in the prison population that these laws have created. The overwhelming majority of prisoners are either Hispanic or African American, accounting for 34% and 37.7% of the current prison population, respectively.[10] The inception of mandatory minimum sentencing greatly increased the magnitude of these issues. While imposed to crack down on crime and serve as a deterrent to potential criminals, studies have shown that the degree of the sentence bears little impact on its ability to serve as a deterrent. Rather, certainty of punishment has the most impact.[11] In addition to incarcerating people for longer lengths of time, mandatory minimums may actually increase recidivism and impede reentry into society due to the length of the sentence. Mandatory minimums also play a role in the racial disparities that exist within the prison population. In the sentencing process, 54% of Caucasians are sentenced at or above the [7]

featured essays minimum, while this is true of 67.7% of African Americans and 57.1% of Hispanics. For some reason, Caucasians are unduly more likely to be sentenced below applicable minimum sentences than other races. This inequity exists in the sentencing of career offenders as well, as African Americans make up about 49% of people incarcerated under the three strikes law in California. However, the most egregious problem with mandatory minimums exists solely in the difference between crack and powdered cocaine. Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the federal government set a 100:1 crack cocaine to powdered cocaine ratio for tiered sentences.[12] This ratio meant that for people who possessed crack cocaine, the minimum sentence of 5 years applied at only 5 grams, whereas people who possessed the drug in its powdered form could have up to 500 grams before the minimum applied. While the drugs are chemically the same, the users of each vary widely. Crack cocaine is often more prevalent in lower-income areas or major cities, while powdered cocaine is found more often in middle- to higher-income areas.[13] This is reflected in the racial makeup of those charged with possession of the drugs. In 2009, 79% of people sentenced for possession of crack cocaine were African American, while only 20% were Caucasian or Hispanic. However, Caucasian and Hispanic people made up a total of 70% of those sentenced for powdered cocaine, while only 28% were African American. [14] As a result, though the two drugs are pharmacologically the same, African Americans overall were penalized at a much higher rate for a very similar offense. In an attempt to remedy this inequity, in 2010 Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, increasing the quantity of crack cocaine that triggers the minimum sentence from five grams to twenty-eight grams. Effectively, this changed the sentencing ratio from 100:1 to 18:1, reducing the penalty many people would face.[15] While an admirable first step, the Fair Sentencing Act contains two main flaws. Despite reducing the ratio by a factor of over five, the principle inequity remains, as people are given harsher sentences mainly depending upon their socioeconomic class, the best determinant of the form of the drug consumed. The 18:1 ratio is therefore outdated, and only present as a compromise so that politicians can still present themselves as “tough on crime.” Second, while the legislation reduced the likelihood of unfair sentencing in the future, the Fair Sentencing Act is not retroactive. Therefore, while the Federal Sentencing Commission was able to amend the sentences of some, an estimated 5,800 crack cocaine offenders

remain imprisoned under sentencing guidelines that are no longer law.[16] To solve the inherent unfairness of the Fair Sentencing Act, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 applies the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively, allowing some reprieve for inmates convicted of crack cocaine possession. Additionally, the law curbs the sentences required by the Career Offender provision of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. [17] Proposed changes include reducing the mandatory life sentence for a third drug offense to a minimum of 25 years imprisonment, and

From John Oliver to Ted Cruz, people throughout the country have spoken publicly of the need to mend the broken criminal justice system. While a multitude of ideas have been proposed and debated, one commonality among calls for reform is the need to reduce existing mandatory minimum sentences. reducing the minimum penalty for the second offense from 20 years to 15. The proposed bill also provides a safety valve, allowing judicial discretion in some cases to prevent the overapplication of minimum sentencing. Under the proposed guidelines, judges would be allowed the ability to hand down belowminimum sentences to those convicted, provided that their crimes were of a less serious or violent nature. In many ways, this piece of proposed legislation represents a great leap forward in combating the injustices of the current system. The bill takes into account many

proposals offered by the Federal Sentencing Commission, which lauded several provisions of the bill. Specifically, the commission praised the expanded safety valve provisions of the bill for adding judicial discretion, allowing the judiciary to counter the racial disparities created by mandatory minimums. The report states that up to 3,314 offenders could benefit from the new provisions, providing savings to the taxpayer in the form of approximately 1,593 fewer inmates.[18] In addition to the reforms provided by the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, a number of other proposals have been made to help further reduce both overcrowding and the racial disparity within prisons. While eliminating or reforming mandatory minimum sentencing to a greater extent would have a positive impact, ideas such as increasing access to both mental healthcare and alternative sentencing options such as drug courts both hold merit. Lack of adequate mental healthcare is a known problem in the United States, and studies have shown that race plays a role in ability to receive treatment. Specifically, Hispanics and African Americans are far less likely to access adequate care than their Caucasian counterparts, regardless of class or insurance coverage.[19] Increased access to alternative sentencing, such as drug courts, has also been shown to play a role in reducing crime and incarceration. A White House report stated that drug courts reduce crime in communities by 8-26%, while saving the taxpayer $2 in incarceration costs for every dollar invested. [20] However, while these are promising statistics, drug courts are underutilized, as 53% of United States counties are lacking this alternative to lengthy prison sentences. Additionally, even in counties with drug court access, minorities are still underrepresented as a portion of the participants 56% of the time. [21] Improving access to both mental healthcare and alternative sentencing would reduce both the enormous incarcerated population and the racial disparities within it, and would be logical next steps in combating these issues. The proposed Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 is a bill that would doubtlessly improve a situation where reform is needed. To remedy the injustices of the current criminal justice system, a balanced approach is necessary. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 is a step toward this goal, through its changes to mandatory minimum sentencing and increased judicial discretion. However, this bill alone will not solve the nation’s criminal justice problems; rather, this bill should serve as a stepping stone to broader reforms in the future.

SOURCES: [1] “Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (1986 - H.R. 5484).” GovTrack.us. [2] See 2. [3] “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (1994 - H.R. 3355).” [4] “Trends in Corrections Fact Sheet.” Sentencingproject.org. [5] “BOP: Population Statistics.” [6] See 5. [7] James, Nathan. The federal prison population buildup: Overview, policy changes, issues, and options. [8] “Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration.” [9] “FY 2015 Budget Request.” Justice.gov. [10] “BOP Statistics: Inmate Race.” [11] Mauer, Marc. “Impact of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in Federal Sentencing, The.” [12] “THE CRACK SENTENCING DISPARITY AND THE ROAD TO 1:1.” United States Sentencing Commission. [13] Palamar, Joseph J., Shelby Davies, Danielle C. Ompad, Charles M. Cleland, and Michael Weitzman. “Powder cocaine and crack use in the United States: An examination of risk for arrest and socioeconomic disparities in use.” [14] Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Data Show Racial Disparity in Crack Sentencing.” [15] “Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (2010 - S. 1789).” GovTrack.us. [16] “FAMM - » Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (S. 2123).” [17] “THE SENTENCING REFORM AND CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2015.” United States Senate Judiciary Committee. [18] “Statement of Judge Patti B. Saris Chair, United States Sentencing Commission.” United States Sentencing Commission. [19] Alegria, Margarita, Glorisa Canino, Ruth Ríos, Mildred Vera, José Calderón, Dana Rusch, and Alexander N. Ortega. “Mental health care for Latinos: Inequalities in use of specialty mental health services among Latinos, African Americans, and non-Latino Whites.” [20] “Drug Courts Fact Sheet.” The White House. [21] Huddleston III, C. West, and Douglas B. Marlowe. “A NATIONAL REPORT CARD ON DRUG COURTS AND OTHER PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES.” IMAGES: Fake War on Drugs by D. R. Conrad on Flickr.

THE

INVISIBLE MAN WHO WON’T DISAPPEAR

Aren LeBrun, Journalism and Media/Screen Studies 2017

t this point in Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, it is no longer a secret to anyone paying attention that the Vermont senator is an immensely popular figure in American politics. On October 3, at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, Sanders attracted a max-capacity crowd of over 20,000 people.[1] It was his third most popular rally of the year, and the single largest Massachusetts primaries event since 1968.[2] Not a bad turnout, considering that I counted a grand total of one television news van in the building’s reserved parking area. The speculation about his legitimacy is over. Voters across the country are rallying around Bernie’s campaign platforms. He advocates primarily for removing big money from politics, establishing a living wage, doing something about outrageous income inequality, protecting women’s healthcare rights, regulating the military industrial complex, and reforming Wall Street. Seventy-eight percent of Bernie voters expressed “enthusiastic support” for his campaign, compared to a mere 39 percent for Clinton.[3] Most impressive of all is that this excitement and campaign success has continued in spite of one of the more disturbingly calculated corporate media manipulations in a very long time. Though Sanders has been featured on a few magazine covers (Time, Rolling Stone) and interviewed on The Late Show, both in September, the mainstream

media’s presidential coverage is still wildly disproportionate in favor of Clinton, Trump, Carson, et al. To the casual news consumer who receives his or her information primarily through television and/or major newspapers, Bernie Sanders remains pretty much an invisible man. On Tuesday, October 13, Bernie Sanders competed in the national spotlight against his fellow candidates during the first Democratic debate, hosted by CNN. Immediately following the debate’s conclusion, mainstream media outlets all but cried out that Clinton was the event’s resounding victor. Terms such as “debate magic” and “runaway victory” were used by The New York Times and Politico, respectively, to describe her performance.[4][5] I suppose a valid question is, what defines a “runaway victory” in a presidential debate? After some research, it seems that according to all quantifiable data (aside from total screen time, which went to Clinton by a slight margin) Bernie Sanders put the superior performance. He won the CNN focus group. He won the Fusion focus group. He won the Slate online poll, the CNN/Time online poll, the 9News Colorado, the The Street online poll, and the admittedly liberal Daily Kos online poll. Bernie even won conservative polls, such as the Fox News focus group, the Fox 5 online poll, and the Drudge online poll. There was not a focus group in which Bernie did not win by at least an 18-point gap.[6] Now, maybe I need to refresh my definition

of the term “runaway.” Perhaps, though, there is something going on beneath the surface here. For fun, let’s say that for a moment we will entertain the latter of those two possibilities. Bernie has publicly denounced super-PACs, the organizations that pour immense amounts of corporate money into political campaigns in exchange for legislative favoritism down the road. This is not to say that Sanders does not receive funding, however. In the third quarter of this year alone, his campaign has raised around $25 million. The most impressive stat regarding his fundraising: the average donation is just under $25 per person.[7] The difference between Sanders and Clinton is that his campaign receives its money entirely from private funding, whereas hers does not. When considering this, it becomes almost compellingly obvious why major television news networks have been quiet and/or misleading about Sanders. It is a very simple case of not biting the hand that feeds. Let’s take CNN for example, since it is the network that televised the debate. CNN is owned by Time Warner, who has donated over $500,000 to Clinton over the course of her political career. You can imagine that Time Warner (and by extension, CNN) is less-than-jazzed about a legitimate presidential candidate publicly announcing where exactly they can shove all their lobbying dollars.[8] This is not just speculation regarding where CNN’s interests lie. Following the debate, the network posted an online survey to its politics section titled “Who Won The Debate?” Bernie

