NUPR Spring 2017 by Northeastern University Political Review

Meet the Team Executive Board

Letter from the Editor & the President

Neiha Lasharie President Jaclyn Roache Editor-in-Chief Anna Bagley VP of Public Relations & Secretary Reilly McGreen Treasurer Jennifer Heintz Creative Director Mike Wagenheim Digital Designer

Editorial Board Prasanna Rajasekaran Managing Editor Hannah Lifshutz Column Editor Lindsey Bressler Magazine Editor Aren LeBrun Magazine Editor Lily Moseley Magazine Editor Eesha Ramanujam Magazine Editor

Design & Illustration Tori Baisden, Jack Dombrowski, Suma Hussien, Katie Metz, Molly O'Neill, Amanda Pinsker, & Lila Selle

Mission Statement The Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a non-affiliated 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 Magazines printed by Smith Print

Dear Reader, Thank you for picking up this issue of the Political Review! As ever, in this semesterly letter to our readers, we want to highlight any changes you may see reflected in our magazine. As such, we would like to announce a recent transition. Upon conception, during a time where much of the political discourse on campus was dominated by partisanship, NUPR was intended to be a formally non-partisan publication. While this was codified in our mission statement, the ideal of non-partisanship felt strained and dated with each subsequent year. This semester, after a thoughtful conversation between our Editorial and Executive Boards, we have decided to transition from “non-partisan” to “non-affiliated.” While similar in name, we feel that there is an important distinction. Our decision to move to non-affiliation is part of an effort to make clear that NUPR does not seek to publish diverse opinions purely for the sake of feigning objectivity. Our aim is to publish intriguing, wellwritten pieces regardless of their perspectives. To many, “non-partisan” suggests a commitment to bipartisanship and thus an obligation for the publication to be actively inclusive of multiple alignments. Our new non-affiliated status allows us the liberty of elevating good journalism above all else – and that has always been NUPR's priority. With this in mind, we welcome your continued engagement as readers and writers committed to celebrating quality content no matter the angle. Happy reading!

All the best,

Jaclyn Roache, Editor-in-Chief

Neiha Lasharie, President

National 4

The Case for Conditional Optimism Elena Kuran

Political Satire in the Era of Trump Jillian Wrigley

Clash of Generations Garry Canepa

The Shaky State of LGBTQ+ Rights Nicholas Napolio

The Systemic Racism of Higher Education Prasanna Rajasekaran

Campus 15

In An Era of Trump And DeVos, Northeastern Is Failing Sexual Assault Survivors Martha Durkee-Neuman

Featured 18

Why I Joined the #JewishResistance Alyssa Rubin

Roxbury: A Neighborhood on the Brink Alex Frandsen

Never Again and Other Lies Neiha Lasharie

Northeastern, Exxon, and the Exaltation of Fossil Fuel Criminals Tyler Hall and Alissa Zimmer

Columns 30

Quit Trying to Escape Identity Politics Sneha Pandya

The Rise of Trump: A Revolt Against Neoliberalism or Whitelash? Sean Keith

Putting "America First" by Recommitting to Global Health Anthony Formicola

National

THE CASE FOR CONDITIONAL OPTIMISM Elena Kuran / International Affairs 2020 Illustration by Molly O'Neill

missed only one day of class during my entire first semester of college: November 9th, the day after the presidential election. I could not imagine functioning on a campus that seemed to be in mourning, let alone in a small, intimate classroom. In the months following, I’ve frequently felt restricted by anger, fear, despair, and an overwhelming sense of helplessness. Many of the hateful, exclusionary promises Donald Trump made during his campaign have sickeningly taken shape. His first months in office have already seen the confirmation of divisive, unqualified individuals to his Cabinet, a greenlight for the Dakota Access Pipeline, and two rash immigration bans imposed upon several majority Muslim countries.[1][2][3] It would be a waste of breath to say that a dark cloud of pessimism and fear hangs over the U.S. and has already started to gloom over other countries. Pessimism is everywhere, and rightfully so. The news media know well how the public reacts to shocking news, and it uses this knowledge to perpetuate headlines that make the existence of good seem questionable. The world’s current climate makes the case for conditional optimism extremely difficult, but all the more necessary. One proponent of conditional optimism is Steven Pinker, a professor at Harvard who specializes in linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. In an interview, Pinker argues that the world is in fact improving, contrary to widely held opinion, and that he is conditionally optimistic about the future.[4] Pinker credits the distinction between complacent optimism and conditional optimism

