Meet the Team Executive Board Jaclyn Roache Editor-in-Chief Neiha Lasharie President Anna Bagley VP of Public Relations Reilly McGreen Treasurer David McDevitt Secretary Jennifer Heintz Creative Director Mike Wagenheim Digital Designer
Editorial Board Prasanna Rajasekaran Managing Editor Aren LeBrun Column Editor Hannah Lifshutz Column Editor Will Beaman Magazine Editor Lindsey Bressler Magazine Editor Hannah Lesnik Magazine Editor Lily Moseley Magazine Editor Eesha Ramanujam Magazine Editor
Letter from the Editor & the President Dear Reader, In a time when you have undoubtedly been barraged by political media, thank you for picking up this publication. While this volume of NUPR is not a special “election issue,� per se, we would be remiss not to recognize that the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States will have wide-reaching effects, influencing every topic and policy issue discussed in this magazine. In the days following the election, our editorial board witnessed an unusual influx of new article submissions. This has reaffirmed our deepheld belief that writing serves many purposes. It can be used to grieve, to educate, to protest. It is cathartic. It humanizes and restores agency. We are embracing journalism as a form of activism. We resist the temptation to normalize the division facing the U.S. today. As we all grapple with the changing dynamics of this country, we turn to writing as a method of coping, processing, and informing our peers. As we move forward, here is our promise to you and to all readers: While we are a nonpartisan publication, we will stand resolute in our opposition to bigotry. The Political Review will continue to live up to its reputation of quality, research-backed writing and will proudly serve as a platform for whatever dialogue is needed for us to move forward as a community. We invite you to join us in advancing this mission.
Artwork by
We hope that you enjoy reading this edition as much as we loved curating it. We are excited to see how our publication evolves and, more than ever before, welcome your engagement.
Omari Bektemba, Jennifer Heintz, & Lila Selle
All the best,
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 website at nupoliticalreview.com Want to write for NUPR? Email us at nupoliticalreview@gmail.com
Jaclyn Roache, Editor-in-Chief
Neiha Lasharie, President
National 4
Trump, Meat, and Moral Failure: Coming to Terms with this Election Prasanna Rajasekaran
6
Moving On Him Like A Bitch Hannah Lifshutz
8
Healthcare Reform After Obama Anthony Formicola
12
Will the FDA Lift the Gay Blood Ban? Nicholas G. Napolio
Global 14
Brexit: A European Divorce Garry Canepa
Featured 21
Northeastern 2025: What the Administration Fails to Understand NU SAID
23
The Overlooked Racial Complexities of the Opioid Epidemic Joe TachĂŠ
26
The Audacity of Coping: Trump's America Eesha Ramanujam
28
David Foster Wallace and the Election that Made Fun of Itself Aren LeBrun
Columns
Campus
32
Of Cowboys and Terrorists Jennie Spector
16
Northeastern's "Community-Oriented" Rhetoric Belies Internal Inaction Lily Moseley
34
The Elections We Haven't Talked About Alyssa Rubin
18
The Student Fight for Divestment Aren LeBrun
National
A
pproximately a year ago, I watched the documentary Cowspiracy. The movie, despite its corny title, spawned a rather interesting moral experiment in which I was both subject and observer. Cowspiracy argues – very convincingly – that meat production causes an immense strain on the environment. Per the documentary: livestock operations cover one-third of Earth’s ice-free land; every day, cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane; animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of the Amazon rainforest’s destruction; and threefourths of the world’s fisheries are exploited and depleted.[1] The most hard-hitting facts, for me at least, relate to water consumption. Drought-laden California uses half of its water on meat and dairy products, and in total, animal agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of U.S. water consumption.[2] For me, eating meat has always seemed wrong for a number of reasons. First, there’s the whole animal cruelty thing. Second, it basically prevents your heart from working. And third, more specific to myself, Hinduism isn’t all that fond of it. But oddly enough, as salient as they were, these reasons never made me feel guilty about eating meat. Cowspiracy changed that. Sort of. The movie certainly made me feel guilty – but that guilt often formed and dissipated in between delicious bites of a dead chick en’s leg. In other words, even though I felt bad about it, even though I understood my personal culpability in the destruction of nature, I never stopped eating meat. But Cowspiracy did, over the next year, propel me to explore further moral arguments against eating meat. Perhaps the most powerful one I can remember comes from Peter Singer, the father of modern animal liberation theory. In his book Practical Ethics, Singer makes the following argument.[3] Most people say the reason it is okay to torture, maim, kill, and eat animals is because their mental faculties are inferior to those of human beings (i.e. humans are more intelligent, more receptive to pain and pleasure, etc.). But say you had a person with a severe mental disability who, because of their condition, had measurably
4
Fall 2016
TRUMP, MORAL
Coming to
less sentience than a cow. Would it be justifiable to torture, maim, kill, and eat this person? Most reasonable people would respond “no,” which begs the question, why is it okay for us to torture, maim, kill, and eat a cow? Outside of this argument, Singer’s basic ideas about animal sentience – the ability for an animal to feel pain and pleasure much in the way humans do – make meat consumption, as it’s currently practiced, completely unjustifiable. As I write this article, I have completely bought into both the environmental and cruelty-based arguments against eating meat. I find meat consumption morally unjustifiable on every level, and before most meals, I consider my moral obligation not to eat meat. Also, a few days ago, I devoured a spicy chicken sandwich from Wendy’s that was to die for – and I continue to consume meat at a somewhat regular rate. I never really thought about any of this until a few weeks ago. I hazily understood
“
...we only apply moral certainty to the past, and we insist that moral ambiguity dictates the present.
”
that I was being a hypocrite every time I ate meat, but I never sat down and deconstructed the progression of my moral failure. Nor did I really think about how blatant and severe it was. Not only am I eating meat, I’m doing it with the full knowledge that it’s wrong. This is particularly egregious because the idea of “moral action” loses its power if a person cannot act on what they know to be moral. It’s like that guy who cheats on his significant other and thinks, “I’m such a jerk,” before going out and doing it again. It’s the worst type of immorality. The reason I did start thinking about all this a few weeks ago is because I had experienced a second, unrelated moral breakdown. This breakdown, however, was not mine; it was America’s. Donald Trump was elected as
the 45th President of the United States. Typing that sentence still instigates a momentary mental break with reality, a sudden feeling that perhaps I live in an alternate timeline or a weird dream – the only places where a Trump presidency should be possible. Over the last several days, the slow realization that Trump really is our president has been accompanied by a seemingly impossible task: understanding why so many Americans support an undeniable bigot. I thought about this a lot, even before the election. For the longest time, I had no idea why people supported Trump. The tired arguments about white working class anger, anti-establishment sentiment, and – very broadly – “the internet” don’t explain in the slightest why nearly 50% of the American electorate was okay with voting for a sexual predator backed by the KKK. Losing your job doesn’t justify bigotry. Nor does being angry at the government. Nor does following only Milo Yiannopoulos on Twitter. There really is no way around it: America has committed a great moral sin. The only question now is, how do we come to terms with it? I might finally have some sort of answer. If I go home tonight and have salmon for dinner, I won’t feel terrible about it even though I know it’s wrong. Why? Because everyone I know and interact with is fine with me eating salmon; they won’t confront me about it, and I certainly won’t lose their respect. And sure, there are people out there who do care, people whose respect I probably would lose. But those people are few and far between, and I don’t come into contact with them. Moreover, society as a whole will not care, and I can continue my life without a single hitch despite committing what I know to be an utter moral failure. What this suggests is that morality is not a very effective motivator. Guilt is what really stops us from doing certain bad things, and morality and guilt are not as connected as one might think. I may feel guilty about underperforming at work, even though it’s morally justifiable because I’m working an unpaid internship. Conversely, I don’t feel guilty – or at least, not guilty enough to stop – when eating meat, even though I know it’s absolutely immoral. nupoliticalreview.com
National
MEAT, & FAILURE :
Terms with this Election By Prasanna Rajasekaran / Economics 2018 So what causes the sort of guilt that actually makes us change the way we act? Social acceptability. Consider the infamous Stanford prison experiment. The story goes that psychologist Philip Zimbardo recreated a prison setting with normal college students – designating some as guards and some as prisoners. Within hours, the guards began to act up and tyrannize the prisoners, leading many to conclude that there is some despicable beast hidden within all of us. But Zimbardo’s experiment was heavily manipulated, and considering a later recreation of the experiment with better controls, psychologist Maria Konnikova argues that the experiment actually suggests “that our behavior largely conforms to our preconceived expectations. All else being equal, we act as we think we’re expected to act.”[4] Apply this idea to my moral failure regarding meat consumption. I don’t feel all that guilty about it because no one expects me to be vegetarian. Perhaps Trumpism is similar. At some point in 2015, Trump supporters decided they wouldn’t abandon him no matter what he said (these are the hardcore Trumpers, the people who cheer bigotry). This was clear after the “ban Muslims” fiasco. Trump stayed at the top of the Republican primary despite the beating he received from the mainstream media. And with every subsequent despicable action, he recovered with ominous speed. What this suggested was not that Trump’s rhetoric was okay; it was that people were okay with Trump’s rhetoric. This created a positive feedback loop – as more people found Trump to be socially acceptable, others felt permitted to support him, which again contributed to the idea that he was socially acceptable. Of course, throughout all of this, you had people on the left screaming that Trump was not okay, never okay, but these voices – considering the growing acceptance of Trump on the right – could be ignored. In other words, Trump’s bigotry, in the course of a year and a half, went from being unacceptable to partisan – morally indefensible to a “difference of opinion” – in the eyes of (white) Americans. nupoliticalreview.com
I’m going to indulge in a bit of speculation here, but I think it’s fair. If I can go around eating meat knowing that it’s wrong, then Trump supporters can probably rationalize the bigotry of their candidate regardless of how unjustifiable it is. All they have to do is latch onto any one of the following ideas: “jobs,” anti-PC culture, anti-establishment, emails, Bill Clinton rapist, Benghazi, “He won’t really do that,” “Fear of Muslims is rational,” “I’m just voting for him because I’m Republican!” and so on. The guilt of voting for Trump – if guilt exists at all – is easily subsumed by any one of these red herrings, regardless of how trivial or false they may be. Why? Because Trump became socially acceptable. And that allows people to duck moral obligation. In 200 years, people will wonder how those living in the early 21st century could ever justify murdering thousands of animals every single day. And in 400 years, people will wonder how those living in the early 23rd century ever thought it was okay to use robots as personal slaves (considering robots clearly have consciousness). The point being, we only apply moral certainty to the past, and we insist that moral ambiguity dictates the present. This is why we see the media making an about face and imploring us to give Presidentelect Trump a “chance,” suggesting, hey, maybe Trump isn’t that bad of a guy after all. But media and moral ambiguity be damned – Trump is that bad of a guy. He allegedly assaulted 11 women and bragged about doing it. He antagonized, in some way or another, virtually every marginalized group of Americans. His mind-boggling victory does not change that. And I don’t need
“
the safe distance of history to know I’m right when I say this: Trump is not okay, your vote for him was not okay, and he should never be accepted. Rarely does morality fully converge with social acceptability. Even if Clinton had won the election, we would still be torturing thousands of animals every day. Trump’s election highlights the importance of making decisions based on morality, based on what is right and what is wrong. In the political realm, the idea of moral obligation is often dulled by a discourse that is premised upon partisanship, or “difference of opinion,” which implies that neither side is right or wrong. This can be true – sometimes politics is a zero-sum game of self-interest – but almost always it is not. Almost always there is a powerful and a powerless, and if you believe in equality, moral obligation dictates you support the latter. In the Age of Trump, that moral obligation has never been clearer. Now is the time to fight the tide of social acceptance, to think for your goddamn self, and to disavow Donald Trump as long as he remains in office. And with equal gravity and obligation, now is the time to stop eating meat. Failure to do either of these things is a moral one. •
Trump’s bigotry, in the course of a year and a half, went from being unacceptable to partisan – morally indefensible to a “difference of opinion” – in the eyes of (white) Americans.
”
[1] "Facts and Sources." COWSPIRACY. Accessed November 21, 2016. [2] "Facts and Sources." COWSPIRACY. Accessed November 21, 2016. [3] Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. [4] Konnikova, Maria. "The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment." The New Yorker. June 12, 2015. Accessed November 21, 2016.
Fall 2016
5
National
Bitch
By Hannah Lifshutz / Political Science & International Affairs 2017 Illustration by Jennifer Heintz
W
hile the majority of us writhed in disgust following the release of Donald Trump’s 2005 Access Hollywood video, in which he personified all the horrors of rape culture, others used it as a sadistic battle cry.[1] Like many other level-headed individuals, I saw the recording for the bigotry it represented, another notch on Donald’s shamefully heavy belt. For the president-elect who has successfully offended every demographic posing a threat to the Anglo-Saxon patriarchy, his explicit glorification of sexual assault wasn’t something many of us thought to be outside his capacity. The objectification of women is not to be even remotely accepted as commonplace; however, it was a discriminatory sentiment I’ve long thought to be within his skewed belief system. What was just as horrifying but not as predictable were the 53% of white women who filled in the Trump/ Pence bubble on their ballots.[2] When the American people were given the choice between an alleged rapist and a woman with 30 years of political experience, they chose the former, and that in and of itself is truly frightening.[3] Women’s issues played a key role in the 2016 election, and not only because Trump's history of alleged sexual assaults became a debate topic as if it were ISIS or the American deficit. Those of us who believed the dynamics of the women's movement were no longer centered around picketing and protesting clearly identifiable
6
Fall 2016
forms of sexism were wrong. Before election night, I believed that feminism had become less about enumerated rights and more about deconstructing social limitations. When I woke up the following morning, however, the disillusionment of being a woman in Trump’s America was palpable. As a white woman who fully identifies the extent of her own privilege, I can only speak from my own experiences. I stand in solidarity with all men and women of color, those of different economic backgrounds, the LGBTQ+ community, individuals of any religious affiliation, and anyone negatively affected by this seismic political shift. On election night, I cried in my best friend's arms as I thought about the number of times teachers and friends told me that with the right work ethic, ambition, and intellect, I could achieve anything I set my mind to. I thought about the times I didn’t get the job, and I looked for signs as to whether or not it had to do with me being a woman. While these personal failures may have had nothing to do with my genitalia,
“
Hillary’s defeat made me question all of it. Although feminism has become a trend, particularly in pop culture, the election results point to the disconnect between #girlpower and female empowerment. And while certain voters on the left were ready to regurgitate the assumption that it was just the uneducated white men in this country who fueled Trump’s victory, it wasn’t. White women weren’t the security net we had hoped they would be. The push for gender equality in American culture is a movement that encompasses activists from all across the gender spectrum. Men, women, and non-binary individuals alike have attempted to highlight the areas in American society where women have yet to break the proverbial glass ceiling. Trump’s victory emphasizes the often neglected relationship between discourse and ideology, the way in which speech can be used to incite bigotry. A year ago, he was using his hypnotizing hatred to mobilize his supporters to forcefully remove African-Americans
When the American people were given the choice between an alleged rapist and a woman with 30 years of political experience, they chose the former, and that in and of itself is truly frightening.