featured essays garnered 81 percent of the public vote. Since that did not fit in with CNN’s anti-Sanders narrative, they replace it with an article titled: “Clinton Triumphs in Democrat Debate as Rivals Compete to Lose.” Both have since been removed from CNN’s website after a firestorm of backlash on social media.[9] Perhaps more surprising than the silencing efforts of CNN and other TV networks and newspapers are those of National Public Radio, the non-profit media syndicate organization. In early September, Mara Liasson, a national political correspondent, closed her segment on Joe Biden’s potential candidacy without even mentioning Bernie Sanders as a possible opponent. Below is a direct quote from her segment. “There are many Democrats who think [a Joe Biden candidacy] would be good for Hillary Clinton because she’d have a serious opponent. Right now, she’s basically running against herself and her problems.”[10] It did not take all that much journalistic digging to discover that NPR, which embraces an image of fairness and accuracy in comparison to the more titanic broadcast companies mentioned above, receives over a million dollars in funding from General Motors, Progressive, State Farm, Prudential Financial, and Northwestern Mutual, each.[11] This is where the blackout becomes dangerous. Major television networks have a certain public persona of bias that viewers carry with them in the back of their minds. However, this is not so with NPR. A 2005 Harris poll affirms a general public trust in the organization. In terms of Sanders’ competitive legitimacy, the disrespect from NPR bites with much sharper teeth.[12] An official apology was released September 5, stating, “a mention of the challenge posed by the Sanders campaign would have been appropriate.”[13] Would have been appropriate. End quote. Et tu, NPR? The mainstream media’s attempts to misrepresent Bernie Sanders were extraordinarily clear during the post-debate coverage, but this is only the latest event in an ongoing effort. These attempts are probably most obvious in the New York Times’ presidential coverage, which purports a proClinton-and-her-sponsors-no-matter-what agenda. You can check this out for yourself. A majority of New York Times’ articles use heavily calculated language that attempts to dismiss Sanders as a nobody, a radical outsider, a fringe candidate with the political odds of a snowball in someplace warm. “Mr. Sanders’s grumpy demeanor, his outsider status and his suspicion of all things ‘feel good,’ are part of the attraction,” per Times writer Jason Horowitz on August 20.[14] “He has always had a sweepingly macro, if

not entirely Marxist, critique of America.” In “Bernie Sanders Has Small Lead in Iowa in Latest Poll,” the Times discredits the 10-point lead he held over Clinton in October by calling it “narrow” and by citing her distraction by the email scandal as the primary reason for Sanders’ success.[15] The language in “Hillary Clinton’s Support Erodes in National Poll” is even more confusing to the casual reader: “Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders are not stirring excitement among the Democratic faithful either…30 percent said they would be dissatisfied should Mr. Sanders become the Democratic standard bearer.”[16] The active campaign by American corporate media to ignore, discredit, and misrepresent Bernie Sanders certainly began as a tough hill for him to overcome. In an odd way, though,

Bernie Sanders has seemed to overcome the media’s blatant agenda setting, laughing in the face of the conspiratorial marriage between political campaigns and corporate media sponsorship, and all the while his support continues to surge. as excitement and support for his campaign grow, the blackout is causing supporters to rally around him even more. What was once a dilemma, or at least something to subvert, has taken on a wholly different feel. The very fact that the media takes Sanders seriously enough to try and snub him out has become a sort of badge of honor. The antiquated agenda-setting strategies that were so effective during major media’s heyday are beginning to lose their grip, it seems. Social media is taking off with passionate support, particularly on Facebook and Twitter, with people demanding an end to the #BernieBlackout. User-generated media services are not a blip on the tech-timeline, either. They are legitimate, they are here to stay, and Bernie Sanders is riding the wave. A part of what is so inspiring to voters

about Sanders is that his campaign is built on honesty, word of mouth, and a clear-cut message. It is also revealing a paradigm shift in terms of American campaign strategy. The official Bernie Sanders Facebook page recently cracked 1.9 million likes, which is the most of any Democratic candidate, and this is all despite the blackout. If there has ever been an indicator of social media’s political significance in the twilight years of mainstream media, or of the broadcast news’ antiquated attempts to set the national agenda, it is Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. The skeptics are vocal, of course. Lest we forget that Sanders is, after all, yet another shrewd politician, armed with ulterior motives, at least per the frequent warnings of jaded roommates and meme-at-the-ready Facebook pals and intensely Republican great uncles – a surefire Thanksgiving staple, these – or whoever else. Though disillusionment in American politics is understandable, it is important to note that Sanders is not thriving due to any sort of oratorical doublespeak or hidden agenda. The reason that his campaign is on fire, the reason that he attracts crowds into the tens of thousands all across the country, is because he is practicing what he preaches – all without promoting hate speech and xenophobia like a certain unnamed GOP hopeful to our collective and immediate Right. The fact of the matter is that Bernie Sanders has seemed to overcome the media’s blatant agenda setting, laughing in the face of the conspiratorial marriage between political campaigns and corporate media sponsorship, and all the while his support continues to surge. This speaks volumes to the pressure and frustration that working-class voters are experiencing. America has reached a point in its history where corporate profits for its 15 richest citizens have never been higher, yet the nation’s education and infrastructure are rapidly falling by the wayside.[17] CEOs are earning over 300 times the average employee’s salary. Meanwhile, politicians and propagandists alike are demonizing people who are struggling because they are demanding a fare wage. Bernie Sanders is calling out the billionaire takeover of our democracy, and his campaign is empowering voters across many ages and backgrounds to get active and become involved. There is no arrogant hate speech. There is no hypocrisy. There is no self-aggrandizing or chauvinism. He is simply sending the long awaited message that if you are feeling frustrated, and tired, and taken advantage of, you are not the only one. Bernie Sanders is here to tell the people – those who find themselves wondering how the Greatest Country on Earth arrived here, at this place – that things can be better, and that they are not alone.

SOURCES: [1] Pindell, James. ‘Sanders Draws Big Crowds In Mass. Campaign Swing’. [2] Ibid. [3] Cbsnews.com,. ‘Battleground Tracker: Sanders Surges In Iowa, NH; Clinton Up In SC – Election 2016.’ [4] Nytimes.com,. ‘Hillary Clinton’S Democratic Debate Magic’. [5] POLITICO,. ‘Insiders: A Runaway Victory For Clinton’. [6] The Huffington Post,. ‘Bernie Sanders To Grace Cover Of Time Magazine’. [7] YouTube,. ‘Why Won’t Bernie Sanders Take “Socialist” As An Insult?’. [8] Quinn, Rob. ‘Bernie Sanders Is Raising Money Faster Than Obama Did In 2008. [9] Maloney, Brian. ‘Fuming Bernie Supporters: Why Is CNN Deleting Our Comments?’. [10] Keating, Gina, Robert MacMillan, and Lisa Von Ahn. ‘TIMELINE: NBC, Universal Through The 20th Century And Beyond’. [11] 12bytes.org,. ‘NPR: National Public Radio Or National Propaganda Radio? | 12Bytes.Org’. [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Horowitz, Jason. ‘Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds To His ‘Political Revolution’’. [16] Gabriel, Trip. ‘Bernie Sanders Has Small Lead In Iowa In Latest Poll’. [17] Hodgson, Paul. ‘Top Ceos Make More Than 300 Times The Average Worker’. IMAGES: Via Aren LeBrun.

RIGHT TO LIFE 3 DEAD, 9 INJURED Hannah Lifshutz, International Affairs and Political Science 2017

crazed intruder bearing a firearm enters a professional medical establishment one early Friday morning. While his purpose remains undeclared, he proceeds by terrorizing employees, frightening innocent bystanders, and killing as many patrons as possible. He storms the clinic’s entrance with a barrel gun in hand, opening fire on the establishment, its patients, and the police officers attempting to deter him. He launches bullets at any spectator or law enforcement officer standing in his way. The neighboring mini-mall bustling with Christmas shoppers is placed on lockdown after a man caught in the crossfire enters a grocery store to inform the shopkeepers of what is happening. The gunman is taken into custody after injuring nine individuals and killing three in a shootout that lasts approximately six hours. It isn’t often that you hear of attacking a life-saving medical clinic as being a primary goal of a maniacal extremist — that is, unless the establishment under attack is a Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States.[1] President Obama reminded the American people following the shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs on Black Friday that “enough is enough.”[2] The president was referring exclusively to the lack of effective gun control in America, and while he is correct in his exhausted claims, the same frustrated sentiment can also be applied to the attack on women’s rights in the U.S. The gunman, identified by police as Robert Dear, reportedly cited “no more baby parts” as the explanation for his crime as he was being taken into custody.[3] There is quite an obvious connection between the fatal Planned Parenthood shooting and the anti-abortion movement. The Rocky Mountain regional offices of Planned Parenthood referenced the current political climate in a statement shortly after the shooting, in which they denounced political extremists within the U.S. for creating a “poisonous environment that feeds domestic terrorism.”[4] Senator Bernie Sanders unabashedly responded to the attack by stating, “I strongly support

Planned Parenthood and the work it is doing, and I hope people realize that bitter rhetoric can have unintended consequences.”[5] As the political right continues to stray further and further away from temperance, the use of misogyny in political maneuvering has only intensified. Until we as a society fight to eliminate the stigma against reproductive health care, inflammatory rhetoric opposing women’s rights will continue to incite potentially fatal consequences. Although both men and women benefit from the many life-saving services Planned Parenthood