Spring 2017

to economist Paul Romer, who defined complacent optimism as “the feeling of a child waiting for presents,” in contrast to conditional optimism, “the feeling of a child who is thinking about building a treehouse... If I get some wood and nails and persuade some other kids to help do the work, we can end up with something really cool.”[5] The treehouse that is a democratic America based on constitutional values has already been built, through centuries of movements and leaders who believed in freedom and equality for all. Now, that treehouse is quickly being torn apart by hateful policy and rhetoric. Using conditional optimism as a mobilizing force, we must resist the destruction of democracy in the form of unconstitutional executive orders, the rejection of indisputable facts by our elected officials, and exclusionary, dangerous rhetoric. Given the circumstances, perseverance seems a monumental thing to ask of anyone affected by the Trump administration’s policies. Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci described the strength that maintaining optimism demands: “I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist b e c a u s e of will.”[6] However, this difficulty has not deterred

“

millions around the world from marching, protesting, and rallying, a testament to the belief that perseverance and action are worth the struggle for the justice they can bring. Perseverance and conditional optimism go hand in hand. To take the time and effort to demonstrate for hours at numerous events is to believe there is something worth fighting for. In Boston, over 200,000 people attended the Women’s March in late January. Senator Elizabeth Warren addressed the crowds, encouraging resistance and promoting democracy: “We will fight for what we believe in.”[7] In Kenya, the native country of former President Barack Obama’s father, women marched between villages chanting, “Solidarity with all the women, women on the march.”[8] In Paris, people gathered around the Eiffel Tower, waving flags and holding signs with messages such as, “We’ve got our eyes on you, Mr. Trump.”[9] In Mexico City, both American and Mexican demonstrators gathered in solidarity with the Women’s March, chanting, "Love, not hate, makes America great."[10]

Using conditional optimism as a mobilizing force, we must resist the destruction of democracy in the form of unconstitutional executive orders, the rejection of indisputable facts by our elected officials, and exclusionary, dangerous rhetoric.

”

nupoliticalreview.com

of resistance fueled by conditional optimism. These actions send a message that for every step backward the Trump administration attempts to take, millions of Americans are prepared to push forward with resistance. All my life I’ve been given the label “optimist.” As I grew older and I saw optimism increasingly tied to words like naive, unintelligent, and ignorant, I shied away from it. I felt this most strongly during my first month of college; I hesitated to raise my hand in classrooms I felt were dominated by realist assumptions of the worst. This is not to say that I live in a cheerful, naive bubble; I understand and agree that there is a lot to be angry about, that some things cannot be compromised, and that news and issues related to poverty, war, inequalities, and unqualified, fear-mongering leaders demand solemnity and incite feelings of despair. However, as an immigrant, as a woman of color, I refuse to succumb to despair. I, along with other women, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ persons, and refugees know that we do not have the privilege of complacency. To be able to throw your hands up and admit defeat is a strong indication of privilege, and it’s a luxury marginalized people have never been able to afford. When Trump banned Americans from entering their own country, could their families simply give up? When government machines tore up sacred earth in the Dakotas, did the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe ever actually have the choice to fight? When Republicans move to gut Planned Parenthood, can women in America sit back and watch decades of fighting amount to nothing? The answer is no. As I witnessed unfounded hatred toward immigrants, an image of my mother, who still has a green card, who cannot vote, appeared in my head. No, to give up is definitely not an option. Unfortunately, it took the election of Trump for me to truly admire and embrace the power of conditional optimism. At first I often faltered. I found myself resonating more with the late Dr. Hans Rosling, who once said that he was not an optimist, but rather “a very serious possibilist.”[17] I quickly realized that the label is insignificant so long as the same gut feeling, that something has gone terribly