”
nupoliticalreview.com
from his rallies.[4] And just before election day, a faction of his supporters proudly circulated the #RepealThe19th hashtag, calling for a repeal of the constitutional amendment that gave women the right to vote almost a century ago.[5] While Donald J. Trump’s candidacy seemed laughable just a year ago, we now find ourselves mourning the realities of The Apprentice: Moving on Her Like a Bitch Edition. It isn’t necessarily that anything changed; rather, our own societal gender dynamics have been brought to light. The explicit breed of the sexist rhetoric that Donald and his sadistic supporters champion is ingrained in our national subconscious. And one of the most difficult aspects of advancing gender equality is extricating that discrimination and disallowing it from being perceived as normal. However, untangling our societal psyche and approaching facets of gender equality with a deeper level of analysis are made increasingly difficult when people like our newly elected Vice President circulate the notion that working mothers stunt the emotional growth of children.[6] In a recent CNN interview, 10 female Trump supporters relayed their opinions and reactions surrounding the release of Donald Trump’s 2005 Pussy Video.[7] CNN reporter Randi Kaye asks the group, "You don’t think it says anything about him as a person, or what he truly believes about women, speaking this way?" It doesn’t take long for respondent Dena Miller to unknowingly exemplify everything that is wrong with the gender paradigm. “No, I don’t,” she exclaims, “I think it was just a man being a man in a man’s world, talking to men.” No, Ms. Miller, that was a man boasting about being a predator and you, a woman, defending it. Brushing aside repulsive rhetoric as if the objectification of women is inherent desensitizes very real emotions that have palpable effects on the female population. Another respondent, Amy Hillcock, mentioned that the widespread criticisms of Trump’s comments were baseless given that “he wasn’t saying it to females, he was saying it to men.” A thorough analysis of the depths of Trump’s predatory past is not likely what prompted this apathetic response. Rather, these conservative women are presumably attempting to stray away from a political belief that would label them as adversarial, because that would be impolite. So instead they kindly smile and vilify the women with actual political beliefs, (also known colloquially as “the bitches”). nupoliticalreview.com
”
This isn’t to say that Hillary Clinton didn’t have her baggage. The Clintons are regarded as untrustworthy and scandalous. Hillary had numerous skeletons in her closet, primarily during her tenure as Secretary of State and her disputed email practices. However, I can’t pretend to accept the opposing argument. I’m not able to wrap my head around it, but I’ve listened to it: “Trump is anti-establishment. He’s going to magically restore the economic woes of the working-class American.” However, a multi-millionaire does not understand the common American’s economic grievances. If anything, he’s the most detached figure from them. So why is it that 53% of white women were willing to cast a ballot that threatens their own well-being? One can only assume that many of these women are content with their status as second-class citizens. In her April article for Salon Magazine, Amanda Marcotte notes the hypocrisies associated with being an ultra-conservative woman, oftentimes subject to playing into the anti-feminist narrative so as to not lose the support of male counterparts. “Laughing along with Trump’s hateful slams on women to show how chill and able to hang you are, while sneering at other women for getting mad about it is a cheap and easy way to feel good about yourself at the expense of other women. Plus, sexist men congratulate you for it.”[8] Whether the rationale stems from avoiding contrarian stances or simply choosing to ignore the gendered disproportionality that exists in our country, this dismissal of hateful political rhetoric is detrimental to the livelihood of women everywhere. That a presidential candidate can be recorded boasting about “grabbing a woman by the pussy” and proceed to win the support of the majority of the white female electorate is simply repulsive. Disregarding the importance of speech is exactly what allows these sexist, xenophobic demagogues to rise to power. Observing a group of 10 white women who regard political correctness as laughable -- and brush off misogyny at the highest level of politics -- is not only divisive, but debilitating. The circulation of the #RepealThe19th hashtag, which essentially blames women for Trump’s chauvinistic sexism, is crippling to a movement that has ignited expansive change over the last 100 years. There are a multitude of cognitive neuroscience studies that pinpoint the decisive link between speech and ideology.[9] The way we speak is directly linked to the way we think and vice versa. Thus, when conservative men
National
“
Those of us who believed the dynamics of the women’s movement were no longer centered around picketing and protesting clearly identifiable forms of sexism were wrong.
and women frantically run around to different media outlets to defend their psychopathic president-elect, I’m left banging my head against my desk – not because any given scandal is supposed to start a ripple effect resulting in the complete abandonment of one’s ideological base. Rather, when a man boasts about “moving on her like a bitch,” it’s because he knows he can glorify sexual assault and there will still be those desperately waiting to defend him. In the words of David Graham of The Atlantic, “With the complicity of too many conservatives, Trump’s abuse of women hid in plain sight, dismissed or laughed off for months.”[10] Speech is perhaps more divisive now than it has been in more than a century. It should not be used as a tool to revert our societal dynamics to those of 100 years ago, when women were more commonly regarded as mindless sexual beings. The day after the election, I didn’t know if I could bring myself to listen to Hillary’s concession speech. I thought that, for whatever reason, hearing her formally recognize her defeat would make it real. When I did, however, I had never felt prouder to be a woman. As she so eloquently stated, “To all those little girls watching… never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world.”[11] As a woman, embrace your potential, your intellect, and your sexuality. Do not allow his presidency to feel normal; do not fall into a state of apathy. Volunteer at local organizations that are jeopardized by his victory, such as Asylum Access and Planned Parenthood. Stand in solidarity with everyone who might be affected, whether they are a refugee, a woman, a Muslim, a member of the LGBTQ+ community, or an immigrant. Listen to the grievances of others, tell them yours, and help each other feel protected during this time. •
[1] Goldmacher, Shane, Annie Karni, and Nolan McCaskill. 2016. “Trump Caught On Tape Making Crude, Sexually Aggressive Comments About Women”. Politico. [2] Moore, Suzanne. 2016. “Why Did Women Vote For Trump? Because Misogyny Is Not A Male-Only Attribute”. Huffington Post. [3] Tolentino, Jia. 2016. “Trump And The Truth: The Sexual Assault Allegations”. New Yorker. [4] Jacobs, Jennifer. 2016. “Black Students Ejected From Trump Rally In Ga.”. USA Today. [5] Tesfaye, Sophia. 2016. “#Repealthe19th: Donald Trump Supporters Tweet New Anthem After Nate Silver’S Poll Shows He’D Win If Only Men Voted”. Salon. [6] Paquette, Danielle. 2016. “Mike Pence Has Mocked Working Moms: ‘Sure, You Can Have It All’”. Washington Post. [7] CNN. 2016. Trump Supporters Standing By Their Man. Video. [8] Marcotte, Amanda. 2016. “The Mystery Of Republican Women Backing Sexist Trump: They’Re Female Misogynists Who’Ve Grown To Accept Oppression”. Salon. [9] McGee, Michael Calvin. 1980. “The “Ideograph”: A Link Between Rhetoric And Ideology”. Quarterly Journal Of Speech 66 (1): 1-16.doi:10.1080/00335638009383499. [10] Graham, David. 2016. “How Trump’s Abuse Of Women Hid In Plain Sight”. The Atlantic. [11] Bhattacharya, Ananya. 2016. “”Never Doubt That You Are Valuable And Powerful”: Hillary Clinton’s Message To America’s Girls”. Quartz.
Fall 2016
7
National
F
I.
or those committed to the protection of vulnerable populations in the United States, perhaps the most reassuring part of a Hillary Rodham Clinton victory on November 8th would have been her administration’s ability to uphold and improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Despite Republican insistence that the central pillar of President Obama’s legacy is an utter failure, the ACA has made substantial gains that cannot be ignored or cast aside. For example, health insurance consumers are now guaranteed coverage at fair rates regardless of pre-existing conditions, gender, or overall health status. They are also protected from underinsurance due to annual or lifetime coverage limits. Perhaps most importantly, they are offered subsidies to pay for part of their
8
Fall 2016
premiums if they are unable to reasonably afford the full costs.[1] As a direct result of the law, at least 20 million previously uninsured Americans now have access to health care and a safeguard against bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness or injury.[2] This massive achievement is probably the most significant stride toward universal health care that the United States has ever made, including LBJ’s establishment of Medicare and Medicaid. On the other hand, cost containment is an issue that the ACA has yet to solve; critics point to skyrocketing premiums on the exchanges as an indicator of the law’s defectiveness. Unfortunately, certain provisions that would have curbed the growth of premiums were blocked by lobbyists and Republicans as the bill was crafted. But these problems can be
remedied under the current framework. In fact, many experts believe that a recommitment to this framework (with a few notable additions and changes) is the best course of action as our nation strives for high-quality, cost-effective coverage for every American.[3] A President-elect Clinton would have led this effort of recommitment and readjustment; she planned to maintain the Affordable Care Act and add provisions to improve it. A measure that was ultimately forced out of the initial reform law but still has many supporters is a federally-operated health insurance plan, also known as the public option. This plan would have the ability to operate with low overhead and offer lower premiums than privately insured options. The resultant competition would nupoliticalreview.com
National
drive down prices on all of the state health insurance exchanges, where consumers purchase insurance if not covered by an employer, Medicare, or Medicaid. This cost containment would be particularly striking for the states that currently have just one or two choices of insurers on their individual marketplaces and are therefore experiencing the biggest premium increases.[4] The establishment of the public option was one of Hillary Clinton’s central healthcare reform strategies, and even without significant Republican support for the provision, she might have been able to institute it.[5] In order to respond to the concerns of small business, she also supported a tax credit expansion for this important part of our economy. This measure would have helped employers pay for their employees’ premiums, which, in other words, would have protected both the financial interests of employers and the coverage status of employees.[6] Furthermore, Clinton favored increased financial assistance to individuals and families surrounding the poverty line (which would have encouraged continued growth in insurance coverage for those who need and deserve it most) and new financial assistance to privately insured individuals and families with burdensome out-of-pocket costs (which would have lent a hand to those who are finding it more and more difficult to keep up with the rising costs of care in this country).[7] nupoliticalreview.com
Of course, neither universal coverage nor total cost containment could have been immediately achieved by a new administration. For instance, it is unclear if Clinton would have been able to strengthen the individual mandate, which seems to be a necessary adjustment to the Affordable Care Act. The mandate, a central tenet of the law that requires all Americans to have some sort of health insurance coverage, is a crucial cost-containment mechanism but politically unpopular in conservative circles.[8] A much more progressive policy such as all-payer rate setting probably also would have been impossible in the near future; while the establishment of a finite range of prices for any given medical procedure is arguably the most effective way to bend the cost curve, a variety of lobbyist groups would be sure to fight tooth and nail against it.[9] In any case, the main point is that our nation’s healthcare reform effort needs leadership that is supportive of the ACA’s strengths, has the wisdom to understand that each part of the law is necessary for the success of the whole, has the patience to allow the market to stabilize, but is determined to promptly address the law’s gaps. Hillary Clinton’s hypothetical administration would have presumably met all four of those requirements. Donald J. Trump’s real and imminent administration seems to meet none. With or without the support of the popular vote, Trump will be chosen by the electoral college to serve as the 45th President of the
United States of America. Because he was the candidate of the Republican Party, the GOP congressional majority expects him to approve its legislation, and Democrats can do little to block these laws. Even in the case of a filibuster, the Senate only needs a simple majority to send any bill directly to President Trump’s desk that exclusively relates to spending.[10] It just so happens that this type of bill, called a reconciliation bill, can easily address the loudest complaint of the Republican opposition for the past six years. A reconciliation bill, in other words, can effectively repeal the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act (H.R.3762) was a bill passed in January 2016 that, although vetoed by President Obama, would dismantle the reform effort upon its enactment.[11] The bill would abolish the individual mandate, remove the tax credits that helped low- and middle-income Americans pay for premiums, and erase the new Medicaid expansion. After the full transition of power this January, all Congress will have to do is pull this bill off the shelf and send it to the new president for his signature. With the stroke of a pen (one that will probably be branded with TRUMP and made in Mexico), 22 million Americans will lose access to health care, and the existing framework for future reform will be expunged from federal law.[12]
II.
Potential objections to this apocalyptic prediction must now be addressed. The most obvious is that Republicans claim not• Fall 2016
9
National
to pursue a simple repeal of the Affordable Care Act but instead a repeal-and-replace strategy that would, according to Trump in his post-election 60 Minutes interview, result in “great health care for much less money.” Trump also claimed that a replacement act would be passed “simultaneously” with the ACA repeal act: “It’ll be just fine...we’re not going to have a two-year period where there’s nothing.”[13] More importantly, this is the general consensus among the leaders of the Republican Party as well. Much like Trump, they say that the current reform law will be removed as soon as possible, that it will be replaced right away with something better, and that no one should worry too much about it.[14] But even a cursory investigation of this narrative exposes its flaws and half-truths. House Republicans led by Speaker Paul Ryan did publish a healthcare policy paper entitled “A Better Way” in June 2016, which lays out the principles that undergird their healthcare reform intentions.[15] Trump can also reference the seven-point plan for healthcare reform on his website.[16] Regardless, neither of these documents serve as a concrete replacement bill. No legislation has been written by the House, no input has been offered by the Senate, and no economic impact assessment has been made by the Congressional Budget Office.[17] Republicans might say or even believe that they have a simple task ahead of them, but our legislative branch is far from sending a replacement bill to the president’s desk in any realistic sense. Furthermore, a
replacement act needs to be passed in tandem with the repeal, whether or not this repeal includes a two-year transition period or “sunsetting” of the ACA (as H.R.3762 does). Our representatives cannot be so irresponsible as to nullify a law that supports the health of millions of Americans without painstakingly preparing a substitute and fully understanding its implications. As an alternative response to fearful predictions about the future of healthcare reform, some Washington insiders have expressed their certitude that the GOP simply will not leave 22 million people without health insurance.[18] This thought is hopeful but baseless. Even if President Trump and the Republicancontrolled Congress delay the ACA repeal until a replacement act is ready (which would mean enduring the daily insistence of their supporters), the specifics of their initial replacement plans place no focus on maintaining the present level of health insurance coverage. Ryan and Trump have floated ideas in the previously mentioned documents that include permission to sell insurance across state lines, block-grants to the states for Medicaid, reliance on Health Savings Accounts, and tax deductions of health insurance premiums. These ideas are all tangentially related to coverage, but none seem to even approach the comprehensive ways in which the Affordable Care Act subsidizes health insurance for lowand middle-income Americans.[19] To this reality, some objectors might still resist. Even if they agree that the current
“
replacement plan is inadequate in its fledgling state, they might remain certain that the GOP will somehow incorporate this large demographic of tenuously insured Americans by the end of the process. This perspective seems reasonable on the surface. Even apart from a moral assessment of the situation, a simple political assessment points out that Republicans would like to maintain their hold on the legislative branch in the 2018 midterm elections. Taking away the ability to pay for health insurance from 22 million voters is certainly not the best strategy to retain control. However, an ACA “sunsetting” period might help to minimally affect voting behavior. Also, a GOP distraction campaign is sure to follow any repeal-and-replace effort: not an abandonment of the poor (they will say), but a victory against low-quality, highcost, socialized medicine. Apart from these efforts, it is important to recognize that our leaders simply do not suffer severe ramifications when they enact policy that harms low-income Americans. These are often the same Americans who are suppressed at the ballot box, who have no lobbyists to fight their battles, who have no voice. When left unchecked, these are some of the sociopolitical mechanisms that serve to maintain the status quo, and a Republican healthcare reform effort should not be expected to operate outside these norms. To imply that people are overreacting to a potential repeal, casual observers might also point out that President-elect Trump
Americans should hardly feel comfort that they question the possibility of an ACA repeal only because they question their next president’s commitment to transparency and precedent.
10
”
those of a simple grandstander. Americans should hardly feel comfort that they question the possibility of an ACA repeal only because they question their next president’s commitment to transparency and precedent.
III.