It isn’t often that you hear of attacking a lifesaving medical clinic as being a primary goal of a maniacal extremist — that is, unless the establishment under attack is a Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States. (PP) clinics provide, the political and (as of late) violent crusade against PP illustrates the depths of the “War on Women.” Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have been under attack since early July, when a conservative lobbying organization released edited videos implying that the organization’s employees had been selling

fetuses obtained during abortion procedures. Despite the fact these videos have been proven to be edited, many state and federal legislators have used them as an opportunity to demonize Roe v. Wade in an attempt to peddle their bona fide misogynist rhetoric.[6] The majority of those voicing discontent hail from the same party that condemns “big government” while telling women who their health care provider should be.[7] During the second Republican presidential debate, in which 15 candidates participated (only one of whom is a woman), the very issue of a woman’s right to choose remained hotly contested.[8] Seeming flexible to extenuating circumstances was viewed as a weakness; consequently, empathy toward the psychological whiplash of unwanted pregnancies was nonexistent. Presidential hopeful Ben Carson, while answering a question about abortion in the event of rape or incest, stated, “All you have to do is go and look up the many stories of people who have led very useful lives who were the result of rape or incest.”[9] Carson, of course, wouldn’t feel the burden of carrying a rapist’s child for nine months, or fear the baby being carried would be born with birth defects given the risks of incestually conceived offspring. Men are, of course, entitled to an opinion about abortion, as individuals maintain opinions on social issues that do not directly affect them every day. However, it is insensitive and ignorant to think we are all capable of being affected by all issues equally. If you’re biologically hindered from becoming pregnant, then using language to insinuate a shared understanding is belittling. “All you have to do” — as if it were the easiest thing in the world. On the state level, certain politicians are arguably working harder to restrict women’s right to choose. The number of states that have imposed restrictive abortion measures has spiked exponentially since 2011.[10] Texas is one of the states at the forefront of the anti-abortion movement. In early November the state issued subpoenas to all Planned Parenthood staffers (and their families) in a newly formed legislative witch-hunt against the organization. The Texas

featured essays

State government, fixated on delegitimizing the pro-choice movement, is comprised of 142 men and 36 women.[11] Since 2011, Texas has forced 23 of the state’s 41 reproductive health care clinics to shut down, while barring abortion from Medicaid coverage.[12] And Texas isn’t alone.[13] Less than 10% of the cases Planned Parenthood takes involve abortion, and forcing the clinics to shut down would leave hundreds of thousands of individuals without a primary health care provider.[14] While there have been many attempts to inform the public of these truths, these statistics aren’t news to those fueling the witch-hunt. This is information that has been presented time and time again. Despite this reality, 1.5 reproductive health clinics on average are closing each week.[15] Contraception under employee health plans continues to be challenged by the GOP, despite the fact that contraception and sexual education statistically lead to a decline in the number of women who need abortions.[16] Under Roe v. Wade, states may intervene in abortion-related issues in the second and third trimesters given a state interest is being threatened.[17] How is it that states are identifying viable state interests only now, 42 years after the ruling? The country hasn’t

become more religious since 1973, nor have women become less capable of making their own healthcare decisions. What has intensified is the GOP’s use of incendiary language, which, as Senator Sanders noted, can have unintended consequences. Richard Murdock (R-IN), for example, unabashedly claims to feel as though a woman’s pregnancy as a result of rape is simply “something God intended” — as if using 18th century jargon might secure his victory in the next election.[18] These positions and the accompanying restrictive rhetoric prove that the War on Women is much more than a political jab. Republicans have attempted to silence any opposition by using condescension to imply that accusations of gender discrimination are simply political ploys. Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee criticized Democrats for supporting the funding of oral contraception by implying that it sends a message to women that “they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government.”[19] While these statements are not only frightful and provocative, they are used to imply that women are the only factor in the reproductive equation. Rape cannot be performed without a rapist, and

unintended pregnancies would not exist without the insemination of a man. From the maniacal extremists opening fire on women’s clinics to the legislators set on limiting women’s reproductive rights, what we are witnessing falls under the umbrella of the War on Women, and women thus far have not been victorious. It’s easy for legislators to monitor a social movement — without being directly affected by its outcomes — and form a disjointed opinion. It’s much easier for them to tell us women what to do with our bodies if they don’t have to abide by the same rules. However, if anything, these disheartening truths prove that we cannot settle for the status quo, we cannot support misogynistic rhetoric. Rather than regressing as a society, we must continue progressing towards political and social equality. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously proclaimed, “It is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling.”[20] Women can no longer be the subjugates of men, and our laws and our democracy must mirror that. Women everywhere deserve equality, but at the very least the U.S. has the sovereign power to ensure that American women are no longer treated as if they don’t.

SOURCES: [1] Turkewitz, Julie. ‘During Planned Parenthood Shooting, Fear And Chaos At Shopping Center’. [2] Martin, Jonathan. ‘Obama Says ‘Enough Is Enough’ After Colorado Shooting’. [3] Wesley Lowery, Danielle Paquette, and Jerry Markon. “‘No More Baby Parts,’ Suspect in Attack at Colo. Planned Parenthood Clinic Told Official.” [4] Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain. Statement Regarding Situation In Colorado Springs. [5] Sanders, Bernie. Sanders Statement On Colorado Planned Parenthood Shooting. [6] Griffin, Drew, and David Fitzpatrick. ‘The Real Story Behind Those Planned Parenthood Videos - Cnnpolitics.Com’. [7] ‘2015 Republican Debate: GOP Candidates On Planned Parenthood And Abortion’. CBS. [8] Stein, Sam. ‘Ben Carson Once Again Compares Something To Slavery, This Time Abortion’. [9] Guttmacher Institute.State Policies In Brief. An Overview Of Abortion Laws. [10] Ura, Alexa, and Jolie McCullough. ‘Meet Your 84th Texas Legislature: White. Male. MiddleAged. Christian., By Alexa Ura And Jolie Mccullough’. [11] Ibid. [12] New York Times. ‘Fewer Abortion Clinics In Texas’. [13] Deprez, Esme. ‘The Vanishing U.S. Abortion Clinic’. [14] Kurtzleben, Danielle. ‘Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?’. [15] Redden, Molly. ‘The War On Women Is Over—And Women Lost’. [16] Specter, Michael. ‘Planned Parenthood Means Fewer Abortions’. [17] Blackmun, Justice. Roe V Wade. Washington: Supreme Court of the United States. [18] McAuliff, Michael. ‘Richard Mourdock On Abortion: Pregnancy From Rape Is ‘Something God Intended’’. [19] Bassett, Laura. ‘Mike Huckabee: Democrats Tell Women ‘They Cannot Control Their Libido’ Without The Government’. [20] Chittal, Nisha, and Bridget Todd. ‘9 Powerful Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quotes’. . IMAGES: Colorado Springs Police. 2015. Robert Lewis Dear.

PAY IT BACK

A MENTALITY ADJUSTMENT REGARDING STUDENT DEBT T he United States carries a unique debt burden relative to the rest of the developed world. Student debt has officially become the second-highest debt burden on the United States’ economy, eclipsing auto loans and credit card debt while remaining second only to mortgages. [1] This is thanks to a combination of skyrocketing tuition costs and private ownership of the cost of education, as opposed to the public ownership that exists in other countries, namely in Europe.[2] To hold the United States to a European standard makes little sense, as each is based on a different set of foundational values. Yet having such a high debt burden on a portion of the population that is statistically the least capable of efficiently repaying it has a massive negative impact on society. That could be reversed with the implementation of public ownership of the cost of education. Education is not an entitlement by any means; it is luxury sadly taken for granted in developed states around the world. However, for many students in the United States, education is viewed as an investment necessary for starting a career, and it is not an entirely unreasonable one in the current job market. Spending up to $200,000 to earn a degree increases a person’s median weekly earnings by roughly $400, in addition to substantially increasing their chances of finding employment.[3] The additional income earned over a career makes the investment a manageable one, despite the added stress of repaying student loans after graduation. The problem, then, stems from the other impacts of the burden of the debt. A graduate’s ability to repay student loans could be hampered by uncertainty in the job market,

periods of unemployment, or additional loan debt for postgraduate studies. Even in cases when an undergraduate degree is the end of a student’s education, the debt is still a substantial burden that often forces graduates to delay building their adult lives. What if they want to start a family? What if they get married and want to settle down? Being burdened by student debt can hinder graduates’ abilities to buy a house or decide that they are financially stable enough to support a child, possibly delaying those decisions by many years. The cost of a degree is currently rising faster than inflation at a nominal 3.4% per year. It has outpaced the consumer-price index for decades, meaning that under current conditions, the cost of education will reach a point where the investment will no longer be manageable.[4] This “boiling point” will occur when the price of a degree has outpaced the average income of a graduate by so much that a degree is no longer a worthwhile investment.[5] Even before that boiling point, the negative economic consequences of such a heavy debt burden for something so essential in a competitive workforce will be apparent. Imagine a housing market collapse in the future caused by demand plummeting, with potential homebuyers overwhelmed by student debt burdens. Misconceptions surround the conversation about the expense and scale of proposals to subsidize college education. The idea of taxpayers paying $200,000 so that an 18-year-old kid can study philosophy for four years seems like a very poor investment of public money on the surface. How big of an investment is it really? And what

would the return on that investment be? It is very difficult to determine a succinct “cost of education,” but in order to tackle an inflating student debt bubble, it would be best to look directly at the source of a majority of the debt: college tuition. The National Center for Education Statistics released a report at the end of FY 2012 that included a series of statistics on operating revenues of all Title IV institutions (institutions that qualify for federal student aid), placing the total cost of tuition at just under $62.6 billion for public institutions and $63.1 billion for private institutions.[6] When we add to these totals the average annual increase in tuition per year (a nominal 3.4% per year from 2005-2015, according to College Board),[7] the total cost of public and private tuition for 2015 becomes approximately $69.2 billion[8] and $69.8 billion respectively,[9] for an estimated grand total of $139 billion. If a system that fully subsidized the tuitions of public universities were to be introduced, how significant would that additional $69.2 billion in taxpayer contributions be? If the United States were to develop a system to raise $69.2 billion of additional tax contributions, and do it through the simplest means possible by applying it directly to income tax brackets, the upward shift in the tax bracket would be minor. $69.2 billion, if distributed amongst the 147 million cases of individuals/married couples filing for income tax, would result in a median tax increase of $470 per filing.[10] To increase income tax by $470 per filing in the 2015 median tax bracket (single income $90,751-$189,300) would result in an approximate 2.5% shift upward. Applying that

featured essays

David McDevitt, International Affairs and Economics 2017 2.5% shift to each of the IRS income brackets has the potential to pay for the new $69.2 billion in subsidies.[11][12] If the United States were to implement this income tax hike to eliminate tuition entirely from public universities (an admittedly extreme option), that $470 would see itself back into household economies exponentially over time. Assuming that an individual is paying income tax for 45 years of their life, from age 20 to age 65, and that that rate remains constant with inflation (assuming proper legislation were passed to reel in the increase of tuition to be in line with inflation rates rather than ahead of it), their lifetime income tax contribution would increase by only $21,150 in 2015 dollars over the course of their entire career. [13] The alternative (a continuation of our current tuition system) involves a combination of students lowering their standards of living substantially after graduation to pay off loans, or families lowering their standards of living substantially to help meet the cost of college for their children, a cost that would likely be much greater than $21,150. Any potential shift of that number upwards caused by a shift in the proportion of students attending public universities rather than private universities as a result of the subsidies would be negligible. Public universities already account for roughly three-quarters of the total number of college students in the U.S., and the unique nature of private universities would prevent a complete diaspora. Additionally, the total tuition per student is much lower at a public university than a private university, lowering the required subsidy per person. The amount of students that switch to public universities from private universities would only cause a slight upward shift in the total cost of the subsidy.[14] Within the current political climate of the United States, it is admittedly unlikely that a subsidy of 100% of public university tuition will

become a reality. The U.S. does not have the same core values of public ownership and entitlement as other countries with socialized university subsidies in Europe do. Yet it is possible that a solution that is a little more feasible in the political climate of the U.S., such as a system that subsidizes ~60% of public university tuition, could be implemented as a step in the right direction. This system would only result in a minor increase in tax contributions, and the cost would be trivial when compared to the benefits of bringing the U.S. up to the standards of the rest of the developed world with regard to the value of education.