“

wrong and that you must do everything you can to fix it, mobilizes you. While our reasons for resisting Trump may be be varied, we must allow conditional optimism to harness and amplify them. Acting out of desperation alone can lead to rash, ineffective decisions. However, acting based on the belief that we cannot be bystanders to the destruction of our democracy, and that we must be our own advocates, is the most effective way to resist. While resistance continues, so too must the commitment to be inclusive and aware. There is no single type of person who opposes Trump. In a crowd of protesters, people of all ages, races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and religions are present. Therefore, those with privilege must be cautious not to

National

In higher power structures, cities and states voiced their opposition to Trump’s travel ban. Since its initial introduction and attempted implementation in January, the travel ban has been criticized and blocked by several state governments and federal judges. In February, 17 states, including Washington, New York, and Virginia, legally challenged the executive order. In Seattle, James Robart, a federal judge nominated by George W. Bush, filed a temporary restraining order against the travel ban, citing that “blocking the president's order was in the public interest.”[11] The restraining order remained in effect until the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled to uphold the suspension on February 9th. In early March, Trump signed yet another executive order to restrict travel to and from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The new travel ban was immediately blocked by U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii, followed by legal challenges filed by several states, including Maryland and Washington.[12] Trump responded to the judges’ decisions by calling their actions “an unprecedented judicial overreach.”[13] Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, called criticisms of the judiciary “demoralizing” and “disheartening.”[14] In response to the travel ban, sometimes referred to as the “Muslim ban,” thousands of demonstrators flooded airports in the U.S. to show support and solidarity with immigrants, refugees, students, and families arriving from countries on the ban list. Lawyers and attorneys from several major law firms and nonprofits also showed up at international airports where noncitizens were beginning to be detained upon arrival.[15] Initially called upon by the International Refugee Assistance Project, the lawyers and attorneys gave advice and filed petitions for individuals and families detained without warning. Additionally, academics, workers, and the average American all responded in their own ways, including through petitions, such as the Academics Against Immigration Order, which over 42,000 academic supporters have signed, including 62 Nobel Laureates.[16] In major cities, there seems to be a different protest or rally every week, whether related directly to attacking Trump’s policies, or in solidarity with movements and organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Black Lives Matter. These worldwide demonstrations have been heartening, cathartic, and awe-inspiring. As the implementation of Trump’s promised policies continues, so too will the momentum

To be able to throw your hands up and admit defeat is a strong indication of privilege, and it’s a luxury marginalized people have never been able to afford.

”

overstep, speak for, or oppress marginalized people. To rally and protest without solidarity is exclusionary and ineffective, and any social movement that fails to be intersectional is no better than the institutions they criticize. Kimberle Crenshaw, a leading scholar of critical race theory, advocates for intersectionality and recognizes its urgency: “We can no longer give mere lip service to intersectionality and the indivisibility of social justice.”[18] Even the Women’s March received criticism for embracing white feminism. Many women wore pink “pussy hats,” which were perceived as transphobic and racist. The power of collective conditional optimism cannot be lessened by ignorance. As we move forward, a commitment to continual self-education and intersectionality is imperative. By feverishly resisting Trump and his policies, we are sending a clear message of opposition, perseverance, and civil disobedience, fueled by conditional optimism. This is deeper than a glass half-empty or half-full. This is about remembering that it is easy to despair and wrong to be complacently optimistic. But it is radical and necessary to be conditionally optimistic. •