After analyzing these many objections and realizing that they do little to calm the fears of those who support the current healthcare reform effort, it becomes clear that the Affordable Care Act will most likely be repealed. The status of health insurance coverage for 22 million Americans will be placed in doubt, and many of these Americans will lose coverage when the dust settles. This threat to the collective health of our nation (and particularly to the health of the most vulnerable) is real, and it cannot be normalized or forgotten as we adjust to the realities of the incoming Trump administration. As must be the case for a number of important issues, we cannot fall silent or grow discouraged. We must publicly offer our support for the ACA. We must repeatedly reach out to our representatives. We must seek to change the minds of those around us. Maybe if enough of us speak loudly enough for long enough, we can convince the Trump administration or the Republican-led Congress that the Affordable Care Act cannot in good conscience be repealed without the passage of a replacement act on the very same day. Maybe we can convince the framers of the replacement bill to include more support for low- and middle-income Americans than the “Better Way” policy paper and Trump’s barebones plan do. (And because a third Republican healthcare reform alternative called the Patient CARE Act exists that places a greater focus on this demographic, increased support might actually be a possibility.)[25] Maybe we can push this bill to the point where it maintains coverage for almost all of the Americans that had it under the ACA. Maybe we really can arrive at the “barely changed version of Obamacare” that John Oliver mentioned, just with a different name in order to appease the GOP base. Maybe we can even convince a few Republican congresspeople to oppose repeal altogether; maybe we can save the ACA and force Trump to look toward the sorts of reforms that Hillary Clinton supported. However, most of that is unlikely. While it is vital that we recommit to political and community involvement in this time of profound
uncertainty, we can only change so much at this point. Therefore, we cannot be surprised over the next few years by renewed increases in bankruptcy filings related to exorbitant hospital bills, poor health outcomes for vulnerable Americans, and excess death within these populations.[25] Without exaggeration, thousands of people’s lives will be ruined or ended early as a result of this policy shift. I would hope that this fact horrifies any American, particularly those who voted for Trump and/or Republican congressional candidates. If it does, the important question becomes, “Why did you vote the way that you did?” I understand that voting involves a hopelessly complex decisionmaking process for many Americans and that it is impossible to represent all of your beliefs with one ballot. Furthermore, I find it useless and untrue to assert that every Trump voter is racist, misogynist, xenophobic, and unconcerned with the poor. On the other hand, I do believe that every Trump voter, purposefully or not, put a man and a party into power that have the ability to enact policy with those qualities. Therefore, an essential shortcoming possessed by some of these voters that we must continue to discuss is privilege. Because many of these voters are sheltered from the plight of certain demographic groups in this country, they have the privilege of refraining from interaction with the real concerns of these groups and altogether denying the reality of their experiences. Because they do not see any kind of real changes in their lives regardless of new administrations or policy shifts, they have the privilege of treating an election like a popularity contest or a sporting event instead of what it actually is: a choice between two completely different policy agendas, which will significantly impact the behavior of our government and the lives of many. We have to pull certain Americans from this trance of negligence, tribalism, and inertia; we have to urge them to see that their fates are intimately tied to the fates of their fellow citizens (of the country and of the world). We have to continue to challenge these entrenched American notions that individualism results in the most desirable outcomes for all, or that government is inherently wasteful, inefficient, and untrustworthy. In the specific case of the Affordable Care Act and its fragile future, we have to call for a new American value: that access to health care is a fundamental human right.•
National
has already begun to pivot from his absolute declarations that the Affordable Care Act is “a complete disaster.”[20] In fact, during the previously mentioned 60 Minutes interview, Trump insisted that certain popular provisions of the law will be maintained when the act is repealed. These observers might begin to wonder aloud if the final result of Republican healthcare reform will end up being “a barely changed version of Obamacare,” as John Oliver recently speculated.[21] But it is crucial to understand that the ACA does not function in a piecemeal fashion. It functions as a whole. If, as the president-elect suggests, he maintains protections for consumers with pre-existing conditions but nullifies community rating requirements, the individual mandate, and subsidies for the poor, he ensures that the people who most need health insurance cannot buy it—and raises premiums for everyone.[22] Perhaps Trump’s recent comments reveal his ignorance of the basic challenges that currently face healthcare reform, or perhaps they reveal his willful misdirection of the American people. In either case, Americans should not be thrilled, and they must not be tricked. Speaking of the president-elect’s character and fitness for office, a final objection might be that the American people have no idea what Trump really believes or which bills he will ultimately sign into law. This is a fair point; perhaps the nation’s future leader will wake up someday soon with tickled heartstrings. Perhaps he will return to the words that he (or his ghostwriter) recorded in 2000: “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal health care.”[23] Perhaps, in short, he will somehow find a way to avoid striking down his party’s most hated piece of legislation. However, it is fairly concerning that the only thing that gives ACA defenders (quite little) solace is the same thing that makes Trump’s behavior seem autocratic.[24] His commitment to incoherence cannot be confused with that of any other double-speaking politician. His unstable temperament, unabated threats, and inability to denounce support from his most vile admirers cannot be confused with
[1] “Key Features of the Affordable Care Act By Year,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, August 13, 2015. [2] “20 million people have gained health insurance coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, new estimates show,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, March 3, 2016. [3] Toussaint, John S, “Improve the Affordable Care Act, Don’t Repeal It,” Harvard Business Review, November 16, 2016. [4] Hacker, Jacob S, “The Best Way to Save Obamacare,” New York Times, October 27, 2016. [5] Greene, Jay, “Clinton voices support for public option health insurance plan,” Crain’s Detroit Business, August 11, 2016. [6] “Hillary Clinton Will Make Life Easier for Small Business at Every Step of the Way,” HillaryClinton.com, 2016. [7] Eibner, Christine, Sarah Nowak, and Jodi Liu, “Hillary Clinton's Health Care Reform Proposals: Anticipated Effects on Insurance Coverage, Out-of-Pocket Costs, and the Federal Deficit,” Commonwealth Fund, September 23, 2016. [8] “A Clinton White House Likely Would Try To Strengthen Individual Mandate Penalty,” Inside Health Policy, October 24, 2016. [9] Kliff, Sarah, “All-payer rate setting: America’s back-door to single-payer?” Vox, February 9, 2015. [10] Kliff, Sarah, “Trump and the GOP can absolutely repeal Obamacare — and 22 million people would lose health insurance,” Vox, November 9, 2016. [11] “H.R.3762 - To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016,” U.S. House of Representatives, October 16, 2015. [12] Hall, Keith, “Re: Budgetary Effects of H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, as Passed by the Senate on December 3, 2015,” Congressional Budget Office, December 11, 2015. [13] Stahl, Lesley, “President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes,” CBS News, November 13, 2016. [14] Reilly, Katie, “Read Paul Ryan’s Speech Calling Donald Trump’s Victory the ‘Most Incredible Political Feat’,” Time, November 9, 2016. [15] “A Better Way: Our Vision for a Confident America,” Office of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, June 22, 2016. [16] “Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again,” DonaldJTrump.com, 2016. [17] Kliff, Sarah, “Trump and the GOP can absolutely repeal Obamacare — and 22 million people would lose health insurance,” Vox, November 9, 2016. [18] Kliff, Sarah, “Trump and the GOP can absolutely repeal Obamacare — and 22 million people would lose health insurance,” Vox, November 9, 2016. [19] Kliff, Sarah, “I read 7 Republican Obamacare replacement plans. Here’s what I learned,” Vox, November 17, 2016. [20] “Fox News/Facebook Two-Tier 2015 GOP primary debate,” On the Issues, August 6, 2015. [21] “President-Elect Trump: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO),” HBO, November 13, 2016. [22] Pearlstein, Steven, “Donald Trump is about to face a rude awakening over Obamacare,” Washington Post, November 12, 2016. [23] “Donald Trump in The America We Deserve,” On the Issues, July 2, 2000. [24] Gessen, Masha, “Autocracy: Rules for Survival,” New York Review of Books, November 10, 2016. [25] Burr, Hatch, Upton Unveil Obamacare Replacement Plan,” U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, February 5, 2015.
nupoliticalreview.com
Fall 2016
11
National
Will the FDA Lift the Gay Blood Ban? By Nicholas G. Napolio / Political Science 2018 Illustration by Lila Selle
I
n June 2016, dozens were killed and many more injured in a shooting at Pulse, an Orlando gay club.[1] Following the shooting, members of the LGBTQ+ community rushed to donate blood to help the victims, but many were prohibited from doing so. The instance brought to light the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulation banning men who have sex with men (MSM) from donating.[2] Though the FDA lifted the lifetime ban on blood donations from MSM in 2015, it still bans donations from men who have had sex with men in the last 12 months—in other words, the FDA does not care if donors are gay or bisexual as long as they do not act on it.[3] The grief and outrage triggered by the shooting was fueled by the realization that
12
Fall 2016
the targeted community was, in perhaps the most important way, restricted from aiding the victims.[4] Despite the reaction to the events in Orlando, the FDA is not likely to change its policy due both to the agency’s nature and the logic behind the MSM restriction. The FDA originally banned MSM from donating blood in the 1980s at the height of the AIDS epidemic. The agency justified its ban because MSM were diagnosed with HIV at a disproportionately higher rate than Americans generally. In 2010, according to the CDC, 71.1% of new HIV infections in the United States were found in MSM. [5] That statistic does indeed indicate a significant gap between the risk of HIV in heterosexual people and MSM. However,
68.8% of new HIV infections were in people of color, yet the FDA has not banned people of color from donating blood. The South is also at a higher risk for HIV than the rest of the country, but southerners have not been banned from donating blood either.[6] If the FDA were truly worried about populations that have disproportionately high risks of infection, it would ban people of color and Southerners—along with MSM— from donating blood, which is obviously unconscionable—not to mention unconstitutional. This demonstrates the FDA’s absurdity and inconsistency. Additionally, since the FDA tests all blood anyway, the ban serves no public health purpose. Its real purpose is homophobia in the most literal sense. nupoliticalreview.com
The FDA is able to enforce its policy because Congress endows certain executive agencies with the power to create rules in their jurisdictional domains. Agency discretion in policymaking expanded greatly in the 20th century and continues to expand today as regulatory issues become more complex and comprehensive. The general justification for the delegation of policymaking from the elected branches of government to unelected agencies is that agencies tend to employ experts in their respective and technical fields who are better suited to regulate industries, technologies, and innovation than politicians are.[7] One supposed benefit of delegating policymaking to specialized agencies is expediency. Rather than bogging down an already unproductive Congress with thousands of arcane research papers, agency experts quickly make well-informed decisions that benefit the country. Yet, in 2016, Reuters reported that the FDA was too slow even to issue food recalls—its most time-sensitive responsibility.[8] Pharmaceutical companies and consumers are often left frustrated with how slowly new drugs are evaluated and approved, and that problem has now extended to the process of lifting the blood donation ban. The FDA also exhibits a large degree of opacity in its decision making. The average American might well be informed of Congress’ legislative activities, but the media are less likely to report on the inner workings of the clinical trials and presentation of, say, a new idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis drug. These sorts of topics do not readily capture public interest and are typically too esoteric for the average citizen to engage with.
National
“
The grief and outrage triggered by the [Orlando] shooting was fueled by the realization that the targeted community was, in perhaps the most important way, restricted from aiding the victims.
”
This opacity severely impacts the FDA’s public accountability. Since the public is generally unaware of the FDA’s activities, it has little motivation to lobby against it. Businesses that are regulated by the FDA and politicians might have a clearer view into its activities, and might therefore be more likely to influence its policies through lobbying. However, the FDA’s commissioner cannot be removed by Congress, and can only be removed by the President for cause—typically bad behavior, not policy disagreement. Businesses can write as many letters and comment on as many proposed rules as they would like, but the FDA cannot be punished by those businesses. The FDA is structurally accountable to the President, but is substantively independent from any elected office and from the public; thus, it is difficult to incentivize the agency to act upon what the public wants. No major force acts upon it to inspire concern for what elected officials, businesses, or the public want. Given the reasons why the FDA will not repeal the ban, any efforts by interested parties to overturn it must be threefold. They must discredit the FDA’s scientific claims, push through its inefficiency, and go above it to elected officials for legislative change. As previously noted, the FDA’s scientific claims are already weak, and its logic is flawed; MSM have higher infection rates for HIV than the public generally, but so do many other groups that are not banned. Interested parties ought to argue for coextensive protections for MSM and draw comparisons between the United States’ record on policies that exclude people of color and other marginalized groups to the country’s current treatment of MSM when advocating for policy change.
Appealing to higher authorities for legislative change instead of to the FDA directly for administrative change is necessary because the threat of legislative action against an agency, such as shrinking its budget, incentivizes that agency to change its actions.[9] Additionally, legislation is much more durable than administrative policy because the latter can be overturned by future administrations with ease. Interested parties could also lobby the president to pressure the FDA into changing its policy, but the president cannot force compliance by threatening to shrink the FDA’s budget. Also, if the president were to remove the ban by executive order, a future president could easily reinstate it by the same means. So, if Congress were to threaten to withhold appropriations or shrink the FDA’s budget, the FDA would be much more likely to comply with Congress’ policy goals. Furthermore, if Congress were to legislate protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when donating blood, the FDA would have to comply because legislation preempts regulation. Thus, concerned parties should lobby Congress to legislate inclusionary policies for blood donations or tie its appropriations to the FDA’s removal of its ban. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in striking down bans on same-sex marriage, the LGBTQ+ community seeks “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”[10] The FDA’s policy denies MSM that dignity and must be repealed. Note: The FDA has established a public docket and is seeking comments on its blood donor policy.[11] •
[1] Lizette Alvarez and Richard Pérez-Peña, “Orlando Gunman Attacks Gay Nightclub, Leaving 50 Dead”, New York Times, June 12, 2016. [2] Food and Drug Administration, “Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Products: Guidance for Industry”. [3] Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Updates Blood Donor Deferral Policy to Reflect the Most Current Scientific Evidence and Continue to Ensure the Safety of the U.S. Blood Supply”, December 21, 2015. [4] Cassie Spodak, “Gay Congressman Calls for FDA to Overturn Blood Donation Ban for Gay Men”, CNN Politics, June 17, 2016. [5] Centers for Disease Control, “HIV in the United States: At a Glance”, October 20, 2016. [6] Centers for Disease Control, “HIV and AIDS in the United State by Geographic Distribution”, September 26, 2016. [7] Gormley, William T, and Steven J Balla. 2004. Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. [8] Julie Steenhuysen, “FDA Too Slow to Order Food Recalls, U.S. Watchdog Finds”, Reuters, June 9, 2016. [9] McCubbins, Matthew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3(2): 243–77. [10] Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) [11] Food and Drug Administration, “Blood Donor Deferral Policy for Reducing the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Products; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments”, Federal Register, July 28, 2016.
nupoliticalreview.com
Fall 2016
13
Global
n a e p o r u E Brexit: A e c r o v i D O
n June 23, 2016, global financial markets entered a frenzy as the people of the United Kingdom voted 52% to 48% to leave the European Union. Almost immediately, the British pound went into freefall, growth forecasts were slashed, and many were predicting a recession. UK Prime Minister David Cameron resigned after the vote and was quickly replaced by Theresa May. Additionally, Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right populist party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), resigned shortly after stating that his political ambition to get the UK out of the EU had been achieved.[1] Despite these economic and political shakeups, the UK remains a member of the EU and will be until at least 2019.[2] The question many are asking is whether the UK’s exit from the EU will lead to the prosperity that UKIP promised, or if the UK will become permanently poorer as a result. The recent wave of right-wing populism that prompted the vote to leave presents a clear threat to the economic and social stability of the UK. This leaves Theresa May’s administration with a hard choice of whether to steer the nation away from populist sentiment despite the political upheaval or to accept the result of the referendum and take the nation onto a path of protectionism and nativism. Not only is Brexit a divorce of the UK and Europe, but it may also signify a conflict between the pillars of liberal ideology: free markets and democracy. But to fully understand the implications of Brexit, we must first answer the question that many Brits googled immediately after news of the referendum results broke: “What is the EU?”[3]
14
Fall 2016
Garry Canepa / Political Science and Economics 2019 The EU is a collection of 28 economically and politically integrated nations, unified under seven political institutions, the most notable of which is the European Commission in Brussels. The EU nations share a single market, allowing for the free flow of goods, services, and capital across borders. Born out of the ashes of two devastating world wars, the EU was intended to maintain political stability within Europe, as well as to encourage trade between the countries of the region. The EU has been held up as a success of regional integration, showing how strong international ties can lead to peace and economic growth. However, this was before the 2008 global financial crisis, the European sovereign debt crisis, and the Syrian refugee crisis, all of which have put a severe strain on the once praised institution. This political and economic turmoil partially explains the UK’s desire to leave. While the UK has always kept its neighbors on the continent at an arm’s length, the Kingdom’s flat out rejection of the institution tasked with promoting peace, trade, and economic growth has been a shock to the world and a slap to Europe’s face. Like in the rest of the developed world, the primary culprit responsible for the recent backlash against the political and economic status quo has been the rise of populism. The “Leave” group ran a campaign criticizing the stringent regulations imposed by EU governance and immigration from Europe, deeming both a threat to UK growth and employment. However, that doesn’t mean that “Leave” voters are the displaced, blue collar workers who have been the victims
of regulations and free trade and are voting based on rational self-interest. Economist Anatole Kaletsky wrote in an op-ed, “Most populist voters are neither poor nor unemployed; they are not victims of globalization, immigration, and free trade. The main demographic groups behind the anti-establishment upsurge have been people outside the workforce: pensioners, middle-aged homemakers, and men with low educational qualifications receiving disability payments.”[4] Detailed statistics reveal important trends among the demographics of British voters, showing that voters in the “Leave” camp weren’t the people most invested in the UK’s economic future. 73% of voters under 24 voted “Remain,” while 60% of voters over 65 voted “Leave.”[5] Economic pain fails to serve as a sufficient explanation for the UK’s anti-EU sentiment. Rather, a cultural ideological shift appears to be the best explanation. 71% of voters who view multiculturalism positively voted to remain in the EU, while 81% of voters who viewed it negatively voted to leave. Views on globalism, capitalism, feminism, or social liberalism did not see nearly the level of political divide as did views on multiculturalism or immigration, exemplifying what the vote was really about. Immigration from low-income regions, such as Eastern Europe and, recently, the Middle East and North Africa, has not sat well with older conservative Brits, who the polls have shown to bear negative feelings about migrants entering the UK.[6] The rise of populism isn't due to the economic suffering of the middle class caused by free trade, but rather is an ideological backlash that has transcended economic self-interest. Ironically, nupoliticalreview.com
“
this club. The benefit of these agreements is that they can be more tailored to fit the preferences of each nation. However, like the nations listed, if the UK wishes to retain its single market membership, it will likely have to abide by EU regulations and continue to accept refugees — exactly what the “Leave” camp has been fighting against.[13] A new trade agreement would have the potential to benefit the UK economy, despite the forecasts, but it would all depend on what kind of deal is made. And while no specific plan has been laid out yet, there are several models that the UK could emulate. One is the Norway Model, where the UK leaves the EU but stays in the EEA (European Economic Agreement), meaning that it retains its single market membership. However, the UK would lose its political representation in the EU while still having to pay EU membership fees and follow partial EU regulations. The UK would likely have to continue accepting refugees, as Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland have been doing, which wouldn’t be popular with the “Leave” camp. Another possibility, the Switzerland model, would entail leaving both the EU and the EEA, but retaining membership in the single market through a series of bilateral trade agreements, such as the European Free Trade Association.[14] While Switzerland has had to accept immigrants as per the EU “Dublin Regulation,” the Swiss, to the annoyance of the EU, passed a referendum in 2014 placing limits and quotas on incoming immigrants.[15][16] The UK could follow this model, allowing for free trade yet tighter regulations over its borders. Yet that is if the EU allows for the UK to maintain its single market membership, which it seems very reluctant to do as shown by its “don't let the door hit you on the way out” attitude.[17] President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, even stated that the UK will not have “a la carte access” to the single market.[18] In this circumstance, the UK can forget about trade deals altogether and just trade with the EU under standard World Trade
The liberal of capitalis ideologies democracym and at a crossro appear to be the new UKads, leaving with a diffi government cult choice .