We clearly have the ability to pay it forward, so why do we lack the ability to pay it backwards? The idea of paying for the services of others is not completely unheard of in the United States. Through Social Security and Medicare, we already have shown the ability as a society to pay it forward, contributing money in the form of taxes under the impression that once we reach our retirement, that money will return to us whether we need it or not. Additionally, we already show the ability to pay it forward for services that we may never need. Americans pay taxes toward unemployment benefits and welfare programs under the impression that if the floor fell out from underneath them, those services would be there. We clearly have the ability to pay it forward, so

why do we lack the ability to pay it backwards? What would be the negative impact of investing in younger generations as they prepare to enter society as adults, just as we invest in older generations as they exit the workforce? Paying it forward follows the core concept of public money going to services that are not needed immediately by all, but by certain people at certain times of their lives. Paying it backwards works on the same core concept, but in reverse, contributing to services needed at a certain time of people’s lives (namely the formative years of their adult lives), under the impression that once those services are no longer needed post-graduation, they will then begin to contribute to subsidize the cost of education for the generations that follow them. The politics surrounding the proposed educational subsidies would be an admittedly tricky field to navigate. Consider a 40-year-old adult who worked their way through college (back when the cost of education was reasonable) and began their career immediately after. “Why should I pay for them when I had to do it by myself?” would seem to be the logical response to this proposal. But we have established that the bubble is unsustainable, and we know that it is leaving a detrimental impact on society. At some point, some generation needs to step up. Why can’t it be ours? The point is not one of policy, but one of scale. There are numerous ways that the issue could be solved (flat tax increase, closing tax loopholes, payroll deductions after graduation, etc.), and all of them could work if implemented properly. The important aspect is how incredibly manageable this problem is when placed within the economy of the United States, especially when contrasted with the benefits that the proposed system would serve to society.

SOURCES: [1] Lucca, D. (2015). Staff Report - Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs. [2] Compare Tuition Fees Schemes in Europe. (n.d.). [3] Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment. [4] Average Rates of Growth of Published Charges by Decade. (n.d.). [5] Lorin, J. (2014, November 13). College Tuition in the U.S. Again Rises Faster Than Inflation. [6] Ginder, S. (2013, December 1). Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions. [7] See 4. [8] 69.2 = 62.6(1+0.034)^3 [9] 69.8 = 63.1(1+0.034)^3 [10] Basic Tables: Returns Filed and Sources of Income, 2013. (n.d.). [11] Tax Brackets from: Phillips, K. (2014, October 30). [12] 2.5 = (470/18481)*100 with 18481 being the base tax rate in the median bracket (25%) [13] 21150=470*45 [14] College enrollment in the United States from 1965 to 2013 and projections up to 2024 for public and private colleges (in millions). IMAGES: Via Michael Fleshman on Flickr.

SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS:

WHERE IS THE HUMANITY?

Olivia Arnold, Journalism 2018

n the past week, I’ve watched in horror and bitter disappointment as governors from the two states I call home, New Jersey and Massachusetts, proclaimed that they will not accept Syrian refugees. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey became a leading voice for the opposition to the federal government’s plan for Syrian refugee resettlement, even calling for refugees who are orphans younger than five years old to be barred from entering the U.S.[1] Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts was less adamant than Christie in his refusal, but Baker’s comments that he was “not interested” in accepting Syrian refugees “right now” sparked a protest of about 500 people at the Massachusetts State House on November 20th.[2] Christie and Baker are two of 31 governors, only one of whom is a Democrat, to say that they will not accept Syrian refugees in their states.[3] On November 20th, 27 of those Republican governors drafted a letter to President Barack Obama demanding the suspension of the federal government’s Syrian refugee resettlement program. Baker did not participate in this letter.[4] On Friday, November 13th, when Islamist extremists inflicted unfathomable attacks of terror upon the city of Paris, many Americans desperately questioned: Where is their humanity? How could this happen? With the rejection of refugees by 31 U.S. governors, I am sorry to say that I am again asking the same teary-eyed questions: Where is their humanity? How could this happen? Resettling refugees is a power vested to the federal, not state government, so it’s unclear what effects these proclamations and executive orders by governors will actually have, if any. It’s especially alarming, however, because Christie

is a presidential hopeful, and he’s not the only one — former Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Ted Cruz also delivered muddled, unintelligent, and Islamophobic statements on the refugee crisis. Bush, for one, said that American aid should focus on “Christians that are being slaughtered.”[5] Bush went on to say, “if you’re a Christian increasingly in Lebanon, or Iraq or Syria, you’re gonna be beheaded.” This message, New York Times reporter Anne Barnard wrote, was “news to Lebanon’s Christians, who hold significant political power.”[6] Obama scorned these remarks and others like it, saying, “We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”[7] Cruz, however, was no better than Bush. Cruz said that Muslims should be screened out, but that Christians should be let into America because “there is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror.”[8] This statement, in addition to being frighteningly Islamophobic, is blatantly incorrect. The Klu Klux Klan is the one of the worst terrorist groups in American history. The KKK is responsible for the murders of thousands of blacks, Jews, immigrants, gays and Catholics— all in the name of Christianity—and the hate group today still boasts a membership of 5,000 to 8,000 American people.[9] In addition, the 1995 Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people and wounded 648, and the 2015 Charleston Church shooter Dylann Roof, who killed nine people, were both Christians.[10] Now, I would never imply that Christianity in any way encouraged these terrorists, just as I would never say that Islam drives people to terrorism. It is the perversion of these religions

that leads people to commit their heinous misdeeds. It’s ridiculous to assume that Islam promotes terrorism; it’s the world’s second biggest religion. There are 1.57 billion people in the world who practice it, most of whom do so peacefully.[11] There’s no doubt that the terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut (a city in Lebanon that has not received as much global attention and mourning) were horrifying and tragic. At least 130 lives were lost in the Paris attack and 43 lives were lost in the Beirut attack.[12] Since the civil war in Syria broke out four years ago, 200,000 innocent men, women and children have been killed.[13] That’s an average of 148 people a day. Syria endures attacks even more deadly and more devastating than Paris or Beirut practically every single day. Syrians endure not only fear of terrorists inflicting suffering upon their country, but also fear of their own government’s corrupt and violent military led by President Bashar al-Assad. This nonstop, paralyzing fear makes it impossible to live in peace in Syria. This fear is why Syrians are willing to pay large sums to smugglers to crowd onto a plastic boat and embark upon a perilous voyage across the Mediterranean Sea, even though it is likely that they will drown. This fear is what causes parents to send off their youngest sons and daughters on these voyages alone, even though it’s likely that they will be sexually abused by smugglers. [14]

The refugees fleeing their war-torn country are human beings that deserve the right to live without fear. Although all the attackers in Paris were identified as European nationals and the Syrian passport found near the dead body of a terrorist in Paris was deemed fake,

featured essays

critics point to the theory that the terrorists entered Europe through the “migrant route” in Greece to oppose aiding Syrian refugees.[15] Comparing the Syrian refugee resettlements in Europe to the U.S., however, is not even a logical comparison. Unlike the massive influx that European countries are seeing, Syrian refugees are not flooding into the U.S. The process of applying for refugee status in the United States is actually quite complicated. It takes an average of two years for refugees to enter the U.S., and they must pass a series of rigorous security tests. These tests include clearance by the Department of Homeland Security, a medical check, a name check, and ten other security clearances.[16] The American refugee security screenings are incredibly accurate. Of the 785,000 refugees admitted to the U.S. since 9/11, only three have been arrested for terrorism-related charges.[17] So far this year, 1,809 Syrians have been resettled in the U.S., and most of these refugees applied before the war broke out four years ago.[18] As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof pointed out, if terrorists want to get into America, there are much easier avenues than the strict refugee screening process. They could apply for a student visa to study at an American university or send their European members to travel to the U.S. as tourists, which doesn’t require a visa. Kristof asked, “Hey, governors, are you going to keep

out foreign university students?...Governors, are you planning to ban foreign tourists too?”[19]

People wonder how Hitler was able to slaughter six million Jews during the Holocaust, but they turn a cold shoulder as hundreds of thousands of Syrians are being murdered by President Assad and Islamist extremists. Republican congresspeople are outraged that Obama is proceeding with his plan to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees by 2016.[20] In reality, this is an abysmal, embarrassingly low goal. In comparison, Germany and Canada have accepted 38,500 and 36,300 Syrian refugees,

respectively.[21] Meanwhile, France, the country that was most recently attacked by Islamist terrorists, has committed to accepting 30,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years.[22] The backlash to the Syrian refugees is mind-boggling. If anything, the attacks on Paris and Beirut should have made the American government more willing to take in Syrian refugees by opening their eyes to the violence, fear, and mayhem that plagues the lives of the Syrian people every waking second. People wonder how Hitler was able to slaughter six million Jews during the Holocaust, but they turn a cold shoulder as hundreds of thousands of Syrians are being murdered by President Assad and Islamist extremists. One of the greatest regrets of Americans in 1939 was that the U.S. turned away the St. Louis, a ship carrying mostly Jewish refugee children, due to fears of communism infiltrating the country. The passengers of the St. Louis had to return to Europe, and some were subsequently killed by the Nazis.[23] History has an ironic way of repeating itself. What Republican senator or governor would dare to say that turning away the St. Louis was the right thing to do? What human being would condone the senseless slaughter of innocent lives seeking refuge? By not accepting refugees, we are condemning them to their deaths. Where is their humanity? How could this happen, again?

SOURCES: [1] Diamond, Jeremy. “Chris Christie: Obama ‘created the refugee crisis’ in Syria.” [2] Gavin, Christopher and Fox, Lauren. “Hundreds rally against Baker’s stand on Syrian refugees.” [3] Fantz, Ashley and Brumfield, Ben. “More than half of the nation’s governors say Syrian refugees not welcome.” [4] See 2. [5] The Editorial Board. “Paris attacks: Baker, others wrong to reject Syrian refugees.” [6] Barnard, Anne. “Beirut, Also the Site of Deadly Attacks, Feels Forgotten.” [7] See 5. [8] See 5. [9] Taylor, Collin. “The Top Five Attacks on America Committed by Christian Terrorists, Not Muslims.” [10] See 9. [11] “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050.” Pew Research Center, April 2, 2015. [12] See 6. [13] Ahmed, Beenish. “Syrian Refugee Puts Paris Attacks into Perspective in One Simpler Sentence.” [14] Bennhold, Katrin. “Migrant Children, Arrive Alone and Frightened.” [15] Legum, Judd. “The Big Logical Error Made by Everyone Linking Syrian Refugees to the Paris Attack.” [16] See 5. [17] Kristof, Nicholas. “They Are Us.” [18] See 5. [19] See 17. [20] See 17. [22] Tharoor, Ishaan. “France says it will take 30,000 Syrian refugees, while U.S. Republicans would turn them away.” [23] See 17. IMAGES: Via Wikimedia.