[1] Berman, Russell, “The Donald Trump Cabinet Tracker.” The Atlantic, February 16 2017. Web. February 18 2017. [2] Dennis, Brady and Juliet Eilperin, “Trump Administration to Approve Final Permit for Dakota Access Pipeline.” Washington Post, February 7 2017. Web. February 18 2017. [3] Parlapiano, Alicia and Anjali Singhvi, “Trump’s Immigration Ban: Who is Barred and Who Is Not.” New York Times, February 3 2017. Web. February 15 2017. [4] Belluz, Julia, “It May Have Seem Like the World Fell Apart in 2016. Steven Pinker is Here to Tell You It Didn’t.” Vox, December 22 2016. Web. January 4 2017. [5] Romer, Paul, “Conditional Optimism about Progress and Climate.” Paul Romer, July 21, 2016. Web. February 18 2017. [6] Gramsci, Antonio, and Frank Rosengarten. “Letters from Prison.” New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. [7] Allen, Evan and Jaclyn Reiss, “Elizabeth Warren riles up crowd at Women’s March in Boston.” Boston Globe, January 21, 2017. Web. February 19 2017. [8] Smith-Spark, Laura, “Protesters Rally Worldwide in Solidarity with Women’s March.” CNN, January 21 2017. Web. February 17 2017. [9] McAuley, James, “‘Je Suis Nasty: Women in Paris March Against Trump.” Washington Post, January 21 2017. Web. February 22 2017. [10] Santiago, Leyla, “Protesters in Mexico City Show Show Solidarity with Women’s March.” CNN, January 22 2017. Web. February 22 2017. [11] Robbins, Ted, “Who is Judge James L. Robart and Why Did he Block Trump’s Immigration Order?” NPR, February 4 2017. Web. February 17 2017. [12]Hill, Jacob and Julia Jacobo, “Hawaii Judge Puts Trump’s Revised Travel Ban on Hold.” ABC News, March 16 2017. Web. March 26 2017. [13]Dinan, Stephen, “Trump Calls Judge’s Order Halting Vetting ‘Unprecedented Judicial Overreach.’” Washington Times, March 15, 2017. Web. March 26 2017. [14] Barnes, Robert and Ed O’Keefe and Abby Phillip, “Supreme Court Nominee Gorsuch says Trump’s Attacks on Judiciary are ‘Demoralizing.’” Washington Post, February 9 2017. Web. February 19 2017. [15] Bromwich, Jonah Engel, “Lawyers Mobilize at Nation’s Airports after Trump’s Order.” New York Times, January 29 2017. Web. February 17 2017. [16] Academics Against Immigration Executive Order. [17] Roberts, Sam, “Hans Rosling, Swedish Doctor and Pop-Star Statistician, Dies at 68.” New York Times, February 9 2017. Web. February 20 2017. [18] Crenshaw, Kimberle, “The Charlestown Imperative: Why Feminism and Antiracism Must be Linked.” Huffington Post, July 8 2015.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

National

Political Satire in the Era of Trump

Jillian Wrigley / Business Administration and Political Science 2021 Illustration by Lila Selle

onald Trump, reality TV star and celebrity billionaire, is shown on television descending down an escalator inside one of his infamous hotels, announcing to an adoring crowd that he will run for the office of President of the United States. When writer Dan Greaney wrote this scene into an episode of The Simpsons sixteen years ago, we all laughed. “Trump was, of course, the most absurd placeholder joke name that we could think of at the time,” said show creator Matt Groening in October 2016, a month before the presidential election. “And that’s still true. It’s beyond satire.”[1] “Beyond satire” is a fair characterization of the current state of the United States government as we plunge further and further into the Trump era of politics. Every new executive order or national security mishap is more outrageous than the last, and the frequency of scandals and disorderly conduct coming from this administration continues to increase. Whether we want to admit it or not, our current political climate is in many ways

Spring 2017

more unbelievable and absurd than any TV writer could produce. But when reality follows a more ridiculous premise than the parody of that reality, does satire still serve a function? Many would argue that the reality of Trump's current administration is so ludicrous that it is no longer worth satirizing. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone told Australia's ABC News that they struggled to keep up with the comedy presented by the divisive 2016 presidential election. In their upcoming season of the show, the creators have taken a different path altogether by expressing a desire to step back from political material, claiming the American government has become too difficult to mock.[2] From the moment he announced his campaign for the presidency, we indulged ourselves in jokes about Donald Trump. But the jeers fell on deaf ears, and he won the White House. It’s fair to say nothing is funny about politics anymore. But to give up on satire because the jokes seem too difficult to land may be ill-considered. Political satire has always had the potential to create content for a higher