”
Organization rules, where all nations trade under the same international regulations. The UK would lose its single market membership, and its economy would likely take a hit. But the UK wouldn’t have to pay EU membership fees or accept migrants and would only have to abide by limited EU regulations in order to trade with the EU. However, adopting any of these models doesn’t mean that the UK would be better off than it is today. When analyzing the alternatives to EU membership, the UK Treasury states, “None of the alternatives support trade and provide influence on the world stage in the same way as continued membership of a reformed EU; and all of them come with serious economic costs that would affect businesses, jobs, living standards and our public finances for decades to come. To put it simply, families would be substantially worse off if Britain leaves the EU.”[19] The UK cannot have the best of both worlds. It cannot satisfy the wishes of the populace while promoting free trade and growth. The liberal ideologies of capitalism and democracy appear to be at a crossroads, leaving the new UK government with a difficult choice. While a clear economic prediction cannot be reached this early after the referendum, the vote does serve as a strong symbolic shift in global ideology. Many citizens of advanced nations have expressed their discontent over the changing culture of the world caused by socially liberal sentiment, the rise of multiculturalism through immigration, and global governance—all of which many perceive to be a threat to national interests. They are also pushing back against the status quo of centrist politics, which have failed to represent them. Donald Trump in the US, Marine Le Pen in France, and Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland serve as a representation of a changing tide fueled by right-wing populism. So is this wave of populism just a new global fad, or is it here to stay? If it’s the former, world governments will likely be able to wait it out. If it’s the latter, it will necessitate serious political reform in order to satisfy the growing group of voices calling for change; ignoring these voices can only serve to intensify the attractiveness of political extremism. •
Global
this zealous UK nationalism will likely do more harm than good to the welfare of the UK. Several studies have predicted a grim future for the post-Brexit UK economy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicted a fall in global growth as a result of Brexit.[7][8] However, these studies should be viewed with caution, as the severe economic downturn predicted by many after the vote failed to materialize. The OECD and the IMF have had to backtrack on their previous forecasts due to better than expected growth data after Brexit; however, they are still predicting weaker future growth.[9][10][11] But nothing can be analyzed for certain until the UK and the EU can come to a formal trade agreement outlining their new political and economic relationship. While negotiations to formally leave the EU won’t begin until at least next year— and will take at least another two years to finalize—the UK will likely try to retain its membership in the European single market, where it can freely exchange goods and services across European borders. If the UK were to lose membership in the single market, British businesses would likely have a harder time selling their goods and services to European consumers, which would harm UK employment and investment. EU nations consume nearly half of UK exports, and trade barriers can put a heavy strain on UK businesses. British consumers would also be negatively affected by having to pay higher prices for European imports. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that maintaining membership in the single market would boost UK GDP by 4%, something that will likely be kept in mind during the trade negotiations.[12] Non-EU members Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein are members of the single market through free trade agreements with the EU, and the UK will likely try to join
[1] Mason, Rowena, Robert Booth, and Amelia Gentleman. "Nigel Farage Resigns as Ukip Leader after 'achieving Political Ambition' of Brexit." The Guardian. July 04, 2016. [2] Witte, Griffe. "British Leader Says Brexit Process to Begin by March with Demand for a Clean Break." Washington Post. October 2, 2016. Accessed November 12, 2016. [3] Selyukh, Alina. "After Brexit Vote, Britain Asks Google: 'What Is The EU?'" NPR. June 24, 2016. Accessed November 05, 2016. [4] Kaletsky, Anatole. 2016. “Pensioners and Populism.” Project Syndicate. October 28. [5] "EU Referendum ‘How Did You Vote’ Poll." June 23, 2016. Accessed November 5, 2016. [6] Mason, Rowena, and Alex Duval Smith. "Theresa May Takes Brexit's Immigration Message to Eastern Europe." The Guardian. July 28, 2016. Accessed November 05, 2016. [7] News, IMF. "IMF NEWS ARTICLE." IMF Cuts Global Growth Forecasts on Brexit, Warns of Risks to Outlook. July 9, 2016. Accessed November 06, 2016. [8] Kierzenkowski, Rafal, Nigel Pain, Elena Rusticelli, and Sanne Zwart. "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF BREXIT: A TAXING DECISION." OECD, April 2016. [9] Elliott, Larry. "OECD in Brexit Warning U-turn as It Revises Growth Forecast for UK." The Guardian. September 21, 2016. Accessed November 06, 2016. [10] Sharma, Gaurav. "IMF Eats Humble Pie over Brexit Claims, Admits UK GDP Will Grow after All." International Business Times RSS. October 04, 2016. Accessed November 06, 2016. [11] Amaro, Silvia. "UK Economy Beats Expectations; Alleviates Imminent Brexit Fears." CNBC. October 27, 2016. Accessed November 06, 2016. [12] News, BBC. "EU Single Market Membership 'boosts UK's GDP'" BBC News. August 10, 2016. Accessed November 06, 2016. [13] "7 REASONS WHY WE SHOULD LEAVE THE EU - Campaign for an Independent Britain." Campaign for an Independent Britain RSS. Accessed November 06, 2016. [14] "The EFTA States." European Free Trade Association. Accessed November 06, 2016. [15] Foulkes, Imogen. "Swiss Immigration: 50.3% Back Quotas, Final Results Show." BBC News. February 9, 2014. Accessed November 12, 2016. [16] Wintour, Patrick. "EU Tells Swiss No Single Market Access If No Free Movement of Citizens." The Guardian. July 03, 2016. Accessed November 12, 2016. [17] Rankin, Jennifer, Philip Oltermann, Jon Henley, and Helena Smith. "EU Leaders Call for UK to Leave as Soon as Possible." The Guardian. June 24, 2016. Accessed November 12, 2016. [18] Foster, Peter. "Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President, Suggests UK Will Not Have Access to Single Market after Brexit." The Telegraph. September 14, 2016. Accessed November 06, 2016. [19] Osborne, George. "HM Treasury Analysis: The Long-term Economic Impact of EU ..." HM Government. April 2016. Accessed November 6, 2016.
nupoliticalreview.com
Fall 2016
15
Campus
The Student Fight for Divestment Aren LeBrun / Journalism & Media/Screen Studies 2017
T
his October, student coalition DivestNU staged a two week sit-in on Centennial Common in a public effort to pressure the Northeastern administration to divest from fossil fuel corporations that contribute to the global climate crisis. Students staged a 24/7 occupation, camping out in tents and, on their last day, holding a mock oil spill and a die-in demonstration on Prospective Students Day.[1] Chief among the group’s concerns is the apparent hypocrisy of Northeastern investing $25 million in what’s been labeled “sustainability funding,” while simultaneously refusing to divest its endowment from corporations such as Exxon Mobil. NUPR’s Aren LeBrun joined the encampment to speak with two student leaders about why the fight for climate justice cannot be postponed any longer. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. So, first to start, tell me about your group itself. Who is – or are – DivestNU? Gabby Thurston (Psychology, 2018): Divest is a coalition of student groups on campus. It’s a whole array of students who care about a lot of different issues. That’s what divesting is all about. It’s not just a green issue, it’s
not just about the environment. It’s about people’s human rights that are being violated in a variety of ways. Some examples of our coalition members are the Feminist Student Organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Progressive Student Alliance. They’ve all been out here with us, chanting with us, helping us with blankets and food. We really couldn’t do it without their support. It’s been instrumental. Why does divesting from the fossil fuel industry matter? Austin Williams (Environmental Studies & Political Science, 2017): The cruel irony of climate change is that the folks who’ve contributed the least to the problem are those who are going to be hit first and hardest by its impacts. So when we talk about climate justice, we’re really talking about how to rethink about climate change itself. We don’t consider this to be a “green” or an “environmental” issue, but rather a justice issue. We want to focus the conversation on climate change around real, tangible human rights impacts that are already being felt around the world to underscore why we have a moral imperative to do all that we can to tackle the fossil fuel industry and the role that it plays in blocking climate solutions.
GT: Our stance on divestment is that the University is investing money in an industry that is directly blocking climate change research, sustainability research. So for us to be putting money into sustainability research but also funding an industry that’s blocking it doesn’t make a lot of economic sense. And so about the protest here today, what are some of the goals you have to bring to the Northeastern administration? GT: So, our first goal is to get them to sit down and have a conversation with us. We’re disappointed with the way they’ve been so far. We haven’t really had any interaction with them. They haven’t shown interest in participating in any real discussion on the issue. And they even attempted to co-opt what we’re doing here as a demonstration that “Northeastern supports this kind of action amongst its students,” when in reality they’re not showing us that they support the sort of social action we are demanding. Can you explain the tents and the location choice? Why Centennial? AW: There are a couple of reasons why we chose to tent out in the central quad here as
[1] Harmon, Elise. "DivestNU Ends Its Occupation Of Centennial Common After Staging Die-In." Huntington News. October 15, 2016.
16
Fall 2016
nupoliticalreview.com
Was it frustrating not to be involved in that decision making process? Tell me what it felt like to read that newsletter. AW: Oh, for sure. The broader issue that we have with their decision in July was the fact that the senior leadership team of this administration chose to box-out student leaders from our campaign and from Student Government Administration (SGA) in the decision making process for coming to this answer. It was released in July in the form of a press release at Northeastern, their in-house publication, and we think that releasing this news over the summer in a format that they have very tight control over was a very deliberate decision to manage the ways in which people perceived their actions. If you take a look at the press release that they put out, it’s interesting what sort of language they chose to rely on. They framed the fossil fuel divestment movement – which is active on over 500 campuses in the United States – as a movement for “environmental sustainability,” which really avoids the crux of the question we’re asking, which is whether or not it’s appropriate for our institutions to legitimize this rogue industry.
“
a tactic. First of all, our campaign is standing in solidarity with the millions of folks who are already losing their homes due to the impacts of climate change. There’s a functional purpose, obviously, in that we’re able to sleep here at night. But primarily, you know, it’s a great way for us to be visible on campus and to carry this conversation to the student body. What we’ve been doing here is holding conversations with these students over not only why we target the fossil fuel industry with our divestment campaign, but to make sure that they understand the history on their own campus in terms of how their administration has dealt with this question. I know that in a July newsletter the University released its plan to spend $25 million on sustainability funding. Given that there’ve been no attempts yet to divest from the fossil fuel industry, how does your group feel about that particular investment strategy? AW: We described it as taking a step forward and a big step back. Under normal circumstances, we’d have loved to champion the fact that our university was taking an active step forward in reinvestment into the solutions for tomorrow. Unfortunately, they chose to, in that statement, frame divestment as a
nupoliticalreview.com
compromises folks in the student government are willing to make – or not willing to make – in their pursuit of advocacy on behalf of the student body. But, ultimately, I think there’s the potential to do a lot more.
Campus
retreat from global challenges and to frame divestment from fossil fuels and active reinvestment in renewables as mutually exclusive options. That’s not a logic that we buy. We think it’s a false dichotomy to pit these solutions against each other. We think that they should actually be part of a more comprehensive climate package.
Do you know where the student body as a whole stands right now in terms of the divestment campaign? AW: So, on [October 4] a group of senators from the DivestNU coalition introduced an emergency Senate resolution affirming the student body’s vote in favor of fossil fuel divestment and supporting the work that DivestNU is doing. And that’s something we’re really proud of that came out organically and had so many different groups represented: the Northeastern Black Student Association, the Feminist Organization, the Students for Justice in Palestine, the Husky Environmental Action Team, and the Progressive Student Alliance all joined together to introduce this resolution. And we think that speaks pretty heavily to the multitude of students we have supporting our cause.
We don’t consider this to be a ‘green’ or an ‘environmental’ issue, but rather a justice issue.
What is SGA’s role in all this? Are they on your side in terms of putting pressure on the University administration? AW: I think that question is really relative to who occupies the office and the sort of work that they put in to build power for student advocacy on campus. The fact that the administration signs off on the constitution of the SGA means they accept, to some degree, that the student body should be able to advocate for itself and that they should have a role in the direction of our institution. And we take that as a sign that it’s appropriate for us to be speaking out about these issues and making sure that these values do get a fair shake. And I will say that it’s not easy, you know? Definitely there are hurdles that folks within SGA face. And I think the primary question there is what
GT: And what that means is there’s going to be a letter sent to the administration. So that’s a giant opportunity for them, the administration, to address this issue. And like I said before, it shows that there are tons of students on Northeastern’s campus who care about climate justice and want to pressure the University to take corrective action.
”
What populations do you see being affected the most by climate change? Why is your campaign so urgent? AW: If you look at developing nations around the world, these are nations that don’t have as many resources to adapt to the impacts of climate change… folks who are more vulnerable to the impacts of this crisis. As well, countries in the Global South, generally speaking, are more vulnerable to climate impacts. We’re talking about droughts in sub-Saharan Africa. We’re talking about major, disastrous coastal flooding in South Asia. And that’s why you’ve seen so many cultural groups on campus who have real connections to these communities speak out and say, “Actually, climate change is an issue that impacts us. It’s not just a ‘special interest issue’ for environmentalists. This is something that we all need to address and tackle together.” •
Fall 2016
17
Campus
Northeastern's “Community-Oriented” Rhetoric Belies Internal Inaction
By Lily Moseley / International Affairs and Economics 2017
O
utwardly, Northeastern University seems to shine as a center where education, enlightenment, and forward thinking thrive; its brand and image have been masterfully developed to exude this impression. The University's website and publications are rife with buzzwords and reference Northeastern being "built on a tradition of engagement with the world."[1] However, underneath the colorful rhetoric, the University's engagement, or rather lack thereof, with community members of color is blatant. Northeastern has failed to address concerns voiced by Roxbury residents, particularly with regard to the school’s decision to arm campus police officers with semi-automatic rifles, as well as the gentrifying effects of University expansion. Northeastern Administration has also failed to allocate adequate resources, financial and otherwise, for the community engagement to which it is supposedly so committed.
18
Fall 2016
In its recently published Academic Plan, Northeastern 2025, the University references “diversity” more than 20 times, yet fails to cite any concrete plans for how it will promote that value. One line reads, "We will serve as a national model for community engagement in the neighborhoods surrounding our campuses, providing our students with opportunities to develop their cultural agility in real-world settings as the University further networks with our community partners."[2] The message carries an air of righteousness but fails to define the dimensions of the "engagement" efforts, rendering it a flimsy platitude rather than an actionable agenda. Looking past the rhetoric, a pertinent question remains: Where, in actuality, is the University going, and, as posed by Roxbury City Councilor Tito Jackson, “Is Northeastern University living up to its mission and values?”[3] Beyond Northeastern’s picturesque outward image are troubling realities that
delegitimize its carefully packaged claims of being community-oriented. One instance is the University's decision to arm Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD) officers with semiautomatic rifles, which received pushback from community members and students alike. A petition against the decision garnered more than 7,000 signatures, yet contrary to its attempt to appear concerned, the University demonstrated blatant disregard for community viewpoints.[4] Northeastern Administration also failed to make an appearance or send a single representative to a public hearing called by Jackson and fellow city councilor Josh Zakim on the issue, a statement of indifference that Zakim called “very disappointing.”[5] At the hearing, students from the campus group NU Students Against Institutional Discrimination (SAID) led a "die-in" to call attention to the issue and testified about the effect that the decision would have on students and community members. Elliana nupoliticalreview.com
the fact that racial issues on campus have not yet been addressed exacerbates the issue even more. From the brutal murders of multiple people of color this year and last year, to literally just a few days ago where a young boy was shot for holding a broomstick, I know it’s my body and the body of those like me that will be affected by this policy. Even if we put up our hands, we are shot. Even if we get in the police car, we are killed. Even if we do nothing, our lives are still taken away.” Gurhan also remarked on the gravity of the decision in the context of the surrounding neighborhoods, stating that the increase in armament would make her feel less safe as a person of color: “I know for me, walking down Northeastern every single day I feel unsafe knowing that I am only 3% of Black students on campus… with Boston being predominantly people of color. I know that this university uses that as a tactic for their diversity just to funnel money into their university. They already profit off of our lives, don’t let them kill us, too.”[9]
“
nupoliticalreview.com
How can the University live up to its grandiose claims of being a global leader when it has hardly been a leader or advocate on a tangible, local level?