THE

GRAND THE OLD SUPREME PARTY COURT Ryan Paolicelli, Political Science and Finance 2019

he American presidency has ramifications far beyond the executive branch. It can lend the victor’s party a boost in Congress, influence statewide elections, and have deep repercussions in foreign countries. But what a lot of people often forget is that the presidency also affects the judiciary—perhaps most directly—as all federal judges are appointed by the president. The ability to select the judiciary is substantial but will likely be markedly more powerful for whoever wins the 2016 race for one key reason: By the end of the next president’s term, four justices of the Supreme Court will be over 80 years of age: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer (in descending order of age). There is a very good chance that at least one, if not all four, of these justices will retire within the next four years.[1] This means that not only could the liberals in the Court lose two of their most reliable and influential members (Ginsburg and Breyer), but the Conservatives could also lose the loudest defender of originalism (Scalia), and the reliable swing vote in the Court (Kennedy) may no longer exist. The potential for a radical change within the Court should be abundantly clear. Four nominations, given the remaining members of the Court, could hand a guaranteed majority to either side of the Court, even if the president is forced to nominate someone chosen by the other party as a concession. Given how infrequently the Court changes—every president since Reagan has at least one nominee still sitting—the next president will set the tone for the Court until well after his or her presidential library is built.[2] This is a lot of power in a normal election, but in 2016 it is absolutely critical because one party, the GOP, has a problem with the Supreme Court. The CNN Republican Debate in the Reagan Library on September 16, 2015 dealt with plenty of issues that are important to the party’s primary voters, and ideally to the general electorate overall as well. Most of them have already gotten the standard thinkpiece treatment: the environment, Planned Parenthood, the military, the economy—the list goes on. One issue, however, did not get as much of a response as it should have. Ted Cruz was asked if George W. Bush

made a mistake in nominating John Roberts to the Supreme Court, citing accusations that Roberts had taken the “Democratic side” on some key issues such as the Obamacare cases. Cruz not only thought that Roberts was unqualified, but that Justice Souter was, as well.[3] It is at this point important to note that among the Republican candidates, Cruz is uniquely qualified to speak about the Court, having served as the Solicitor General for the state of Texas and clerking for Justice Rehnquist. However, he seems to be at least somewhat mistaken if he really is just questioning resumes. Roberts went to Harvard for both undergraduate and law school, clerked for

For many conservative voters, the Supreme Court can only either perform its function or go against the will of the people, not unlike their view of the government writ large. Henry Friendly and William Rehnquist, and held positions within the federal government as a lawyer and advisor for nearly a decade, all before serving on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for two years.[4] Souter likewise received both his A.B. and J.D. from Harvard (and was a Rhodes Scholar), worked as a lawyer for the New Hampshire government, eventually serving as Attorney General for a decade, went to the bench for New Hampshire for another twelve years, and then went from the First Circuit to the Supreme Court within a year.[5] These two men may be many things, but unqualified is by no stretch of imagination among them. The problem with Cruz, though, was not simply that he did not feel Roberts and Souter

should not have been given the job. In fact, that would be a fairly reasonable response; there are plenty of highly-educated judges out there who would have been similarly as experienced. It was why he felt they should not have been. He saw them as not conservative enough to have been chosen by George H.W. Bush and W. The implication that Jeb Bush would continue the tradition of Bush presidents choosing secretly liberal justices was not lost on the audience. Cruz, however, would not be so easily fooled into choosing unproven candidates; no, he would have nominated the “rock ribbed conservative[s]” Michael Luttig and Edith Jones. [6] Mr. Luttig has left the bench for a position at Boeing; Ms. Jones still serves on the 5th Circuit. At no point did Cruz say why, aside from them being conservative, these two would have made better picks. At one point it seemed as if he were implying that Souter and Roberts had less of a work history, so they would be more acceptable to Congress, and the father and son Bush had taken the easy route, rather than fighting for the wiser judges. This highlights deeper issues that the Republican Primary field has with the Supreme Court. Huckabee has decried the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalizes same-sex marriage, since it was decided, even going so far as to support Kim Davis, the Tennessee clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses.[7] When Mr. Trump was confronted with the fact that parts of his policy plan were in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment he declared that “many of the great scholars say anchor babies are not covered.”[8] The veracity of his statement is doubtful at best. Yet the problem is not that he just says that and gets away with it, but that he still has yet to take any real flak for any comment he’s made on just about any issue. It was the response the candidates received for slamming the Supreme Court. Roars of applause burst forth from the people who “really understand the Constitution” for the people that know better than nine of the allegedly finest Constitutional thinkers America has. Making political hay out of the justices has become almost ridiculously easy. The justices smack of the Ivory Tower! They do not understand the common citizen, the real heart of America! They all have an agenda just like the rest of Washington!

featured essays The problem here should be troubling for anyone who believes in an effective check against the Executive and Legislative Branches. Politicizing the nomination process more than it already is means that ideological purity will replace experience, education, and accomplishments as credentials. This encourages those who actually want to advance as a judge to become more ideological in their rulings, both liberal and conservative. This can, and will, have real-world, and likely damaging effects on the populace. That is, of course, a worst case scenario, so let’s look to a more realistic outcome now. The Republican field continues to portray the Supreme Court as, to borrow a phrase from Plato that Mr. Cruz felt would be apt, “philosopher kings.”[9] The notion that the nine justices somehow get to “legislate from the bench” continues to persist, despite the fact that they can only issue rulings on cases that manage to get to them and then can only issue a ruling based on the cases as presented to them. Of all the candidates running, Ted Cruz should best understand how inaccurate this portrayal is and how persuasive it is to the common American. The Supreme Court is by its nature an elitist institution—the highest court in the country presided over by its brightest judges is just forced to be. For a Republican running in 2016, in a primary that has been solidly antiestablishment and anti-elites, this presents a problem. The Supreme Court has issued rulings solidly amenable to their bases of support. After all, without Citizens United, multiple candidates in the running would not even have a campaign due to an inability to collect funds outside the establishment. The Supreme Court could be an ally, or at the very least a neutral actor. This is, of course, nothing terribly new for the Grand Old Party, since at least as far back as the Tea Party Wave there have been inklings toward a very specific view of the Court. Rulings generally seen as favorable are not wins; rather, they were what was meant to happen. There are no celebrations or congratulatory comments made by politicians to the justices. Super PACs were meant to exist, the Second Amendment clearly and unambiguously protects the individual right to gun ownership. Contrast this with the Democratic response to such cases as marriage equality, where SCOTUS was looked up to as a correcting body on the right side of history in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the separation becomes a bit more apparent. For many conservative voters, the Supreme Court can only either perform its function or

go against the will of the people, not unlike their view of the government writ large. This is seen throughout the GOP field: Bush and Kasich are slammed for being wonky and boring (read: heavy on the specifics of policy), whereas Carson, Trump, and Fiorina are at best decent on the specifics, but ladled heavily with

Politicizing the nomination process more than it already is means that ideological purity will replace experience, education, and accomplishments as credentials. invective rhetoric and have enjoyed massive polling jumps for it in the available data. The Supreme Court doesn’t deal in rhetoric, for the most part. Rather, the language of a decision, dissent, or joining statement is thick with legal terms, definitions, philosophy, and prior cases. It really cannot be spun into a simple line like cutting taxes or vetoing government spending; rather, it will articulate how donations to political campaigns can qualify as freedom of speech for the various reasons. To the average American, this is boring. And in the 2016 race, boredom is the enemy. The Republican Party, however, is not just one class of voter. Rather, after the hard work of Reagan to establish a coalition, there are many more moving pieces here than just the average working- to middle-class white American. Two other and significant parts of the party have been crucial to this and every election cycle since then: the Evangelical Christian and the economic elite. The latter of these two groups (shockingly, considering how much impact they usually have) does not have a terrible amount at stake in the 2016 election and plays a small role as a result. For these voters, and equally importantly, donors, the main issues tend to be economic in nature, so questions about trade, financial reform, and wages tend to dominate. As far as they are concerned, the main way to approach that is to influence the legislative branch at the federal, state, and local levels. The judiciary is too static to really be adjustable

enough. For the Evangelical Christians, however, the stakes are as high as they have ever been. While this is a bit of a simplified generalization, the fundamental Evangelical sees an America that has turned its back on God. Many, if not all, of their complaints boil down to the simple notion that legislatures are passing laws that are increasingly unacceptable to their faith. They see only two ways to protect their way of life (which arguably doesn’t seem to be all that under attack in a country that is 70.6% Christian).[10] The first way is to influence legislature, especially in their home states, to keep the government at bay as seen in the multitude of Restoration of Religious Freedom laws around the country.[11] The other way, for when the first one fails, is through the courts. Here too, however, we see a similar narrative as before: the Supreme Court does the “right” thing and is ignored or protested on the grounds that it insults the words of their particular understanding of God. The Supreme Court cannot win with this demographic—it’s a part of government, and government is inherently bad. Placed in a broader context, attacking a branch of government is hardly new for the Republican Party. The Republican candidates are capitalizing on the common ignorance, forcing an intricately nuanced and complicated, sometimes excessively so, part of government to be black and white. A politicized and mistrusted Supreme Court cannot serve the public interest. This would only make the nomination process harder, with the party in power demanding an orthodoxy that makes nominees unpalatable to the opposition. Younger judges in lower courts who aspire to higher offices will be incentivized to sensationalize their decisions rather than ensure a wise opinion, knowing that “their party” will protect them. Most importantly, in 2016, four seats on the Supreme Court will be potentially open to nominees from a president that has a chance at a second term, drawing from a pool of judges that are watching this same race. Ted Cruz wants someone more conservative than Roberts, even after Robert’s decision in Citizens United is how Cruz’s campaign has the funding that it does. The majority of the Republican candidates seemed to agree that certainly they would appoint a true conservative to the bench as well. The Republican primary field is playing a very dangerous game with high stakes and low rewards. Hopefully they realize making the base hate the Supreme Court is only going to hurt the nation in the long run before they go all in.

SOURCES: [1] “Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court.” [2] Ibid. [3] Svitek, Patrick. “As Cruz Sours on Roberts, Past Support Draws Attention.” [4] See 1. [5] Ibid. [6] See 2. [7] Huckabee, Michael. “Free Kim Davis Now.” [8] Carrol, Lauren. “Trump: ‘Many’ Scholars Say ‘anchor Babies’ Aren’t Covered by Constitution.” [9] Farias, Christian. “Ted Cruz Doesn’t Love Chief Justice Roberts Like He Used To.” [10] “Religious Landscape Study.” Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. [11] “State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.” National Coalition of State Legislatures. IMAGES: Via Phil Roeder on Flickr.