purpose than amusement. One of the best examples of this is when Stephen Colbert founded the Colbert Super PAC on his news satire show, The Colbert Report.[3] He took his audience through the relatively easy process of coordinating political action committees, organizations that raise money privately to influence elections. Surprisingly, Colbert succeeded where many traditional news sources have not in clearly explaining the inconsistencies in the laws governing PACs. For his work, Colbert even received a Peabody Award in 2011, an honor created to recognize excellence in the field of journalism and mass communication.[4]

“

... our current political climate is in many ways more unbelievable and absurd than any TV writer could produce.

”

nupoliticalreview.com

A more recent example of political comedians using their medium to draw attention to important issues is Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption, a legally recognized church started by John Oliver in August of 2015 to draw attention to the tax privileges given to churches and charities with little government oversight.[5] Through this extensive joke, Oliver was able to give his audience a front row seat to how frighteningly easy it is to set up a tax-exempt religious establishment in the United States. These are just a few cases that used political satire as a platform to bring absurd failures in our government to the forefront of the public’s mind in a memorable and entertaining manner. Neither comedian shied away from the subject matter because it was too grim to make fun of; they both used the preposterous nature of our reality to their advantage and presented material that highlighted the ridiculousness of our country’s situation in a way that was engaging and informative. In the later years of the Obama administration, political satire outlets rose in popularity considerably. In fact, The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show were the two most-watched late night talk shows among 18to 49-year-olds in the first quarter of 2013.[6] The Onion, a well-known satirical newspaper and website with a political comedy section, started with modest beginnings but now boasts 7.5 million readers monthly.[7] More recently, the tremendously successful film Get Out, written and directed by comedian Jordan Peele, shows the potential for impactful political satire in the era of Trump. The film depicts an interracial couple visiting the young woman’s white parents for the first time since the beginning of their relationship. The movie, which Peele classifies as a “social thriller,” criticizes the attitudes and actions of affluent white liberals toward AfricanAmericans through elements of horror and humor combined.[8] This form of satire that aggressively and successfully tackles issues like racial tensions shows promise for a future where political satire can be a leading voice on topics that are difficult for many journalists or ordinary citizens to facilitate. Though comedy is no replacement for other institutions like watchdog journalism, satire is yet another vehicle in American democracy that can be used to provide important commentary on corrupt powers on a popularized platform. Most importantly, satire, just like any other creative medium, is at its best when it reflects a thoughtful and persuasive stance on an issue and at its worst when it creates content that patronizes the very power structures it is meant to parody. To find an example of a program that has produced both extremely effective as well as nupoliticalreview.com

extremely disappointing material, look no further than political commentary produced on Saturday Night Live. In June of 2015, SNL’s host network NBC formally denounced and broke business ties with Trump due to his comments on the campaign trail about immigrants.[9] The network removed Trump from his eight-year-long arc as host of the TV show “Celebrity Apprentice” and pulled out of its standing commitment to broadcast the Miss Universe pageant in late June 2015, which at the time was co-owned by the Trump Organization.[10] In November 2015, less than six months later, SNL came under harsh criticism for booking Donald Trump as a host during his campaign, marking him as the first political candidate to ever host an entire episode and not just appear in a cameo role. Trump’s appearance was a commercial success for the program with a staggering 9.4 million viewers, becoming the most watched episode of SNL since 2012.[11] However, the jokes performed catered to Donald Trump and worked to his advantage, allowing him to make more snide comments about Rosie O'Donnell and make light of his insensitive racial rhetoric by mocking the organization Deport Racism, who offered $5,000 to anyone that called Donald Trump a racist during the episode. [12] Despite NBC’s surface shunning of Donald Trump, it still allowed its program to use the candidate’s popularity to increase the network’s ratings. In that moment, SNL and NBC showed that it is inherently ineffective and hypocritical to create content parodying a corrupt political figure while exploiting their image to cultivate higher viewership. Despite these missteps, as a program with over 40 years worth of content, there are many bright spots in SNL’s history. SNL famously spoofs government officials during election season, wielding its influence by creating characters and performances that define the general public’s perception of the candidate better than the candidates themselves. In 2000, SNL’s caricature of Al Gore as a nerd obsessed with his “lockbox” plan was so devastating that his aides reportedly encouraged him to watch the sketches and correct his performance in debates accordingly.[13] Ironically, prior to the SNL sketches, tracking polls suggested the public viewed Gore as the debate winner. But once the spoofs caught on and sunk in, outlets like the New York Times began calling him "an overbearing know-it-all."[14] Though the sketches written to parodize Al Gore were simply comical at face value, satire had a tangible influence on the reality of politics, for better or for worse. Fast forward to 2017 and SNL has produced an extensive amount of material mocking high-ranking members of the Trump