This instance is interesting, especially in light of the fact that the requested amount was significantly less than University President Joseph Aoun's 2013 salary of $3.1 million. [13] Along with the University's endowment of more than $740 million, it is evident that Northeastern’s decision was not made out of necessity, but rather due to a warped prioritization of resource expenditures.[14] Northeastern has also begun implementing its Institutional Master Plan (IMP), which entails property expansion into South Roxbury in the interest of developing a Science and Engineering Complex and more student housing, as well as the reconstruction of a city park.[15] While these developments may appear positive and are certainly in the interest of the University, they promise dire consequences for Roxbury residents. Jackson commented on the issue, stating that while Northeastern framed its plan to build a new dorm on Burke Street in Roxbury as a strategy for stemming the flow of students into surrounding neighborhoods, its realistic implications will be different. Because the University’s plan differs from its initial proposal in that the building will be 22 stories with regular priced accommodations, rather than an eight-story building offering affordable housing, the development will actually accelerate the gentrification process.[16] Similarly, Northeastern has failed to mitigate rising housing costs for members of the neighboring communities; Northeastern’s 2015 Community Benefits Annual Report states that "there have been no opportunities for Northeastern to assist with affordable housing projects" in surrounding communities in 2015, but that Northeastern has continued dialogue with the community's leaders.[17] However, the latter claim is questionable in light of the University’s track record and its volatile relationship with community members. Northeastern seems to have made a few strides in community development efforts as of late, including its initiation of a loan program for women and minority entrepreneurs.[18] But the legitimacy of its promises remains to be seen. While the University pledged to invest $2.5 million in a Community Development fund to "build local business capacity,” the contribution seems minimal compared to the upwards of $2 billion that it plans to spend on total development.[19] It is also likely that the University’s recently announced efforts are not quite what they seem, as has •
Campus
Streifer, a Northeastern student and survivor of an active shooter situation, discussed the toll that increased armament would have on the mental health of people on campus and emphasized that having more guns on campus would make her feel less safe.[6] Jackson agreed and pointed out that the University had failed to discuss the decision with him, even though he was called to meet with the Administration the day before the announcement was released (Northeastern sought his support on building prospects instead, he said).[7] The University’s physical location on the edge of Roxbury, with the Ruggles MBTA station located on its campus, makes it particularly open – people often pass through the grounds or take the T from Ruggles to get to and from Roxbury, Mission Hill, and other neighborhoods. Therefore, the decision to implement such an intense escalation of armament concerns more than just the University and its affiliates and thus warrants an open discussion. Additionally, the increase in weaponry seemed needless, as the Boston Police Department's (BPD) headquarters is located mere steps from Northeastern’s International Village residence hall. The University also left the BPD in the dark about the decision, which, as BPD Superintendent William G. Gross pointed out, could prove dangerous and even fatal in certain situations. “[Communication is] paramount... You have to be on the same page, and you have to know what the other party is bringing to the table,” Gross said. “[A] major concern of the Boston Police Department is… ‘friendly fire,’” Gross said. “Let’s say there’s an incident going on on that campus… We would also have responding police officers that are known to us, but probably not to Northeastern… We need to be in communication with Northeastern so that we’re on the same page… You have to work with your lead law enforcement agency so that when these major incidents occur… you’re able to communicate [about] plainclothes officers in the area, what they’re wearing and where they’re being deployed to.”[8] In the eyes of many apprehensive people, not only was the decision a needless escalation, it was also triggering and insensitive. The increased armament came in the midst of a heightened national awareness of the killing of unarmed Black people by police officers; it thus raised very legitimate concerns for community members of color about how the decision might affect their safety, posing a potentially lethal threat in their own neighborhood. Northeastern student and long-time Dorchester resident Sadiya Gurhan relayed a powerful message to the University at the public hearing, asserting: “As a Black Muslim woman, I know the danger of interacting with police officers; this is why this policy is so personal to me. And
”
Jackson also commented on the issue, asserting that “every single police department [in the country] is one incident away from being a hashtag,” and that having “police patrolling a predominantly Black and Latino neighborhood is an [action] that should have been brought before the community.”[10] The University's spending priorities have been similarly negligent. Contrary to its self-perpetuated identity as a community advocate, Northeastern initially failed to make requested payments to the city last year. The payments, while voluntary, are part of the city's Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) system, which “asks nonprofits with more than $15 million worth of tax-exempt property to write checks twice a year to help offset the cost of police and fire protection, snow removal, and other services.”[11] After the University was criticized for refusing to contribute at all to the PILOT fund, it eventually paid $886,000, still only a fraction of the $2.5 million requested. The payment also came with a qualification from the University’s administration that it “should not be construed as support or commitment to the PILOT formula.”[12]
Roxbury City Councilor Tito Jackson
Fall 2016
19
Campus
frequently been the case. Jackson stated that although Northeastern has had a “troubled history,” he thought it was “making progress with its Institutional Master Plan” and that he was originally encouraged by negotiations. However, he said that as of late the University has “forgotten the agreement [it] put forward” and has advanced plans that have not been discussed with the community with a “level of aggressiveness and lack of sensitivity for the housing mix in the community.”[20] There are many efforts that the University could undertake to remedy these issues, rather than watching them fester from its position of privileged removal. The most obvious is to incorporate the opinions of key stakeholders and community members into decision-making processes, particularly for those decisions that affect more than just the student body. Northeastern must consider the voices of local leaders and residents through open forums and hearings before key decisions are made. Northeastern's administration should also be more specific about its plans for community engagement. Rather than relying on fluffy, baseless rhetoric, it should take opportunities such as the State of the University address and the Academic Plan to uplift the efforts of community-based organizations and incorporate them into actual plans for the causes they claim to champion. This must come in the form of a dedicated effort from the administration, from President Aoun in particular, as many of the decisions are “made at the presidential level.”[21] Northeastern could also build community engagement into a system for students to earn academic credit, for example by having volunteer opportunities count toward general electives. This would be a tangible step toward "providing our students with opportunities to develop their cultural agility in realworld settings as the University further networks with our community partners."[22]
“
Map of Northeastern University and surrounding colleges from NU's Institutional Master Plan (IMP).
If the University truly does want to promote social justice and change, it must begin those efforts by empowering the people who it claims to champion – the voices of Roxbury community members are integral to furthering these goals. If community members' voices are not incorporated in these decisions, Northeastern acts as yet another oppressor disguised as a savior. Northeastern must also move away from the hypocrisy inherent in leading a global crusade while ignoring the issues faced by Roxbury – to which the University has greatly contributed – in its own backyard. How can the University live up to its grandiose claims of being a global leader
Northeastern must consider the voices of local leaders and residents through open forums and hearings before key decisions are made.
”
when it has hardly been a leader or advocate on a tangible, local level? Prospective students and others watching the University should use campaigns of action, or lack thereof, on the community front to determine whether Northeastern is all that it claims to be – and Northeastern would be wise to more seriously consider the repercussions of trashing its social capital while unscrupulously acting in ways that undermine its public image. As Councilor Jackson stated so eloquently at the NUPD public hearing, “You use [the City of Boston’s] resources, you claim to be an urban college and university – you know what an urban college and university does? It connects with the urban area around it. It has a good relationship and it shows respect for those communities."[23] And guess what, Northeastern? That advice is free. • Note: Requests for comment from Alternatives for Community and Environment were not immediately returned.
[1] "Northeastern University". 2016. Northeastern.Edu. [2] Northeastern University. 2016. Academic Plan: Northeastern 2025. Boston, MA. [3] Jackson, Tito. 2016. Interview on the armament of the Northeastern University Police Department and Roxbury community engagement. Interview by Lily Moseley. Phone. Boston, MA. [4] Kimelman, Marley. 2016. "Keep Semiautomatic Rifles Out Of The Hands Of Our Campus Police.". Change.Org. [5] City of Boston Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee,. 2016. NUPD: Hearing Regarding Northeastern University Police Department. Video. [6] Ibid. [7] Jackson, Tito. 2016. Interview on the armament of the Northeastern University Police Department and Roxbury community engagement. Interview by Lily Moseley. Phone. Boston, MA. [8] City of Boston Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee. 2016. NUPD: Hearing Regarding Northeastern University Police Department. Video. [9] Ibid. [10] Jackson, Tito. 2016. Interview on the armament of the Northeastern University Police Department and Roxbury community engagement. Interview by Lily Moseley. Phone. Boston, MA. [11] Rocheleau, Matt. 2015. "Northeastern Agrees To Partial Payment To City: College Says City Formula Unfair". Boston Globe. [12] Ibid. [13] Kingkaid, Tyler. 2013. "42 Private College Presidents Make More Than $1M, And Harvard’S Isn’T One Of Them". The Huffington Post. [14] US News & World Report. 2016. Northeastern University. Best Colleges Rankings. [15] Northeastern University. 2016. Columbus Avenue Student Housing. Institutional Master Plan Notification Form / Project Notification Form Submitted Pursuant To Article 80 Of The Boston Zoning Code. Boston, MA. [16] Jackson, Tito. 2016. Interview on the armament of the Northeastern University Police Department and Roxbury community engagement. Interview by Lily Moseley. Phone. Boston, MA. [17] Northeastern University. 2015. Northeastern University Community Benefits Annual Report 2015. Boston, MA. [18] O'Neill, John. 2016. "Northeastern Launches Loan Program For Women And Minority Entrepreneurs". News @ Northeastern. [19] Moore, Galen. 2013. "Northeastern University’S Roxbury Push". Boston Business Journal. [20] Jackson, Tito. 2016. Interview on the armament of the Northeastern University Police Department and Roxbury community engagement. Interview by Lily Moseley. Phone. Boston, MA. [21] Ibid. [22] Northeastern University. 2016. Academic Plan: Northeastern 2025. Boston, MA. [23] City of Boston Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee,. 2016. NUPD: Hearing Regarding Northeastern University Police Department. Video.
20
Fall 2016
nupoliticalreview.com
Featured
By NU SAID
Northeastern Students Against Institutional Discrimination (SAID) is a coalition of students that works to shift Northeastern's current policies so that diversity, inclusion, and integration are both earnestly acknowledged and embraced within the Northeastern community. SAID creates campaigns around specific issues in order to continuously build toward that goal. Current campaign topics include gentrification and University Health and Counseling Services reform.
O
n Monday, October 3rd, Northeastern released its Northeastern 2025 Academic Plan.[1] The plan is meant to serve as a symbol of and a blueprint for our university’s continuing progress, as we build off of a decade that’s seen Northeastern rise in the collegiate ranks. But to many students on campus, Northeastern 2025 represents a renewed promise for more of the same. Over the past year, SAID, along with a number of other student groups, has built upon the work done by students who came before us. We continue to push the Northeastern community to recognize its flaws and earnestly work to ensure that students of various identities receive the
nupoliticalreview.com
support necessary to thrive throughout (and beyond) their time here on campus. To many students, Northeastern 2025 is eerily familiar. It’s a reminder of why we choose to engage in this work. Much of the thirteen-page document discusses “diversity and inclusion;” these terms are evoked dozens of times, in various contexts, throughout the academic plan. SAID has met with some Northeastern administrators on a few occasions over the previous twelve months, and while we recognize the adoption of our language in the academic plan, it’s a challenge to find a single section of Northeastern 2025 that critically engages with the ideas that give that language real meaning.
We have to ask: Who is the intended audience of Northeastern 2025’s diversity proposals? Because students of marginalized identities already understand the importance of “diversity and inclusion.” For us, they’re more than just buzzwords – they are the ethos that solidify our place on this campus. So while, yes, a diverse and inclusive Northeastern is a better Northeastern, this discussion can’t be reduced to simply “harnessing the power of diversity and inclusion,” or “creating a diverse, inclusive ecosystem of entrepreneurial leaders.” This discussion, and ensuing actions, must prove to us that we belong, that we’re supported, and that we’re wanted at this university. They should be approached with corresponding sincerity. • Fall 2016
21
Featured
“
On certain topics, Northeastern 2025 is a clear blueprint for the future that identifies tangible, forward-thinking actions that Northeastern will take in the coming decade, such as: ● [Establishing] the Center for Advancing Research and Scholarship, which will enable researchers and entrepreneurs everywhere to find and work with each other. It will offer multi-level training in team building and support, research development and promotion, and internal funding opportunities to all researchers, including undergraduate students. The center will also provide training for specialized expertise (e.g., statistical analysis, data visualization, scientific editing) that elevates the value and impact of research publications. ● [Expanding] the university’s capacity for breakthrough innovation through flexible and nontraditional faculty appointments and engagement, including: • faculty appointments split across academic institutions • faculty embedded in targeted industry positions to help accelerate real-world impact •‘exchange’ opportunities arising from collaboration with depart ments at other universities. The university will develop and deploy a range of such appointments in order to leverage talent in research, pedagogy, service, and community engagement as widely as possible. By 2025, the university will have a well-coordinated strate- gic plan for global research that encourages partnerships across countries. ● [Establishing] the Research Institute for Experiential Learning Sciences to achieve a clearer understanding of how and why experiential learning works and how it can be made more powerful.
“ 22
Students of marginalized identities already understand the importance of “diversity and inclusion.” For us, they’re more than just buzzwords - they are the ethos that solidify our place on this campus.
Fall 2016
However, in blueprinting the future of “diversity and inclusion” at Northeastern, the university’s vague, surface-level engagement with these issues falls well short of the acceptable standard of process development for an institution of academic rigor: ● Northeastern 2025 will integrate stu dents, alumni, employers, teachers, and researchers into evolving global networks for lifelong learning and discovery. ● We will create a diverse and inclusive culture, with accountability at all levels for developing solutions that advance diversity and inclusion goals. ● Higher education’s traditional roles and trajectories will be increasingly open to the world outside our walls. This will make our networks for knowledge sharing, professional development, and cross-cultural education and discovery more diverse in every way. ● The university will leverage its network of campuses to provide skills-focused, variable-term experiences that give learners insight into how culture affects professional practice. ● Northeastern will instill [cultural agility, diversity, and inclusiveness] through the integration of immersive global experiences. ● Northeastern will invest in recruiting and retaining students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented groups. ● We will serve as a national model for community engagement in the neighbor- hoods surrounding our campuses. ● Increased, ongoing campus-based dia- logue and reflection around what our culturally diverse student body has learned and shared—a community- and agility-building experience in itself. ● Eliminate barriers to cross-cultural understanding in research and scholarship as well as learning. We will ensure that the solutions needed to make communities sustainable are informed by a deep cultural understanding of those communities.
To advertise Northeastern’s community engagement programming as a powerful learning opportunity that teaches the importance of diversity and inclusion without any mention of existing tensions between the university and community members in surrounding neighborhoods is intellectually dishonest.
”
”
● Northeastern will devote resources to ensuring that its faculty and student body closely reflect the diversity of society.
While the language here is promising, the promise itself is unclear. So, here is what we ask Northeastern do (in collaboration with us) to ensure that “diversity and inclusion” does not become empty rhetoric: 1. 2.
Explicitly define diversity and inclusion. Simply, what it does and doesn’t it look like. Identify Northeastern’s existing flaws. To engage critically with these issues, we don’t need fluff. For example, to advertise Northeastern’s community engagement programming as a powerful learning opportunity that teaches the importance of diversity and inclusion without any mention of existing tensions between the university and community members in surrounding neighborhoods is intellectually dishonest.
Recognizing necessary areas of improvement should be a mandatory step in future planning. 3. 4.
Create concrete goals that extend beyond conceptual promises - e.g. How will we know when we’ve succeeded in diversifying our student body, faculty, and staff? What are the metrics we’ll use to hold ourselves accountable to reaching the goals we lay out? Outline specific actions that will be taken to meet those goals - e.g. What resources will be invested in recruiting and retaining people of diverse backgrounds, and how will they be invested?