MENSTRUATION EDUCATION: AND

HOW PERIODS AFFECT GIRLS’ EDUCATION IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Olivia Arnold, Journalism 2018

enstruation is one of the single most commonly shared experiences among women of all races, religions, and ethnicities. Most women menstruate for an average of 40 years. Throughout those 40 years, each woman will use more than 11,000 sanitary pads and tampons, spending approximately $5,600 on those hygiene products.[1] For a woman in a developed country like the United States, menstruation can be a significant financial burden and an inconvenience. For a woman in a developing country, however, menstruation can be an unbearable hardship that drastically affects her ability to attend school and, consequently, her opportunity for a better future. Access to education for girls in the developing world can be improved by increasing accessibility to sanitary products and increasing the number of girls’ school bathrooms with safe water and sanitation. Success can be measured by the decrease in rates of girls’ absenteeism from school, a decrease in the girls’ dropout rate at the secondary level, and an improvement in girls’ exam scores and academic performance. Foundation for African Women Educationalists discovered in rural Uganda that a “culture of silence” surrounding menstruation resulted in it being ignored in families, schools, and communities.[2] Up until recently, even Western researchers have failed to acknowledge that menstruation could explain the significant discrepancy between primary and secondary school enrollment rates for girls in the developing world. In sub-Saharan Africa, 57% of all girls are enrolled in primary school. At the secondary level, however, this percentage drastically plummets to a mere 17%. There are many factors that contribute to girls in developing countries dropping out of school. Some post-pubescent girls drop out of school because they gain additional household responsibilities, receive familial or societal pressure to get married, incur a premarital pregnancy, or suffer parental concerns about their safety at school (as mature girls are often targeted for sexual abuse or rape from male classmates and teachers). Additionally, some parents in the developing world may choose to channel limited funds toward the education of their sons, who have a greater chance of

achieving financial success and supporting them in their old age.[3] The beginning of menstruation, however, is a significant factor that is often ignored that undoubtedly affects secondary enrollment rates for girls in the developing world. In a 2011 study, many girls in Kenya stated that they preferred to experience their periods at home and viewed menstruation as “the most significant social stressor and barrier to schooling.”[4] In fact, according to the 2015 United Nations Children’s Fund, one in ten girls in Africa miss school days during her period, and some of those girls drop out entirely.[5] It is unacceptable that in 2015 girls around the world are still being deprived of their right to education because of something as basic and human as menstrual health. The ignorance and inattention toward menstrual hygiene management is a blemish on the international community. Only once menstrual health is prioritized and addressed can we begin to dream of achieving universal secondary education and gender equality. The first step that the international community must take to improve girls’ access to education is increasing accessibility to sanitary products. Millions of girls and women in the developing world can not afford the steep prices that come with purchasing disposable sanitary pads and tampons. To put it in perspective, sanitary pads in Kenya cost about 65 to 120 Kenyan schillings, which converts to roughly $0.79 to $1.45. This is an unaffordable price when many Kenyan families earn an average of only $1.00 a day, and those wages must cover all their basic needs.[6] As a result, Kenyan girls are forced to miss an average of 4.9 days of school a month.[7] The World Bank reports that if a girl misses four days of school every four weeks due to her period, she will miss 10-20% of her school days.[8] If you can’t afford disposable sanitary products, the logical solution would be to do what women did for hundreds of years before Playtex and Always started mass producing feminine hygiene products: use reusable materials like cloth rags to soak up menstrual blood. The Kenyan NGO Kisumu Medical and Education Trust, however, reports that while some Kenyan girls use materials like cotton or wool as makeshift sanitary pads, those

resources can still be considered expensive and inaccessible for families living below the poverty line. As a result, many will use alternatives like plastic bags, dried leaves, cow dung, and paper. These materials are often not properly sanitized, increase risk of infection, cause physical discomfort, and leak during the school day. School days are long in Kenya and many girls are unwilling to risk the public shaming and embarrassment that arises from leaking through their homemade pads and staining their uniforms.[9] Even girls who do have feminine hygiene products or who use reusable resources still cannot attend school because their schools do not have private restrooms or proper sanitation where they can clean and change their sanitary products. Of the 30% of Nepalese girls who miss school due to menstruation, 41% do so because they do not have private school bathrooms for cleaning sanitary products.[10] 83% of girls in Burkina Faso and 77% of girls in Niger likewise do not have a school bathroom to change their sanitary materials. Not having a sanitary bathroom during menstruation is a serious problem and can lead not only to embarrassment, but also detrimental long-term health concerns. In India, 70% of all reproductive diseases are caused by poor menstrual hygiene.[11] In 2010, girls in Tanzania reported that menstruation was particularly challenging due to structural sanitation difficulties within their schools. They advised improving latrines, water supply inside latrines, and cleaning equipment to help future girls trying to receive an education while navigating through menstruation.[12] Critics have argued that girls in the developing world face an array of challenges and that menstruation is an insignificant, almost imperceivable factor. A study conducted in 2013 by the Adolescent Girls Empowerment Program would seem to confirm this argument at first glance. Of the 5,241 Zambian girls who were surveyed by the program on their school absenteeism, only 1% reported that their absence was related to menstruation. The number one reason, cited in 54% of responses, was illness.[13] In the 2014 study in Kenya, however, researchers found that while the “illness” response to absenteeism covered a wide range of sicknesses from malaria to

featured essays gut infections, “illness” or “sickness” was often times being used as a euphemism for menstruation and menstrual cramps due to the embarrassment and stigma surrounding the monthly occurrence.[14] It’s highly plausible that this phenomena of referring to menstruation as an “illness” skewed the results of the Zambian study as well. Consequent studies, including one by Anne Mutunda in 2013, have concluded that menstruation is a significant obstacle for girls’ education in Zambia. Mutunda wrote that the 51 girls in her study “had difficulties in maintaining proper standards of hygiene during menstruation due to inadequate water and poor and gender unfriendly facilities in the school.”[15] The Ministry of Education Management Information Systems confirmed this observation when it estimated in 2008 that only 9% of the schools in Zambia met the World Health Organization’s standard pupil to toilet ratio, of 25 girls per toilet.[16] Mutunda’s study went on to say that the poor sanitation, coupled with gender discrimination, was “found to lead to poor menstrual hygiene and to contribute to girls’ poor school performance, as well as their high failure rates.”[17] I identified menstrual hygiene as a significant challenge to Zambian girls’ education when I worked at Vision of Hope, a shelter for at-risk girls and women in Lusaka, Zambia, for a month over the summer. For a shelter that accommodates roughly 40 girls and women, menstrual hygiene management posed a significant challenge. The shelter was spending about 150-200 kwachas per month on disposable sanitary pads, roughly $20-26 USD. This was a significant chunk of their monthly budget. Often times, Vision of Hope could not afford to purchase sanitary pads for every menstruating woman, so the women would have to endure their period without sanitary materials. Not having sanitary materials during menstruation negatively affects a woman’s self-esteem and her mobility, as she may not be able to leave the house without fear of staining her clothing with menstrual blood. As a result, menstruation prevented the girls’ abilities to leave the shelter and attend school. Poor academic performance and dropping out of school very significantly affects future opportunities for a woman and her ability to cease a cycle of poverty. When girls in Kenya must miss school days from menstruation, it “impedes their ability to compete in the classroom, leads to low self-esteem, higher dropout rates and, in many areas of Kenya, early marriage.”[18] After all, girls who complete secondary school are less likely to contract HIV/

AIDs, contract malaria, die in pregnancy, or die in childbirth. They are more likely, however, to marry later, have higher incomes, have fewer children, have healthier children, educate their children, and escape poverty.[19] One additional year of primary education can increase a woman’s future earnings by 10-20%, while one additional year of secondary school can increase a woman’s future earnings by 15-25%. As a result, a 1% increase in women with a secondary education raises a country’s annual economic growth by 0.03%.[20] Many nongovernmental organizations recognize the monumental importance of educating girls and how menstrual health plays a significant role in accessing that education. As a result, there have been good efforts to improve menstrual hygiene management in the developing world by increasing access to sanitary pad products.

It is unacceptable that in 2015 girls around the world are still being deprived of their right to education because of something as basic and human as menstrual health. AFRIpads, a Ugandan business, found that disposable pads were not the best practice in Uganda because the women could not afford them and because disposal systems could not handle the strain of all the thrown-out pads—two common obstacles to sanitary pad access in developing countries. To solve this, AFRIpads worked with Ugandan girls and women to create reusable sanitary pads from textiles that women can wash and use again for at least a year.[21] At Vision of Hope, the shelter I worked at in Zambia, I co-founded an initiative along with two Northeastern students to produce reusable sanitary pads. After extensively researching the best model for a sanitary pad and creating prototypes ourselves, we taught the women at the shelter how to make sanitary pads using simple, inexpensive materials, like cotton and waterproof fabric, that we purchased at

a local market. Each woman made multiple pads for each day of her period and we taught them how to take care of and clean the pads. If done correctly, the women could use their reusable sanitary pads for 3-5 years, which would significantly improve their mobility and ability to attend school. In addition, it promoted menstrual hygiene management and female empowerment by teaching the women a valuable, money-saving skill that they could use for a lifetime. In addition to improving accessibility to sanitary products, many NGOs are also trying to improve accessibility to girls’ school bathrooms with proper water and sanitation. In a 2011 case study, researchers discovered that in Kenyan schools that weren’t affected by post-election violence, introducing proper water and sanitation decreased girls’ absenteeism by 58%. This effect on the absenteeism rate, however, was not reflected in the male population.[22] A conclusion from this study is that girls, upon gaining access to proper sanitation facilities, were able to attend school during their periods because they had a place to clean and change their sanitary products. WaterAid helped bring water and sanitation to 176 schools in Tanzania. Prior to WaterAid’s initiative, Mpalanga Primary School, one of the biggest schools in the Dodoma district of Tanzania, had 1,022 students and only 10 pit latrines. Now, there are twenty unisex drop hole latrines, six urinals for girls, eight urinals for boys, and a changing room for menstrual hygiene management. According to the study, “girls have attended school more consistently and more frequently as the new facilities give them privacy and enable them to manage their menstrual hygiene.”[23] Still, there is much more work to be done in the developing world to ensure that girls and women can practice proper menstrual hygiene management and receive an education. The education of women in the developing world has individual, national, and global implications. An educated woman can earn more money and receive better healthcare, ensuring a better future for herself, her children, and multiple generations after that, while breaking a longstanding cycle of poverty. In turn, the national economy improves and, as a result, the global economy and global efforts toward improved literacy, healthcare, and gender equality benefit as well. When girls must miss precious school days because they can not afford hygiene products or do not have access to sanitation facilities, their education suffers, their futures suffer and, ultimately, the world suffers.

SOURCES: [1] Schumacher, Anna. “Women spend hundreds of extra dollars per year. Here’s one easy out.” [2] Jewitt, Sarah and Ryley, Harriet. “It’s a girl thing: Menstruation, school attendance, spatial mobility, and wider gender inequalities in Kenya.” [3] Sommer, Marni. “Where the education system and women’s bodies collide: The social and health impact of girls’ experiences of menstruation and school in Tanzania.” [4] McMahon, S.A., Winch, P.J., Caruso, B.A., Obure, A.F., Ogutu, E.A., Ochari, I.A., and Rehnigans, R.D. “The girl with the period is the one to hang her head: Reflections on menstrual management among schoolgirls in rural Kenya.” [5] O’Hagan, Ellie Mae. “We need to talk about periods: Why is menstruation still holding girls back?” [6] See 2. [7] See 5. [8] Oster, Emily and Thornton, Rebecca. “Menstruation, sanitary products, and school attendance: evidence from a randomized evaluation.” [9] See 2. [10] Hyatt, Loren. “Menstruation matters: How periods are keeping girls out of school in Nepal.” [11] See 5. [12] See 3. [13] See 2. [14] See 2. [15] Mutunda, Anne. “Factors impacting on the menstrual hygiene among school-going adolescent girls in Mongu District, Zambia.” [16] Shatunka, Matilda. “Menstrual hygiene management among girls in primary schools and its effect on school attendance.” [17] See 15. [18] See 2. [19] “Girls’ education challenge.” Education Innovations, 2012. [20] Kibesaki, Aya. “Girls’ education.” [21] See 5. [22] Freeman, M.C., Greene, L.E., Dreibelbis, R., Saboori, S., Muga, R., Brumback, B., and Rhenigans, R. “Assessing the impact of a school-based water treatment, hygiene, and sanitation programme on pupil absence in Nyanza Province, Kenya: A cluster-randomized trial.” [23] Mengistu, B. “Her right to education: How water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools determines access to education for girls.”

WHITEWASHED FEMINISM

THE IMAGINARY GENDER VACUUM Eesha Ramanujam, Finance 2018

eminism, defined by the Oxford dictionary as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men,” is becoming a mainstream movement. You may have heard a similar definition spoken by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie over an instrumental interlude in a hugely popular Beyoncé song. Critics and proponents of feminism alike condemn this commercialization of the term, but I see value in making the movement more relatable. Yes, obviously, sources like bell hooks are preferable to pop songs, but it’s important to make the ideals of feminism accessible to a younger, less academic demographic. Pop culture icons, when they embrace feminism, send a message to young girls that empowers them to defy everyday misogyny. That being said, there are problematic tendencies that emerge from the movement’s rapid proliferation, which can lead to a dilution of its aims. The famous, the educated, and the ignorant all grow up in the same society. They may see different sides of it, but they are all subject to the same systems, the same norms. No one’s interpretation of feminism is perfect (check out Roxane Gay’s Bad Feminist essays!).[1] But those who tout themselves as feminists must actively avoid oppressing other disadvantaged groups in the pursuit of their goals. They must emphasize intersectionality, an approach to systems of oppression that takes into consideration the overlap of different identities people use to define themselves. The failure to incorporate intersectionality leads to the emergence of white feminism. White feminism is, simply put, a movement towards gender equality that disregards the existence of white supremacy. But in a larger

context, white feminism is whitewashed, “pretty” feminism that doesn’t give attention to painful realities. It paints the face of feminism with buzzwords, blanket statistics, conventionally attractive aesthetics, and abstract calls for change. To the detriment of the fight for gender equality, white feminism fails to take into account the complexity of privilege and casts sexism as the ultimate and singular form of oppression. The most recent wave of mainstream feminist outrage to hit the news has been directed at the gender pay gap in Hollywood. The Sony email leak earlier this year gave some insight into the perception of women in the film industry, especially during pay negotiations. [2] This prompted widespread backlash from actresses, actors, directors, producers, and screenwriters alike, riding on the coattails of a new wave of activism.[3] At the Academy Awards, Patricia Arquette slammed sexism in Hollywood during her acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actress, starting strong with vows to fight the norm.[4] “It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all!” was the defining moment, prompting applause and cheers. Then Arquette reeled off into more questionable territory in her post-speech interview backstage. [5] “It’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.” Arquette made a lot of assumptions in that call to action, but I’ll draw attention to two: 1) that the fight for LGBTQ rights and equality for people of color is somehow resolved and 2) that people of color, the LGBTQ community, and women are somehow mutually exclusive groups. This “other-ing” of other groups is what

characterizes white feminism – it assumes that cisgender white heterosexuality is the norm for women. The struggles of average Americans vary greatly from those of Hollywood stars. But even in that privileged world, discrimination is evident. For example, at this year’s Academy

[W]hite feminism is whitewashed, “pretty” feminism that doesn’t give attention to painful realities. It paints the face of feminism with buzzwords, blanket statistics, conventionally attractive aesthetics, and abstract calls for change. Awards, no actors or actresses of color were nominated.[6] Read that again: NO PEOPLE OF COLOR were nominated in the acting categories. Out of all the movies up for awards

featured columns

Eesha is a Fall 2015 featured columnist. Her column “Layers of Awareness” discusses the intersection of various social issues.

consideration, only five were directed by people of color.[7] Gender inequality in Hollywood, further publicized by Jennifer Lawrence’s open letter and Meryl Streep’s activism, has prompted a federal investigation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[8] [9] Good! But Viola Davis gave a stirring speech at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, calling attention to not only the lack of roles for people of color, but also the lack of diversity in the available opportunities.[10] And sites such as Every Single Word have scrutinized the screen time and value given to characters of color. Where are the inquiries into Hollywood’s whiteness? A few months ago, Nicki Minaj reacted to the announcement of nominees for the Video Music Awards with a series of tweets that expressed a discontent with the fact that her widely popular curvy girl anthem “Anaconda” was not nominated, but “when the ‘other’ girls drop a video that breaks records and impacts culture they get that nomination” and how “if your video celebrates women with very slim bodies, you will be nominated for vid [sic] of the year.” Taylor Swift read this as a personal attack on her video for the song “Bad Blood,” which featured a number of mostly white, tall, thin women in pseudo-action movie shots, and scolded Nicki on Twitter, saying that she shouldn’t “pit women against each other.” Nicki explained the point she was making, calling for a more involved discussion of race and body image in pop music, and Taylor realized she had misunderstood. Nicki made her voice heard, and Taylor learned more about discrimination in the industry. The two performed together. Happy ending?

Not exactly. The news media characterized this as a “feud” between feminism poster-girl, sweetheart Taylor Swift and angry, irrational, out-of-control, disgruntled artist Nicki Minaj.[11] Article after article documented “the argument” and analyzed how each had “handled the situation.” But most notably, resident white feminist Miley Cyrus contributed her own two cents in a New York Times interview: “If you do things with an open heart and you come at things with love, you would be heard and would respect your statement. But I don’t respect your statement because of the anger that came with it...If you want to make it about race, there’s a way you could do that. But don’t make it just about yourself.”[12] There were plenty of other questionable remarks in that portion of the article, but a pretty alarming trend was displayed in this particular statement. Miley Cyrus, a vocal feminist and activist, thought that she could tell a black woman how to talk about race. The purpose of productive advocacy is to address not only the ways in which you face oppression, but also to provide a platform for those without a voice. Cyrus is one of many who trivialize the anger and indignation of the oppressed as misguided purely because it is less palatable to the privileged. Often, those oppressed groups are unable to stand up for themselves. At least in this case, Nicki had no problem. During her acceptance speech for a different award at the show, she called Miley out with the now popularly memed “Miley, what’s good?” It might not have addressed the larger context of ignorant feminism, but it was still pretty satisfying. Feminists who are white are not inherently

flawed in their approach to feminism, and they have every right to advocate for themselves. But they must take into account the ways in which systems of oppression work to their benefit. Even the most common topics such as the wage gap, workplace discrimination, and language, for example, go far deeper than just discrimination by gender. The fight for gender equality cannot be limited to the everyday experiences of rich, cis, white, able girls. How does the wage gap affect Hispanic women?[13] How are trans women treated in the office? How do the everyday conversations we have and the people we look up to define the way we see each other? If your feminism does not leave space for discussion about the empowering and disempowering potential of religion, the murder of trans and nonbinary individuals, the obstacles facing girls seeking an education, and the lack of conversation about menstrual and reproductive health, then you are missing a crucial set of dimensions that holistically address gender inequality.[14][15][16][17] It’s impossible to be an expert on every one of these topics, but it is possible to actively educate yourself about as many of them as possible. Oppression isn’t pretty – you can’t fight it without acknowledging it at its worst. If worrying about these dimensions of inequality is not mandatory for you, then you are privileged. Privilege has layers, and it’s necessary to explore those nuances in order to make feminism intersectional. And feminism without a pronounced emphasis on intersectionality is ignorant, incomplete, and ineffective.

SOURCES: [1] “Bad Feminist.” Roxane Gay. [2] Boot, William. “Exclusive: Sony Hack Reveals Jennifer Lawrence Is Paid Less Than Her Male Co-Stars.” [3] Peterson, Andrea. “Sony’s Hacked E-mails Expose Spats, Director Calling Angelina Jolie a ‘brat’” [4] “Patricia Arquette Winning Best Supporting Actress.” [5] Hod, Itay. “Patricia Arquette on Oscar Speech Fumble: ‘I Would Have Chosen My Words a Little More Carefully.’” [6] Kang, Cecilia. “Oscars 2015: No Nominations for a Single Actor of Color or Female Director.” [7] Sender, Hanna. “Oscars 2015 Infographic: How White Are The 87th Academy Awards?” [8] Lawrence, Jennifer. “Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co-Stars?” [9] Bates, Daniel. “Federal Investigation into Hollywood Sexism Begins after Sony Email Leaks Reveal That Women A-listers Get Less than Their Male Co-stars .” [10] Blickley, Leigh. “Viola Davis Calls Out Hollywood’s Lack Of Diversity During Empowering SAG Awards Speech.” [11] Lipshutz, Jason. “Taylor Swift & Nicki Minaj’s Twitter Argument: A Full Timeline of the Disagreement.” [12] Coscarelli, Joe. “Miley Cyrus On Nicki Minaj and Hosting a ‘Raw’ MTV Video Music Awards.” [13] Fisher, Milia. “Women of Color and the Gender Wage Gap.” [14] Kristof, Nicholas. “Religion and Women.” [15] “Trans Murder Monitoring Project - TGEU.” [16] “Girls’ Education and Gender Equality.” UNICEF. [17] “Menstrual Hygiene Matters.” WaterAid. IMAGES: Via WikiCommons.

LIFTING THE VEIL ON

Lily is a Fall 2015 featured columnist. She is currently studying International Affairs and Economics at Sciences Po in Paris, France. Her column “Eurometer” discusses issues of identity in Europe from a first-hand perspective.