Northeastern’s decade-long ascension in the national college rankings hasn’t happened by accident – it’s a product of a deliberate and thorough strategy that was meticulously implemented.[2] In order to truly become a leader in “diversity and inclusion,” Northeastern must commit to a similarly exhaustive process. Until then, on that front, Northeastern 2025 will serve more as marketing material than as a blueprint. •
[1] “Academic Plan: Northeastern 2025,” Northeastern University, October 3, 2016. [2] Kutner, Max, “How to Game the College Rankings,” Boston Magazine, September 2014.
nupoliticalreview.com
Featured
The Overlooked Racial Complexities of the Opioid Epidemic By Joe Taché / Finance and Social Entrepreneurship 2018 Illustration by Omari Bektemba
P
rescription opioids and heroin (from this point on summarily referred to as opioids; despite differences in legality, they both have opiate bases and fall under a shared political umbrella) have created the latest substance-related epidemic in America. [1] In a rare frenzy of bipartisanship, the House of Representatives passed 18 opioid-related bills during one week in May, while President Obama has been pushing for an additional $1.1 billion to combat the crisis since February.[2] Questions exist about whether past epidemics were truly epidemics or products of sensationalized media and political manipulation (the truth lies somewhere in the middle), but opioids have created a legitimate public health challenge in many communities across the United States. More than 29,000 people died from opioid overdoses in 2014, and drug overdose deaths have surpassed vehicle accidents and shootings as the leading cause of injury death in the United States.[3][4]† That’s real, that’s scary, and that needs to be addressed. However, as opioids have increasingly become a policy priority, a number of Black and brown Americans have voiced frustration over the sudden change of heart from many politicians and law enforcement officers, who have transitioned from calls for law and order to compassion and rehabilitation. In October, Katharine Seelye wrote a piece in the New York Times about this change in philosophy among our white populace. One officer, Eric Adams, told her, “The way I look at addiction now is completely different. I can’t tell you what changed inside of me, but these are people and they have a purpose in life.”[5] Well, Mr. Adams, I’m not sure what changed inside of you either, but I’ll venture a guess. The way many Americans perceive substance-dependent people has changed not because they’ve recognized the humanity of the Black and brown Americans we previously
persecuted, but because the face of addiction has shifted with this latest epidemic – we now know that Eric Adams’ cousin is just as (or more) likely to use as his Black and brown counterparts. Over the past decade, 90% of first-time heroin users have been white.[6] As of 2014, white people overdose from opioids at over twice the rate of Black Americans and 3.5 times the rate of Latinx Americans.[7]†† Death rates are rising for middle-aged white Americans, and opioids are largely behind this trend.[8] The crack scare was “their” problem, and the opioid crisis is “our” problem. That’s frustrating. It’s exasperating to hear government officials urgently call for a move toward treatment as they quietly ignore that their justice systems still hold thousands of people of color under correctional control for drug offenses. In my eyes, it’s unconscionable to lobby for a new approach to drug policy without simultaneously lobbying to correct the generational damage caused by the old. If that’s not enough to make you a little queasy every time you hear “opioid epidemic,” here’s another nugget: This epidemic may only be so demographically skewed because doctors have historically underprescribed pain medication to Black and Latinx patients.[9] Any attempt to rationalize this phenomenon (white patients often have more access to quality health providers, etc.) was significantly discredited when a 2015 study found that doctors may undertreat the pain of Black patients because they believe there are biological differences between Black and white people that cause Black people to feel less pain.[10] That particular experiment found no evidence that doctors’ racial biases impact how they treat their Latinx patients, but the aforementioned study, and others, have found evidence that Latinx patients are prescribed less than white patients for both physical and mental treatment.[11][12]
To recap: 1. A punitive approach to drug use in the late 20th century contributed to the mass incarceration of Black and brown Americans, possibly the most significant human rights crisis in the country today. 2. We have increasingly prioritized addiction treatment as our perception of the stereotypical drug user has shifted. 3. This crisis may be so pronounced among whites because doctors’ racist conceptions of Black and Latinx people have caused them to prescribe less opioid pain relievers to people of color. As damning as that all is (quite damning), it’s not cause to turn up our noses at the issue of opioids – our frustrations with America’s failure to treat people of color in the past shouldn’t sour us on the idea of giving white Americans the treatment they need. But the problem here extends further. I don’t take issue with treating opioid addiction; I take issue with treating only opioid addiction.
“
The way many Americans perceive substance-dependent people has changed not because they’ve recognized the humanity of the Black and brown Americans we previously persecuted, but because the face of addiction has shifted with this latest epidemic.
† As of 2014, people between the ages of 25 and 64 overdose at the highest rates, though a substantial number of younger adults overdose as well. †† Native Americans overdose from opioids at even higher rates than white Americans. I find this concerning and important to address, but I don’t have the knowledge to feel comfortable writing about this much further.
” 23
Featured
We’ve now reached a point where I have to break my initial rule – for the purposes of the next few paragraphs, “opioid” can no longer be an all-encompassing term for prescription opioids and heroin. There are two broad categories of opioids: prescription (heavy duty painkillers like OxyContin) and non-pharmaceutical (illegal drugs with opiate bases). The most recent epidemic is often viewed as a struggle against prescription opioid and heroin addiction, insofar as multiple states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia, and others) have created task forces on prescription drug (and heroin) abuse specifically.[13][14][15][16] This is an important distinction because of those non-pharmaceutical opioids I mentioned in the last paragraph. The graph below is from a 2014 White House report on opioid abuse.[17] That scary red line represents the increase in opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2010. But see that fine print beneath the graph? It says, “The rise in 2005-2006 in opioid deaths is related to non-pharmaceutical fentanyl.” And as you can see, there was a significant spike in opioid-related deaths on the graph during those years. Well, it turns out that 44% of people who died from non-pharmaceutical So as the document highlights the dangers fentanyl-related overdoses between 2005 and of prescription opioids and heroin, it relegates 2007 were Black or Latinx, and fentanyl has information about non-pharmaceutical fenrecently made a resurgence.[18] While it’s not tanyl to the fine print, even though fentanyl is always clear what form of fentanyl people are a crucial component of the spike in overdoses. NATIONAL DRUG POLICY usingOFFICE (there’s OF a pharmaceutical version CONTROL as What does that tell us about how we prioritize Office of Public Affairstreatment for people of color? well), a number of cities, including Baltimore and Philadelphia, claim to be experiencing a One could make the argument that this _____________________________________________________________________________ new wave of the non-pharmaceutical form of exclusion of fentanyl is accidental. That ebruary 11, 2014 the drug.[19][20] fentanyl is included in the larger umbrella The thing is, a “prescription opioids and of “opioids.” I have trouble buying into that SHEET: ABUSEdoesn’t IN THE Uargument NITED STATES heroin FACT epidemic,” byOPIOID definition, because the people most concerned include non-pharmaceutical fentanyl. Even with the opioid epidemic have no trouble documentdrug thatabuse citescan thishave graph (straight explicitly distinguishing between Heroin use andthe prescription deadly consequences…while heroin use is still far lessprescripfrom whitehouse.gov), offcontinue by saying: opioids and heroin, but one could make mmon than prescription drug abuse, kicks we will to“The ensure tion that agencies across the Federal abuse opioids, a group drugs Unfortunately, fentanyl overnment – in closeofcoordination with of state andthat localincludes authoritiesit.– continue to respond quickly isn’t and the only and prescription painkillers, has a dev- drug impacting communities of color; PCP ectively to thisheroin significant threat.” astating impact on public health and safety in is a non-opiate drug that is predominantly ― Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug September this country.” usedControl by BlackPolicy, Americans with a 2013 high school
he abuse of opioids, group of drugs that cludes heroin and rescription ainkillers, has a evastating impact on ublic health and fety in this country. ccording to the enters for Disease ontrol and revention (CDC), pproximately 100 mericans died from verdose every day in 010.1 Prescription rugs 24were involved Fall 2016 more than half of the 38,300 overdose deaths that year, and opioid pain relievers were
education or less, and between 2005 and 2011, PCP-related Emergency Department (ED) visits increased by more than 400%, to over 75,000 annually.[21] Cocaine, a drug used more widely across different racial groups than opioids, was involved in over 500,000 ED visits in 2011.[22][23] We’ve recently tended to measure the severity of drug abuse in terms of overdose numbers, understandably so – paying with one’s life is the ultimate price. However, addiction has other adverse effects on people that can be devastating in their own right. Drugs like PCP that may be less pharmacologically lethal (still sometimes lethal) than opioids can be linked to self-injurious behavior and impaired judgment that lead to fatalities, and sustained use of the drug can lead to long-term side effects.[24][25] ED visits can cause severe health and financial shocks, particularly for people living in poverty.[26] Further, as of 2010, 85% of people in the U.S.’s prisons and jails are substance-involved (either addicted at the time of their crime, have histories of substance abuse, committed their offense to get money to buy drugs, or were convicted for a drug or alcohol law violation), and unsurprisingly, almost 70% of inmates in the U.S. are people of color.[27][28] For all of the billions of dollars we spent on the War on Drugs, substance abuse is still harming communities of color in a number of ways, yet so many people are so singularly focused on prescription opioids and heroin. I’ve seen some people acknowledge this concern, but reconcile it with the belief that a solution to the opioid crisis will lead to substance abuse solutions for drugs that impact more people of color. I couldn’t disagree with nupoliticalreview.com
Featured
“
...as opioids have increasingly become a policy priority, a number of Black and brown Americans have voiced frustration over the sudden change of heart from many politicians and law enforcement officers, who have transitioned from calls for law and order to compassion and rehabilitation.
that sentiment more. Black and brown people are repeatedly told to wait our turn for equitable policies, and this idea of “trickle-down” social policy never manifests. We’re still waiting for the G.I. Bill to trickle down. And fair labor union representation. And the National Housing Act of 1934. And adequate public education. And, and, and… The War on Drugs was a comprehensive disaster that taught us a number of things. The most commonly accepted lesson is that we took a misguided approach to substance abuse. When we should have put money into treatment and prevention strategies and neighborhood development, we invested in prisons and police. There are a couple of additional critical, more broadly applicable lessons to pull away -- lessons that we’ve continuously failed to learn throughout our country’s political history. First, beware of bipartisan cooperation. This lesson is the more flippant of the two, but I think there’s some truth to it. A concerning proportion of our policy disasters over the past 100 years, including the War
on Drugs, have been the products of our two major parties coming together.[29] High profile moments of bipartisanship have historically formed around high-pressure issues where Democrats and Republicans can unite on a singular ideology. Sometimes, like with the War on Terror, that ideology is nationalism, and I think sometimes it’s a shared humanity, derived from whiteness.[30] Second, disparate policy implementation is the default in America. “Tough on crime” laws were inherently harmful because they prioritized punishment over rehabilitation, but most, with the exception of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, were fairly race-neutral in their language.[31] Now, that doesn’t mean that those laws were passed without race in mind – American lawmakers have always been adept at creatively, if not explicitly, upholding traditional structures of power, and we have a great deal of evidence that suggests that the War on Drugs was at least in part designed to target poor communities of color.[32]††† Even so, I do believe that some supporters of the drug war – namely a few members of
”
the Congressional Black Caucus and perhaps other more progressive Democrats – had the best of intentions. But it seems that in a time when Americans of color needed their leaders to think about the intersections between race and politics more carefully than ever, those particular politicians failed to do so, woefully underestimating the dangers of policies that could be openly interpreted and implemented by law enforcement departments and courts. While I hope we put an end to the opioid epidemic, it seems to me that we’re moving toward a culture of treating opioid addiction, rather than a culture of comprehensive treatment and prevention for all types of addiction. History has proven that when we don’t thoughtfully account for race and other manifestations of identity in our policies, even the most progressive among them, bad things happen to marginalized people. At some point, we have to proactively put an end to our two-tiered approach to drug policy and other social issues. If we don’t check ourselves here, then what did we really learn from the War on Drugs? •
††† Also see The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.
[1] Volkow, Nora D, “America’s Addiction to Opioids: Heroin and Prescription Drug Abuse,” Presented at the Senate Caucus on international Narcotics Control, National Institute on Drug Abuse, May 14, 2014. [2] Korte, Gregory, “Obama enlists Macklemore as he calls for $1.1 billion to fight opioid abuse”, USA Today, May 14, 2016. [3] “Opioid Addiction 2016 Facts & Figures,” American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2016. [4] Jones, Susan, “46,471: Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns,” CNS News, November 5, 2015. [5] Seelye, Katharine Q., “In Heroin Crisis, White Families Seek Gentler War on Drugs,” The New York Times, October 30, 2015. [6] “The Numbers Behind America’s Heroin Epidemic,” The New York Times October 30, 2015. [7] Chris Amico and Dan Nolan, “How Bad is the Opioid Epidemic?,” PBS, February 23, 2016. [8] Kolata, Gina, “Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans, Study Finds,” The New York Times, November 2, 2015. [9] Knox H. Todd, Christi Deaton, Anne P. D’Adamo, and Leon Goe, “Ethnicity and Analgesic Practice,“ Annals of Emergency Medicine 35:1 (2000) 11-16. [10] Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, and M. Norman Oliver, “Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites,” PNAS 113 (2016) 4296-4301. [11] Augustine J. Kposowa and Glenn T. Tsunokai, “Searching for relief: racial differences in treatment of patients with back pain,” Race and Society 5 (2002) 193-223. [12] Hsien-Chang Lin, Steven R. Erickson, and Rajesh Balkrishnan, “Physician Prescribing Patterns of Innovative Antidepressants in the United States: The Case of MDD Patients 1993-2007,” Psychiatry in Medicine 42 (2011) 353-368. [13] “Four States Create Prescription Drug Task Force,” Join Together, August 25, 2011. [14] Opioid Task Force, 2016. [15] “State Plan to Prevent and Treat Prescription Drug Abuse,” South Carolina Office of the Governor, December, 2014. [16] “Governor’ Task Force on Prescription Drug and Heroin Abuse,” Virginia Department of Health Professions, 2016. [17] “Fact Sheet: Opioid Abuse in the United States,” Office of National Drug Control Policy, February 11, 2014. [18] “Nonpharmaceutical Fentanyl-Related Deaths,” Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, July 25, 2008. [19] Eleanor Erin Artigiani and Eric D. Wish, “Patterns and Trends of Drug Abuse in the Baltimore/Maryland/Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area,” National Institute on Drug Abuse, June, 2014. [20] Burling, Stacey. “Deaths from fentanyl-laced heroin soar in Philadelphia,” Philly.com, May 14, 2014. [21] “PCP Abuse Statistics,” Health Grove, 2012. [22] “Cocaine & Crack,” Drug War Facts, 2016. [23] “National Estimates of Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits,” Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2011. [24] Barker, Melanie, “PCP History and Statistics,” DrugAbuse.com, 2015. [25] MacLaren, Erik, “The Effects of PCP Use,” DrugAbuse.com, 2015. [26] Hugh R. Waters, Gerard F. Anderson, Jim Mays, “Measuring financial protection in health in the United States,” Health Policy 69 (2004) 339-349. [27] “Behind Bars II: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population,” The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, February, 2010. [28] Carson, E. Ann, “Prisoners in 2013,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 30, 2014. [29] “Bipartisan laws that went wrong,” CNN, March 22, 2013. [30] Utt, Jamle, “8 Thing White People Really Need to Understand About Race,” Everyday Feminism, July 23, 2014. [31] “The Crack Sentencing Disparity and the Road to 1:1,” United States Sentencing Commission, 2009. [32] LoBianco, Tom, “Report: Aide says Nixon’s war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies,” CNN, March 24, 2016.
nupoliticalreview.com
Fall 2016
25
Featured
Eesha Ramanujam / Business and Political Science 2017
I
came to terms with some truths before Election Day, my first presidential election. I voted for Hillary Clinton with few qualms. Clinton is not perfect, but she can be pushed. She is ambitious, but she has a demonstrated history of fighting for the underdog. She is flawed, but she can be and has been held accountable for what she has done. So I did it. I voted for Hillary Clinton, arguably the most qualified candidate ever to run for President. And I looked forward to taking part in the movements criticizing her actions, recognizing her shortcomings, and pushing her to do better and be better. I promised to not shy away from that responsibility. I believed a Clinton presidency could have meant business as usual. But a Trump administration will be business as was usual in the 1950s, before voting and immigration rights acts were passed. Business as was usual in the 1980s, when systematic prejudice and ignorance led to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Business as was usual in the 1800s, when women and members of all minority groups were prevented (through laws or otherwise) from voting. This is not exaggeration. This is the Trump Doctrine. This is the rhetoric he spews, the ideology he espouses, and the America he sees as great. Trump's vision of America doesn't include me. It doesn't include the majority of the people I care about. It conveniently doesn't address us. He caters to the prejudices of each group with a kind of surgeon-like precision that makes people forget that he has done and that he plans to do nothing to help them. Caters to the indoctrinated hatred of the poor white working class. Caters to the behind-thescenes racism of upper class white women. Caters to the Islamophobia in Hindu communities. Caters to the homophobia of the lawmaking elite. The way that Trump has channeled centuries of ignorance and bigotry into a single movement is appalling. The way that he has convinced disenfranchised Americans that he is the anti-establishment candidate they need is terrifying. Trump was not a candidate from outside the establishment; he just belonged to a different one than Clinton did. Those who voted for Trump reconcile themselves by accepting only convenient
26
Fall 2016
truths. That it is easy to hate Hillary. That Trump was a businessman. That Trump says the word "jobs" occasionally. That Trump will sacrifice every foreign relationship we have "for America." That Trump says he wants to "knock the hell out of ISIS." That Hillary [insert accusation here] emails. I accept the inconvenient truths. Clinton has made several disastrous mistakes. Clinton tokenizes. Clinton scapegoats. Clinton fear-mongers. But Clinton has fought for children, fought for women, fought for what she believes to be right, although we might completely disagree on what that is. Donald Trump has never fought for anything or anyone but himself. That we extend his selfishness to theoretically include us is a profound mistake. His self-satisfying version of a "great" America is one with him on top. His nuance goes no further. Donald Trump's version of America does not include my parents. It does not include my friends. If it includes women, it includes them as objects for his personal use. If it includes minorities, it includes them as tokens for his personal ego. If it includes anyone, it includes them for his personal gain. Even before being elected, Trump helped create an America that is unsafe for people of color, for women, for Muslims, for the LGBTQIA+ community. People I care about are hurting inside as they are forced to accept the legitimacy given to words that dehumanize and devalue them. I refuse to accept an America that accepts me into its living room and tells immigrants like my parents they were never welcome here. I refuse to accept an America that demonizes people in need seeking a better life here. I refuse to accept an America that characterizes compassion as preaching tolerance in public and hiding prejudice in private. I refuse to
“
accept an America that forgives a defender and alleged perpetrator of sexual assault. If this is America, I suppose I should thank this election for revealing it. But I cannot and will not accept it. And now, in the aftermath of the election, I've been told that my responsibility as someone whose community is currently in a state of mourning is to practice empathy and love for those who are not. I get that many of you need to practice compassion for your family members and friends who voted for Trump. I get that to rationalize you feel you need to ask others to do so as well. I get that your loved ones aren't bad people. But they have allowed a dangerous campaign to gain ground. They have allowed a dangerous precedent to be set. They have allowed a dangerous movement to be legitimized. Acts of hate against Black people, Muslim people, Latin@ people, and women have actively been increasing – they numbered in the 700s less than two weeks after the election.[1] You cannot speak from your highly intellectual, privileged perspective and tell people that their terror is melodrama. I get that you voted your conscience. I get that you voted for the candidate whose ideals you believe in. But you participated in a system that has put people in danger. That has legitimized the notion that the presence of "others" is a threat to the white way of life. You have to deal with that truth the same way the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of hatred against our communities being declared worthy of the highest office of the land. We're not trying to call you bad people, but it's not our job to make you feel better about the decision you made. People who characterize Trump supporters as voting for an administration based on
This election was different – we are not mourning the loss of our chosen candidate. We are grieving the realization that the country we call home has openly disregarded our safety in favor of comfort for the privileged.