LAÏCITÉ THE RISE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA IN EUROPE

Lily Moseley, International Affairs and Economics 2017 24

featured columns

slamophobia has been on the upswing throughout Europe recently, with the rise of anti-immigrant political parties and the implementation of discriminatory laws that directly target Muslims. The EU has long struggled with questions of identity that have only become more pronounced in recent years; the question “what defines Europe?” continues to pester EU leadership, its citizens, and citizens of hopeful member states alike. While this debate has been somewhat intangibly existential in the past, it is rapidly becoming a viable concern with the worsening Syrian refugee crisis. Under this pretext, EU citizens and leadership will be forced to reevaluate their notions of what constitutes being ‘European’ and consider the realities stemming from their citizenry’s changing demographic. If they fail to address these troubling prejudices, a sociopolitical divide between tradition and progression will spark unrest and violence that may be difficult to contain. While Islamophobia is not unique to Europe, the passing of recent laws targeting Muslims exemplifies the growing prevalence of European governments legitimizing discrimination. However, in order to accommodate an increasing Muslim population and uphold the humanitarianism for which they are renowned, EU member states must take action to reverse this trend by passing protective laws and cracking down on religion-based hate crimes. The refugee crisis has put an enormous amount of pressure on the EU, with hundreds of thousands streaming in from Syria and neighboring countries. Not last on EU citizens’ list of concerns is the prospect of a depleted sense of “Europeanism;” as the majority of refugees entering the Union are Muslim, many seem to fear challenges to the traditional notion of a “European” (read: white, Christian) identity. While this exclusive categorization has long been obsolete thanks to extensive immigration, particularly from former European colonies, countries still continue to glorify white narratives and uphold a narrow sense of identity with discriminatory laws. One such law is France’s hotly contested strict secularist policy, known as ‘laïcité, which fails to protect minorities and has become a go to reference in condoning Islamophobic practices. Thus, as the EU moves to accommodate refugees, it will inevitably come head to head with ingrained, complex forms of prejudice thinly masked as the protection of member state “culture.” This has included, notably, a ban on wearing “conspicuous” religious

symbols in French primary and secondary schools, and more recently, a motion brought forth by French mayor Gilles Platret to eliminate a pork-free option in school lunches, which he views as special treatment and a form of “discrimination.”[4] While these laws allege to protect the secular nature of France against interference from any religion, they clearly target the freedoms of Muslims most poignantly. It is more challenging for Muslim women to inconspicuously don a head covering in accordance with Islam, than for Christians or Jews to wear easily hidden pendants, and

The EU has wished to distance itself from its unspeakable past, hoping instead to create the picture of Europe as a global symbol of humanitarianism and human rights. However, contrary to its upstanding rhetoric, the EU’s lack of action to protect the basic integrity of people within its borders demonstrates otherwise. failure to provide pork-free school lunch options directly antagonizes a major facet of the Islamic faith. Troubling instances of intolerance have also been exemplified in the UK, where a Muslim woman riding the metro was accused of hiding a bomb under her headscarf, splashed with alcohol, and taunted by men chanting,

“‘We are racist, we are racist and we love it.’”[5] The fact that this incident and so many others that have gone unreported have not been met with the passing of protective laws highlights the extent to which hatred and prejudice are being legitimized throughout Europe. The flippant dehumanization of Syrian refugees, especially with the knowledge that they are fleeing for their lives, seems shocking coming from one of the West’s shining beacons of moral righteousness. But upon closer inspection, the events are reminiscent of the intolerance exhibited during Europe’s heinous past of anti-Semitism preceding the Holocaust. Once again, the concept of a “European” identity is one of elitism, a deadly “us versus them” mentality. The EU has wished to distance itself from its unspeakable past, hoping instead to create the picture of Europe as a global symbol of humanitarianism and human rights. However, contrary to its upstanding rhetoric, the EU’s lack of action to protect the basic integrity of people within its borders demonstrates otherwise. Notably, for those perpetrating racist, Islamophobic acts there are others demonstrating support for the opposite sentiment. In my personal experience at Sciences Po, there has been graffiti on university property in opposition to the school’s recognition of the Front National as an oncampus student group. Demonstrations against the extremist anti-immigrant party have been widespread, although its recognition was voted on by the students themselves. This divide foreshadows the prospect of increasing violence over the highly debated issue of identity, a concept that EU leaders should work actively to redefine through the protection of religious minorities and condemnation of prejudiced acts. The EU’s dynamic makeup poses an issue to this process, as member states have different individual policies with respect to religious freedom of expression. However, Merkel and other EU leaders should remain firmly in support of tolerant policies if only for the selfinterested purpose of gaining the good graces of an increasingly prevalent demographic. The identity of the Union and even of “Europe” itself is changing, and its leadership must look beyond arbitrary classifications such as race and religion to preserve the most paramount European identity: that of a liberalized, democratic, tireless purveyor of human rights.

SOURCES: [1] “Merkel says ready to support Turkey EU accession process.” EurActiv. [2] European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations. “Chapters of the acquis.” [3] Justin Huggler. “Warnings over resurgence of German far-Right movement Pegida sparked by refugee crisis.” [4] The Editorial Board. “French Secularism and School Lunch.” [5] Sarah Ann Harris. “Islamophobic Abuse Ignored By Bystanders, Prompting Claims We’re Missing ‘A Sense Of Common Humanity’” [6]Jessica Elgot. “Woman arrested over racist abuse on London bus” IMAGES: WikiCommons.

WAR OF THE

WORDS Justin Cook, Political Science 2018

hirty years ago, Tipper Gore, wife of thensenator Al Gore, met with three other wives of prominent politicians to discuss a very serious issue: children were in mortal danger from the insidious threat of explicit lyrics. After hearing her daughter listening to Prince’s “Darling Nikki,” which contains references to sex and masturbation, Gore decided that the time had come to put the hammer down on the music industry. Her friends agreed, and together they founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), beginning an infamous crusade they claimed was not against music with explicit lyrics, but rather in favor of increased consumer information and the safety of our children.[1] After a number of widelypublicized congressional hearings in which the PMRC pushed for lyrics to be printed on album covers and for the creation of a new ratings board similar to that of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), an agreement

was reached. Record labels would now be encouraged, but not required, to put warning stickers on albums with explicit content. The idea behind this was that labels would be

Ratings boards try to establish an objective evaluation of something that is ultimately subjective. concerned enough about negative reaction that they would affix the stickers to any albums that deserved them, but would still have discretion

to view explicit lyrics in the greater context of the album.[2] Years later, when Eminem rose to prominence and really started getting suburban white kids interested in rap, the controversy over lyrics intensified. Make no mistake, this was his goal. Slim Shady was created to generate buzz and challenge the rules of what could and couldn’t be said in popular culture. He is his own proof of this; in his breakout single “My Name Is,” he raps, “I don’t give a fuck/God sent me to piss the world off.”[3] As time went on, Em began to see himself as more persecuted than other rappers because of his skin color and popularity. He embraced his role as every white parent’s worst nightmare, taunting them and their ineffectual efforts to stop him in songs like “White America.”[4][5] His albums became impossible to avoid as they found their way into “safe” white homes across the nation. Eminem, problematic as he is, leads us to

featured columns

Justin is a Fall 2015 featured columnist. His column “Pop Politics” analyzes the politics of American pop culture.

an interesting question: Why are we so terrified of our children being exposed to profanity? Sexual and violent lyrics are understandable, as they could be disturbing to younger listeners. But what’s the big deal over swear words? Stepping outside of music for a second, consider The King’s Speech, a movie so bland and inoffensive, it won the Best Picture Oscar. The King’s Speech received an R rating from the MPAA because of a scene where the king overcomes a problem with his speech by yelling “shit” and “fuck” numerous times.[6][7] An extremely family-friendly, inspirational film was restricted to audience members over 17 because some words with no malicious intent were used. If this article were a movie, it would be rated R as well because the word “fuck” is used five times. Why? Perhaps it’s a religious thing; in my Catholic elementary school, I was taught that swearing was a grave sin. Perhaps it’s just another way for parents to control their kids. Or perhaps we just like swearing and don’t want children to take away the impact those words can have. Whatever the reason, there’s no doubt that this fear of swear words diminishes art. Switching over to television, let’s take a look at Breaking Bad. Late in the series’ run, a major character utters some of his last words to his eventual killer: “My name is *SPOILER*, and you can go fuck yourself.” It’s a powerful, cathartic moment that’s fully in tune with who the character is. And yet on TV, it was censored. [8] Keep in mind, this is Breaking Bad. It’s a show that revolves around meth production where at different points blood and guts rain from the ceiling, a man’s throat is slit and then held open while he bleeds out, and children both kill and get killed.[9] And yet the word “fuck” just needed to be censored, damaging the quality and impact of the scene in which it’s used. Our obsession with censoring swear words not only hurts art; it can also lead parents to purchase material for their children that

they might find objectionable if they did more research. Let’s turn back to music for this example. Ed Sheeran decided to censor himself on his latest album X, reportedly after a taxi driver asked him to for his young daughter. [10] The album still contains references to sex, drinking, and drugs, but because he doesn’t swear, X avoids the hallowed Parental Advisory sticker, meaning more parents bought the album for their kids despite its potentially objectionable content.[11] The same goes for any “clean” version of albums sold at stores

Why are we so terrified of our children being exposed to profanity? Sexual and violent lyrics are understandable, as they could be disturbing to younger listeners. But what’s the big deal over swear words? like Walmart or online that simply censor swear words. The sticker fails to keep kids from hearing “bad music” because it actually encourages parents not to truly investigate what their kids are listening to. And therein lies the biggest problem with any ratings system. They’re meant to help families decide what their children should and

shouldn’t watch and listen to, but each family has different values and different things they’re okay with their children seeing and hearing. Ratings boards try to establish an objective evaluation of something that is ultimately subjective. And in the Information Age, detailed descriptions of what exactly parents might find objectionable in films or albums are readily available on the Internet. The MPAA does this to some extent, but does so with very vague terms like “violence, drug use, some language.” Perhaps instead it could provide more detailed forms of these descriptions for parents and abolish the arbitrary ratings system entirely. True, parents might still read them and decide that a few swear words mean their children shouldn’t see a movie, but it would still be a better system than the one that gave The King’s Speech, of all things, an R. But if there were ever a push for abolishing the current systems, you can bet that censorship groups like the PMRC would push back out of stubbornness. In the end, perhaps the most telling sign of censorship groups being out of touch comes from the longing they had for the clean days of old. “Much has changed since Elvis’ seemingly innocent times,” Senator Paula Hawkins mused during her testimony in favor of the PMRC. She said this even with the acknowledgement that Elvis himself caused a heap of controversy when he suggestively swung his hips on The Ed Sullivan Show.[12][13] But that’s the whole point. Obviously much had changed since then. And just as swinging hips were not as scandalous in 1985 as they were in 1956, just as women wearing pants were not as scandalous in 1956 as they were in 1900, maybe it’s time we stop seeing things that were censored in 1985 as needing to be censored today. Maybe it’s time we stop keeping our kids from experiencing art because of a few swear words. Maybe it’s time to look at art holistically and weigh its merits and detriments instead of universally condemning it. Maybe it’s time we learn to stop worrying and love the f-bomb.

SOURCES: [1] Schonfeld, Zach. “Parental Advisory Forever: An Oral History of the PMRC’s War on Dirty Lyrics.” [2] Cole, Tom. “You Ask, We Answer: ‘Parental Advisory’ Labels — The Criteria And The History.” [3] Eminem, “My Name Is,” [4] Eminem, “White America,” [5] Ex. Lyrics: “See the problem is, I speak to suburban kids/Who otherwise would’ve never knew these words exist. . ./And they connected with me too because I looked like them/That’s why they put my lyrics up under this microscope” [6] The King’s Speech. Directed by Tom Hooper. [7] Ellwood, Gregory. “Oscar Watch: ‘The King’s Speech’ Gets an R-rating for Language.” [8] Walley-Beckett, Moira, writer. “Ozymandias.” [9] Gilligan, Vince, dir. Breaking Bad. [10] “Ed Sheeran Reveals Taxi Driver Convinced Him to Clean Up His Act.” ABC News. [11] Ed Sheeran, X. [12] Record Labeling: Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. [13] Gibson, Christine. “Elvis Presley : First Appearance : The Ed Sullivan Show : September 9, 1956.”

BE HEARD. 28