”
nupoliticalreview.com
Featured
bigotry are not in the wrong. Everything about Trump's campaign – his vague but extreme rhetoric (the ban on Muslims, the generalization of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, his derogatory remarks about women), his supporters (Rudy Giuliani of stop-and-frisk fame), the GOP platform (conversion therapy) – hearkens back to centuries of embedded systemic prejudice in this country.[2][3][4][5][6] This election was different – we are not mourning the loss of our chosen candidate. We are grieving the realization that the country we call home has openly disregarded our safety in favor of comfort for the privileged. In the time that has passed since Election Day, a lot has happened. President-elect Trump has begun assembling his administration. Certain appointments particularly stand out to me. Senator Jeff Sessions, a proponent of “law and order” with a history of racist rhetoric and opposition to civil rights, will be appointed Attorney General. [7] Republican Congressman Mike Pompeo, sporting an impressive record of inflammatory and often false statements on national security that scapegoat immigrants and Muslim Americans, will be Director of the CIA.[8] Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, a vocal Islamophobe and proponent of questionable interrogation techniques, will be named National Security Advisor.[9] [10] Last but not least, Steve Bannon, chairman of the alt-right Breitbart News (which has been accused of providing a platform for homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism, and white nationalism), will be White House chief strategist.[11] In the wake of the announcements of these appointments, there has been enormous backlash, primarily from those who identify as liberals. But these particular individuals have faced extreme criticism in the past from conservatives and Republicans as well.[12] It is striking to me that while I have continued to see exhortations from non-liberals for unity,
acceptance, and other charming ideas, I have heard no widespread indignant outcry from Trump voters. There are many people who sympathize primarily with one or two views that Trump or the Republican party espouse, who have objected to the anger and fear that many marginalized people feel toward them. To me, these appointments are an ideal opportunity for Trump voters who are not racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted to support their own claims. There are so many conservatives, moderates, independents, and liberals who are still spending their time devaluing the fear of those who have the most to lose if Trump’s campaign promises become reality. Trump’s stated plans, dismissed by so many as empty and unlikely to be carried out, have come to fruition in the immediate aftermath of his victory.[13] And we are still spending our time defending Trump voters and diminishing the validity of the emotions of the brokenhearted, angry, and marginalized. Yes, there are those who voted for Trump who experience righteous anger against an establishment they believe failed them. Yes, the path to success involves us listening to them and understanding why they feel this way. But talking down to people of color, to LGBTQIA+ folks, to women, to anyone who is experiencing legitimate fear for their physical well-being and telling them to practice love is demeaning. It is condescending. It is useless. Who told Trump supporters to practice love? Who pleaded with them to practice compassion? Who instructed them to vote based on empathy? Notice who you are asking to give and give and give and who you assume has the right to take. Don't presume to say that Trump's candidacy was ordinary, that it did not actively endorse prejudice. If you believe that a Trump presidency is best for you, try figuring out why before you expect those who stand to lose the most to be happy for you.
Instead of policing other people’s anger and frustration, instead of constantly defending voters who selected Trump, instead of deflecting the conversation, follow through on your assertion that you do not support bigotry. Those of you who said during the campaign that you would be the first to criticize if Trump followed through on his prejudice, where are you now? You should be writing to and calling your Congress representatives to say that you are a citizen and you do not support these decisions. Instead of spending your time mocking or delegitimizing protest and dissent, you should be on the front lines. It is not and cannot always be the job of the marginalized to remain silent in the face of oppression, to quash their frustration when it makes you uncomfortable, and to still claim the responsibility of changing the systems that oppress them. Trump’s version of America is not mine. It does not include me, and I will not legitimize it. I cannot and will not make excuses for people who do. This candidate and members of his following have brought bigotry into the mainstream in a way that will take decades to undo. Those of us who saw the danger in a Trump presidency recognize our privileges and accept, with no other choice, the responsibility of undoing this damage. I commit to speaking with people with differing ideologies, sharing resources, writing rebuttals, reading analyses, watching speeches. I commit to informing myself and further cultivating compassion for the people who do not share my experience. I commit to being an advocate for my communities and to uplifting the voices of others. I commit to an America that resembles Trump’s “great” America in no way. This election cycle does not signify the beginning nor the end of my civic responsibilities. And I hope those who gave Donald Trump the presidency but do not endorse his bigotry recognize the same. •
[1] Staff. “Update: Incidents of Hateful Harassment Since Election Day Now Number 701.” Southern Poverty Law Center, November 18, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [2] Berman, Russell. “Donald Trump’s Call to Ban Muslim Immigrants.” The Atlantic, December 2, 2015, accessed November 19, 2016. [3] Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. “Donald Trump’s False Comments Connecting Mexican Immigrants and Crime.” The Washington Post, July 8, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [4] Fahrenthold, David A. “Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation About Women in 2005.” The Washington Post, October 7, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [5] Bump, Philip. “The Facts About Stop-and-Frisk in New York City.” The Washington Post, September 26, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [6] Peters, Jeremy W. “Emerging Republican Platform Goes Far to the Right.” The New York Times, July 12, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [7] Rosenberg, Matthew and Maggie Haberman. “Michael Flynn, Anti-Islamist Ex-General, Offered Security Post, Trump Aide Says.” The New York Times, November 17, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [8] Smith, David, Spencer Ackerman, and Jessica Glenza. “Trump Cabinet Appointments Will ‘Undo Decades of Progress,’ Rights Activists Say.” The Guardian, November 18, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [9] Rosenberg, Matthew and Maggie Haberman. “Michael Flynn, Anti-Islamist Ex-General, Offered Security Post, Trump Aide Says.” [10] Smith, David, Spencer Ackerman, and Jessica Glenza. “Trump Cabinet Appointments Will ‘Undo Decades of Progress,’ Rights Activists Say.” [11] Victor, Daniel and Liam Stack. “Stephen Bannon and Breitbart, in Their Words.” The New York Times, November 14, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016. [12] Rosenberg, Matthew and Maggie Haberman. “Michael Flynn, Anti-Islamist Ex-General, Offered Security Post, Trump Aide Says.” [13] Hauslohner, Abigail. “Is the Trump Administration Really Going to Launch a Registry for Muslims?” The Washington Post, November 15, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016.
nupoliticalreview.com
Fall 2016
27
Featured
On the 20th anniversary of the late-author’s Infinite Jest , an inquiry into satire. By Aren LeBrun Journalism & Media/ Screen Studies 2017 Illustration by Jennifer Heintz
V
iking Penguin offices, New York City, 1986. The twenty-three year old sitting in editor Gerry Howard’s office is wearing a U2 t-shirt and sneakers so untied Howard is afraid that the kid (who eschews “Gerry” in favor of “Mr. Howard”) will trip over their laces. The manuscript in question is titled The Broom of the System, written by a then-unknown David Wallace, a first-year Arizona MFA student who’s been shopping his Amherst College English thesis around since graduation. Howard, who’s fairly convinced he knows prodigy when he sees it, still cannot shake how nervous this kid looks, or how young. Of course nobody could know, then, what would become of Wallace – that he would soon ascend the literary ranks into avantgarde superstardom, that he would accrue a cult following who’d refer to him by all three
28
Fall 2016
initials, that he was to produce a novel so good that it would electrify a generation that was told it no longer desired fiction – but Gerry Howard may have been one of the first to get the idea, even if Broom were only a vague suggestion of what was on the horizon. “[It] was a portent for the future of American fiction,” Howard later recalled. “It wasn’t just a style, but a feeling he was expressing, one of playful exuberance… tinged with a self-conscious self-consciousness.”[1] A decade later, Wallace published Infinite Jest, a sprawling 1,079 page tour de force that grapples unsparingly with America’s corrosive relationship with entertainment through the lens of tennis, substance recovery, and (yep) a legion of wheelchair-bound Quebecois terrorists searching for a weaponized art film so good that if you watch it it kills you. As in literally. The novel was hailed as the next great
leap forward in avant-garde fiction, a fusing of Pynchon’s chaotic zaniness with the serious moral vision of Kafka and Dostoyevsky, held together with a prosaic agility so readable that critics were shocked when they learned it was the voice of someone so young. This year marks the 20th anniversary of Infinite Jest’s publication, and although its message is as relevant today as it was in 1996, you are forgiven for not having read it. I mean, come on, the book’s more than a thousand pages (not to mention three pounds), and we’ve all got stuff to do, Netflix episodes to catch up on (five, six at a time), social appointments unmissable, and so on. So if you haven’t gotten around to reading it yet – or, for that matter, to any of Wallace’s writing – that is alright, but let’s stay with each other for a little while anyway. Let’s explore the thematic nupoliticalreview.com
Featured
relevance his work has regarding our current political climate – particularly the Donald Trump phenomenon and the overall childishness of the 2016 Presidential election. Because that, as far as I know or can tell, we are all complete experts in. (Also, if you have read Wallace, that’s fine too. I won’t tell anybody.) Set in a distant future in which each year is owned by a different corporate product, Infinite Jest tells the story of a group of teenage athletes who attend an elite Massachusetts tennis academy that neighbors the Ennet House Drug and Alcohol Recovery House [sic], where residents are dealing with life-threatening addictions. Below its comedic screwball narrative and heartrending character studies, the novel’s hidden core is – as is true with all important fiction, I believe – an uncomfortably simple inquiry: Why do I need constant nupoliticalreview.com
entertainment, and, if I cannot overcome that need, what’s going to happen to me? Americans, particularly of the Millennial generation, have just experienced the first Presidential election in history to be engaged with almost entirely via a digital screen connected to the Internet. The Donald Trump fiasco has been to social media what the first Nixon/Kennedy debate was to the broadcast era in 1960, i.e. a precise moment where a new tech medium rips apart every trusted strategy that was, up until then, proven most effective. When John F. Kennedy, powdered and glowing and beautiful, appeared on television across from the perspiring, fidgety Nixon, the future of American politics changed in a single instant. All at once, words became secondary. Image was the new master.
Fast forward. In the novel’s world – set primarily in the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment (2009) – America has elected President Johnny Gentle, a paranoid Trumpish B-lister with undeniable charisma and gumption. Gentle is described by Wallace as “a kind of post-Perot national joke for years, until – white-gloved finger on the pulse of an increasingly asthmatic and sunscreen-slathered and pissed-off American electorate – (he was) suddenly swept to quadrennial victory in an angry reactionary voter-spasm.”[2] With this, Wallace is proposing that the ability to entertain in shocking, mindless bursts would soon be the ultimate vector of political leverage in the information age. Consider the viral mastery of Donald Trump, how he not only managed to turn himself into a 3D meme, but also fractured the entire electoral process into an online, interactive • Fall 2016
29
Featured
mosaic of entertainment of at which he was the front and center. Sure, he channelled a repressed anger in the body politic that aided his rise, but it’s hard to deny the assistance he received from the millions of Americans laughing at the havoc Trump wreaked on political discourse. It was, like everything else seems to have become, one big hilarious spectacle. Until we couldn’t laugh our way out of it anymore. It was not simply Wallace's vision of a deranged celebrity President that makes Infinite Jest as powerful and lasting a political satire as it is. The genius of his prose ran deeper than that. Wallace was doing more than warning readers that Donald Trump was coming, that our 200-plus-year-old political system would erode into meaningless farce... rather, he was telling us that we would be complicit in that erosion. That, perversely, we would enjoy it. As anyone who’s read Infinite Jest can tell you, the political satire of Johnny Gentle’s administration is really just a side gaff in the novel’s central narrative. It is a symptom of a far deeper-rooted cultural disease that Infinite Jest (and much of Wallace’s work) explores – the pervasion of irony into everyday discourse, irony as no longer a weapon against the power structure but as an alienating force between ourselves and the world we live in. Between ourselves and each other. It may seem surprising that Wallace, a pretty obvious student of postmodern irony (see Gaddis, Pynchon, DeLillo, et al.) was wary of our cynicism’s eventual danger; wary that, over time, irony is destined to become its own inescapable cell inside the prison it sought to destroy. “I find gifted ironists sort of wickedly fun to listen to at parties,” he wrote in a 1993 essay, E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction, “but I always walk away feeling like I’ve had several radical surgical procedures… not only empty, but, somehow, oppressed.”[3] In our current political landscape, Donald Trump is not some kind of freak accident. He is, as is Gentle in the novel, merely a symptom of something greater, something much harder to look at or see in any sort of direct way. A central theme in Infinite Jest is the question of whether or not anything is more culturally destructive than people forfeiting their right to take stuff seriously.
30
Fall 2016
Donald Trump, while of course villainous, loathsome, etc., seems to me to be filling a vacuum opened in part by our wholehearted cultural embrace of the meaningless. Consider for a moment, before it fades entirely out of the American rearview, the meteoric online sensation of Ken Bone, a character who feels literally hand-plucked from a Pynchon-inspired DFW short. Do you remember? The bespectacled coal plant operator from Chicago who, in a stroke of Warholian happenstance during the second Presidential debate, stumbled into the viral spotlight for asking a fairly legitimate question on energy policy, becoming a meme in seconds. The Internet decided, with the help of millions of us, that, despite a world-altering Presidential election on the immediate horizon, Ken Bone and his ghastly quarter-zip were the only details that mattered. He is a symbol for a unique moment in politics where the notion of giving a shit is so ludicrous that it’s funny. And it is funny. Please don’t think I’m saying it’s not. During debates, I participated in the Twitter pageantry as much as anyone. The point is, however, that despite this fun, there is tremendous danger in the erosion of our ability to care. I need to ask myself whether or not it’s helpful, culturally, to contribute to this discursive paradigm shift that is warping Facebook and Twitter into these weird sardonic temples of meta-reference that serve only to grant attention to whichever person/event/etc. can generate the most immediate digi-burst of ethereal, sarcastic joy. In an early scene in Infinite Jest, a young depressed woman named Kate Gompert is visited by a seemingly humorless doctor on her psychiatric ward. He is continuing to not respond to her jokes, ignoring all her attempts to tease him. Later she realizes perhaps his lack of response is not due to his being humorless or lame. Maybe he recognizes something about her reliance on irony that she can’t herself see. Writes Wallace: “Sarcasm and jokes were often the bottle in which clinical depressives sent out their most plangent screams for someone to care and help them.”[4] Now, imagine if Kate could operate as a symbol for our current political discourse, for this flavor of nihilist hilarity and mocking self-reference that saturates every message, every joke, every kilobyte of personal communication that floods into us via computers attached to our heads, all day long, every day. Consider, perhaps, the relevance of that.
nupoliticalreview.com
Featured
One Friday in the fall of 2008, while his wife Karen Green was away from home, David Wallace wrote a two-page note and hanged himself from a patio rafter. He was 46. He left behind folders stuffed with work on an unfinished novel, The Pale King, organized by Michael Pietsch (Infinite Jest’s senior editor, whose last name Wallace once interrupted an interviewer to clear up isn’t spelled “like the fruit”) and published by Little, Brown a year after his suicide. The novel is, in a sentence, a stripped down exploration into the notion of human boredom, e.g. the “terror of silence with nothing diverting to do.”[5] What are those nagging feelings during the brief intervals of stillness between entertainments, and why do they always feel so scary? As Wallace suggested: “Maybe dullness is associated with psychic pain because something that’s dull or opaque fails to provide enough stimulation to distract people from some other, deeper type of pain that is always there… which most of us spend nearly all our time and energy trying to distract ourselves from feeling, or at least from feeling directly or with our full attention.”[6] The literary community was shocked and saddened by the news of Wallace’s death; many had little idea of the severe depression he’d been tormented by for most of his life. His voice was so inimitable, so dominant and hilarious that it was hard for readers to imagine a storytelling future without him. And that remains so, eight years later on the 20th anniversary of his most significant contribution. From all of Wallace’s work, Infinite Jest is perhaps the most useful star to steer by in making sense of the seemingly “untalkaboutable” disengagement deeply seated within the American political conversation, a feeling most of us know but have for so long refused to discuss with each other. As in, example: Why do we, as witnesses to the first true nirvana of information and social access, seem so unwilling to talk about this obvious gap in our interior lives, this allergy to honest attention and care, which has helped, in part, facilitate both Trump’s rise and the total memefication of U.S. politics? Because for some reason, rather than face the reality of this problem, we limited ourselves to smirking at its most obvious metaphors. And that was funny, that sufficed for a while – until, eventually, it all came back home. A xenophobic nationalist billionaire, recognizable not from CSPAN but from Celebrity Apprentice, has become President
nupoliticalreview.com
of the United States to thunderous applause. There’s no longer any way around the long-hinted-at notion that U.S. politics have become another childish, corrupt, branded entertainment parade for network advertisers to sink their teeth into. An irony-laden, postmodern facade, just like everything else. But who’s playing whom here, really? Can we really be that pissed off at the dangerous joke our nation has become when our most common response to that joke was to act wry and jaded, praising ourselves ad nauseum online for being “smart” enough to get it? The answer is yes, obviously, of course we can. But the point is that with this disaster comes an opportunity for self-reflection in a serious way. The reason that Infinite Jest is a work of artistic heroism, to me and to many others, is because it goes beyond social diagnosis and actually proposes a solution. An idea that there is something more. That, perhaps, this recession into literal fascist dystopia can be reversed if, together, we each owned up to our role in its creation – in part by accepting Wallace’s 20-year-old call, his promise to us that we will have to choose to focus hard on the shit that matters, to take all of it seriously again. A choice that has become, as this mammoth novel foretold, perhaps the single truest struggle of modern U.S. life. One of the more resonant scenes in Infinite Jest features a central character, Mario Incandenza, avid fan of late-night MIT radio show “Madame Psychosis,” who’s hurt when he finds out the mysterious host has vanished from the airwaves without warning. The show isn’t the same without her, and Mario knows it, but he continues to listen anyway. He discovers that what he enjoyed most about her was the commitment she had to speaking sincerely, with no sort of ironic edge at all, about “stuff that was real,” which was an attitude harder and harder for Mario to find on television, or amongst his classmates and friends, or even at home. He listens for weeks, waiting, sad but always hopeful. How weird it is, he considers, to miss somebody you’re not even sure that you know.• [1] Max, D. T. (2012). Every Love Story is a Ghost Story: A life of David Foster Wallace. New York: Viking. [2] Wallace, D. F. (1996). Infinite Jest: A Novel. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. [3] Wallace, D. F. (1997). A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again: Essays and Arguments. New York, NY: Little, Brown, and Company. [4] Wallace, D. F. (1996). Infinite Jest: A Novel. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. [5] Wallace, D. F. (2009). The Pale King. New York: Little, Brown and Company. [6] Ibid.
Fall 2016
31
Columns
THE ELECTIONS WE HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT Alyssa Rubin / International Affairs 2017
D
onald Trump and Hillary Clinton commanded over 1,200 minutes of nightly news coverage between January 1, 2016 and Labor Day.[1] Together, they raised an aggregate of almost 1 billion US Dollars.[2] Our nation spent the better part of the last two years addicted to the melodrama of the presidential election, fueling the transformation of the democratic process into a media-obsessed, highstakes game show rife with misinformation, vitriol, and hate. And now it’s over. Many are asking, “Where do we go from here? What can be done?” Right now, all does seem lost — and rightly so. We have elected an openly racist, misogynistic, bigoted leader whose proposed policies, fueled by his recent appointees, rub up uncomfortably close to fascism. And it’s tempting to pack up and wait out the glory of our flawed democracy — the chance to reverse our course in 2020. But to set our sights on 2020 is to ignore hundreds of local, municipal, and state elections that will happen in 2017, 2018 (in particular), and 2019. The presidential race, despite its glamour and frequent invocation of the phrase “the leader of the free world,” is not the most consequential election that happened this year. We’ve engaged in all the speculation about Hillary’s emails and Trump’s business deals while utterly neglecting the hundreds of local and state elections that also took place on November 8th. The
32
Fall 2016
implications of a Trump administration are serious; however, it is these local officials that will have the greatest tangible influence over our everyday lives — so it is these people toward whom we must direct our time, our demands, and our energy. While many across the country mourned losing the chance to shatter “the highest and hardest glass ceiling,” others did make substantial wins on Election Day in congressional, state, and local races, including Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), a disabled Iraq veteran and the daughter of an immigrant, and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the first Somali-American U.S. legislator. While we don’t have the chance to elect another president until 2020, we can continue to focus on the impact of local figures. The President of the United States is undoubtedly the most powerful figure in world politics. The emphasis here is on world — the president and the federal government play a critical role in international diplomacy, trade, conflict, and governance. But it’s important to note that the Constitution includes a key stipulation limiting the power of the federal government: “The powers not delegated to the United
“
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [3] In plain speak: Any right the Constitution doesn’t specifically give to the federal government is the power of the states. This stipulation reflects the founding fathers’ commitment to the notions of liberty and decentralized power. In fact, the Constitution was actually the second draft of the Articles of Confederation, which limited the powers of the federal government even further. [4] The powers of the federal government have grown substantially since the signing of the Constitution; however, the majority of power remains with state and local governments. Think about a normal day in your life. You wake up, take a shower, and brush your teeth. The water that comes out of your sink and your shower is distributed by the City of Boston’s Water and Sewer Commission, which works directly with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.[5] Next, you leave your apartment and get on the T — also known as the MBTA, or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which is overseen by the Massachusetts Department
Whether you believe that change is bottom-up or topdown, it’s local and state politicians who make the decisions that are integral to our daily lives.
”
nupoliticalreview.com
Columns
of Transportation.[6] Then, you grab a coffee from Starbucks. Your coffee costs $1.99, but the total comes out to $2.11 — that’s because the Massachusetts Department of Revenue institutes a 6.25% sales tax, a rate which varies by state.[7] It’s a Friday, so that afternoon, you get your paycheck. In addition to your federal withholdings (social security, medicare, and federal income tax), an additional 5.1% of your paycheck will go to Massachusetts income tax.[8] As you leave your office, it starts to rain. You hail a taxi, and on your way, home you hit a pothole. Repairing that road is the responsibility of the City of Boston’s Department of Public Works — and all private companies that complete road repairs are accountable to them. And when the sun sets while you’re sitting in traffic, Public Works manages the street lights that switch on to illuminate your commute home.[9] It goes on from there. It isn’t that the president, or even the federal government, is irrelevant. The president and the federal government set the national agenda, make critical funding decisions, and represent the American people in global diplomacy.[10] But proportionate to the laws and policies that affect
us on an everyday basis, we spend little to no time following — or participating — in local and state politics and elections.[11] Whether you believe that change is bottom-up or top-down, it’s local and state politicians who make the decisions that are integral to our daily lives. So why not invest more time in researching your local representatives? Better, why not spend more time talking with them? As politicians, they are far more accessible — you’re much more likely to have a personal conversation about local parking zone regulations with your neighborhood representative than with Donald Trump (and why would you want to?). Further, local politicians are accountable to fewer constituents, which means their platforms are (relatively) less defined by the need to pander across the political spectrum to secure support. Moving forward, we shouldn’t dismiss the importance of presidential elections, especially in an election as contentious as this one, but we need to reconsider and prioritize the influence of our local leaders. Next election, make your voice heard where it counts the most, right here at home.•
GET TO KNOW THE COLUMNIST Alyssa Rubin is a 5th year international affairs major with minors in social entrepreneurship and political science. She completed her first co-op at Root Cause, and her second at CANVAS in Belgrade, Serbia, researching nonviolent political movements around the world. She is currently on co-op at District Hall, a hub for Boston's innovation community. She is passionate about the intersection of art, innovation, and social justice to tackle civic issues. When she's not rehearsing with NU Stage, Northeastern's musical theater group, she can be found writing poetry, running slowly along the Charles, or researching Boston's fascinating history.
[1] Farhl, Paul. 2016. "Trump Gets Way More TV News Time Than Clinton. So What?". Washington Post. [2] Narayanswamy, Anu, Darla Cameron, and Matea Gold. 2016. "How Much Money Is Behind Each Campaign". Washington Post. [3] U.S. Constitution amend. X. [4] Sagal, Peter. 2016. "Federalism: Constitution USA". Public Broadcasting Service. [5] Boston Water and Sewer Commission. 2016. Water History. Boston. [6] Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. 2016. About the MBTA. Boston. [7] Massachusetts Department Of Revenue. 2016. Massachusetts Tax Rates. Boston. [8] Massachusetts Department Of Revenue. 2016. Massachusetts Tax Rates. Boston. [9] Department of Public Works. 2016. Public Works. Boston. [10] The White House. 2016. The Executive Branch. Washington, D.C. [11] Maciag, Mike. 2014. "Voter Turnout Plummeting In Local Elections". Governing.
nupoliticalreview.com
Fall 2016
33
Columns
Of Cowboys and Terrorists Jennie Spector / International Affairs 2017
T
he American justice system wears blinders when it comes to national security threats posed by its most represented population: white people. Specifically, white, male, American citizens.[1] While national security was a recurring theme in this past election cycle, it was narrowly focused on the threat of, in Donald Trump’s words, “radical Islamic terrorism.”[2] The president-elect has referred specifically to a threat posed by the intake of Syrian refugees and other Arab and Muslim migrants. Hillary Clinton’s critique of his remarks emphasized that Muslim Americans are on the “frontlines” of preventing terror attacks, and must not be alienated by such language. She failed to speak to the plainer truth that most Muslim Americans have no involvement whatsoever in terror. It isn’t that ISIS and Al Qaeda don’t pose a viable threat to the United States. But to
34
Fall 2016
pretend that it is only Muslims or non-citizens or immigrants who pose a security risk is flagrantly absurd, and part of the larger saga of racial injustice in America. To hype up the fear of terrorism, while associating anyone who shares an ethnicity or religion with this particular group of extremists, is not only dangerous, but deeply unjust. The risk that the incoming administration fears that Muslim refugees pose is exemplified in a recent case. Last January, a group of armed militants, spearheaded by the Bundy family, occupied American federal property in their seizure of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Armed to the teeth, the group’s leader claimed that his actions were inspired by what “the Lord” was asking of him. The occupation stemmed from a protest in support of two ranchers convicted of arson for starting fires on rangeland, and escalated into this nearly six-week standoff in defense of
ranchers’ rights.[3] His compatriots claimed they were willing to kill and be killed in order to stand their ground. Ultimately, they needed to do neither. The group was allowed to continue their occupation for a full 41 days, coming and going from the compound, attending town hall meetings, and making media appearances. Supporters of the occupiers freely delivered food and other gifts. The FBI engaged in negotiations with the group, and eventually the militants peacefully surrendered outside of the compound. Only one fatality occurred throughout the whole incident, when a militant reached for his gun upon being cornered by the authorities.[4] The incident was not mentioned once during the Presidential debates.[5] Their occupation of federal land has not been made a rallying cry for increased security or police authority. And when a jury was asked, they found the militants not guilty of conspiracy nupoliticalreview.com
Jennie is a fifth year international affairs and political science student. She enjoys interrupting the foreign policy conversation as a fellow with Foreign Policy Interrupted, and has studied and worked in South Africa, the Balkans, Paris, and Istanbul. Jennie is known for aggressively recommending books to people and knowing a little too much about musical theatre. Her academics focus on conflict resolution, women’s rights and security, and alternative media. She feels totally relaxed about her approaching graduation.
against people seeking refuge in this country rings hollow in light of the weak law enforcement actions taken against the Bundy militants. It also points back to the larger problem of racial bias within America. Another stark comparison can be found today in North Dakota, where hundreds of Native American activists are protesting the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. The protesters have been fired at with bean bag rounds and pepper spray. Dozens have been treated for vicious bites from police dogs. Sound canons are being fired to disperse peaceful protesters from the tribal and privately owned land on which they are demonstrating. Well over 150 activists have been placed under arrest.[7] While the Bundy occupiers were given every benefit of the doubt, it’s quite apparent that people of color receive none. This past October in Revere, Massachusetts, police officers received a call warning of shots fired. After being dispatched to the site, the SWAT team, unable to find the address mentioned by the anonymous caller, instead focused in on a rooming house for Moroccan immigrants. Several of the apartment’s inhabitants were too scared to immediately exit the apartment, so “chemical deterrents” were used to force them to exit. The men, some of whom were in their fifties and sixties, all reported aggressive treatment from police. Left behind in the SWAT team’s wake were fist-sized holes and shattered windows in the apartment. After being handcuffed and detained for hours by police, no evidence was found that the men had done anything wrong. News reports following the incident pondered whether the initial 911 call
“
to impede federal officers, not guilty of possession of firearms in a federal facility, and not guilty of any charges at all, except for a single issue of theft, which went unresolved by the jury.[6] A possible explanation as to why? The group was entirely made up of white men and women. Authorities in the American justice system seem to be perfectly capable of practicing reasonable, and in this case, rather unreasonable, restraint toward armed groups. However, as groups like Black Lives Matter point out, constraint is hardly offered to people of color. It appears that determining if someone poses a threat to national security comes down to whether a person looks more like a cowboy or a terrorist. The unrelenting fear campaign
Columns
GET TO KNOW THE COLUMNIST
was a prank, meant to harm the well being and reputation of the immigrants. [8] Over and over again, we have seen enforcers of justice in the United States allow the slightest speck of color to cloud their vision. Children playing with toys are shot and killed on sight by nervous police officers. Immigrant homes are damaged without hesitation. Weapons are deployed to silence Native American protesters. Meanwhile, shootings perpetrated by white males at elementary schools, movie theatres, and shopping malls are swept under the swollen rug of debate over the Second Amendment. The American public is treated to speech after speech warning of the dangers of Syrian and other refugees, who supposedly bear ill will against Americans and have no respect for our laws and culture. Rhetoric around the danger posed by immigrants, refugees, and terrorism does not exist in a vacuum. Nor does the justice system’s association of people of color with threats to public safety. Justice and security are both too nuanced and too important to be subjected to blatant prejudices based on ethnicity, race, or religion. A white militant occupation should not end in death, but neither should it conclude with a complete lack of accountability that may embolden others to attempt similar acts. We can be sensible about the very real threats posed by groups like ISIS without subjecting immigrants and refugees to violent scrutiny. To fulfill these vital obligations we must reside, however uncomfortably, in a place of complexity. •
Over and over again, we have seen enforcers of justice in the United States allow the slightest speck of color to cloud their vision.
”
[1] Malika-Henderson, Nia. “White men are 31 percent of the American population. They hold 65 percent of all elected offices.” The Washington Post. October 8, 2014. [2] Politico Staff, “Full Transcript: Third Presidential Debate.” Politico, October 20, 2016. [3] Templeton, Amelia. “Militia Occupying Federal Land: ‘We are not Hurting Anyone.’ Oregon Public Broadcasting. January 3, 2016. [4] Zaitz, Les. “FBI agents under investigation for possible misconduct in LaVoy Finicum shooting.” The Oregonian. March 8, 2016. [5] “Presidential Debates 2016,” The American Presidency Project. [6] Sotile, Leah. “Jury Acquits Ammon Bundy, six others for standoff at Oregon wildlife refuge.” The Oregonian. October 27, 2016. [7] Goodman, Amy. “Standing Rock: Police Arrest 120+ Water Protectors as Dakota Access Speeds Up Pipeline Construction.” Democracy Now. October 24, 2016. [8] Sacchetti, Maria. “Possible Hoax Explored After Police Standoff in Revere: Police Release 911 Call that Led to Raid.” The Boston Globe. October 18, 2016.
nupoliticalreview.com
Fall 2016
35