”

administration, such as Alec Baldwin as President Trump, Melissa McCarthy as Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and Kate McKinnon as Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway. Whereas past administrations have kept their feelings on the sketches to themselves, President Trump has made it clear that he is insulted and bothered by the portrayal of him, calling Baldwin’s impression of him “really mean-spirited” and “not very good” on The Today Show.[15] Many critics claim that this type of visceral reaction from the President has helped reignite the show’s reputation for creating ambitious satire. "What makes 'SNL's' Trump material so brilliant is that, perhaps for the first time, the cast and crew are more than aware that Trump is watching," wrote Salon's Bob Cesca. "Rather than being deferential, 'SNL' is deliberately crawling up Trump's a--, and they know it's working, thanks to Twitter."[16] It is an exciting time for comedy when the President of the United States is believed to be watching every jab taken at him, fuming as his character is portrayed to a laughing audience as an incompetent Russian puppet. As his presidency continues over the next four years, it is not unfathomable to think that smart and aggressive political satire will force President Trump to reevaluate how his image is perceived by the rest of the world, just like Al Gore and countless others were forced to consider. Political comedy moving forward should be less concerned with pandering to the Trump administration in order to get views and should instead dedicate itself to pointing out the issues Trump has brought to the presidency so far. If political satire is to remain relevant during a Donald Trump presidency, it needs to move forward by embracing its underlying use as a way to bring the corrupt and absurd to the attention of the public, not just to garner a cheap laugh. •

National

“

...satire, just like any other creative medium, is at its best when it reflects a thoughtful and persuasive stance on an issue and at its worst when it creates content that patronizes the very power structures it is meant to parody.

[1] Andrew Marlton. “The Simpsons' Matt Groening: 'President Trump? It's beyond satire.” The Guardian. October 13th, 2016. [2] ABC News. “Trey Parker and Matt Stone say US politics is currently "much funnier than anything we could come up with.” ABC News. February 2nd, 2017. [3] Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. “Colbert Super Pac.” The Colbert Report. [4] Peabody Awards. “The Colbert Report, Super PAC Segments (Comedy Central).” Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication. February 9th, 2015. [5] Ryan Reed. “Watch John Oliver Blast Televangelists, Create His Own Mega-Church.” Rolling Stone. August 2017, 2015 [6] Anthony Thai. “Political Satire. Beyond the Humor.” The Harvard Crimson. February 6th, 2014 [7] Bradley Whitaker. “The Impact of Political Satire.” Tenley Times. April 21st, 2013. [8] Michael Phillips. “Jordan Peele's 'social thriller' launches a directorial career.” The Chicago Tribune. February 24th, 2017. [9] NBC News. “NBC Cuts Business Ties with Donald Trump Over Immigration Remarks.” NBC News. June 30th, 2015. [10] Nolan Feeney. “NBC Cuts Ties With Donald Trump Over Immigration Remarks.” Time. June 29th, 2015. [11] Ali Vitali. “Donald Trump Hosts ‘Saturday Night Live’ Amid Protests.” NBC News. November 8th, 2015. [12] Megan Garber. “Live From New York, It's Donald Trump.” The Atlantic. November 8th, 2015. [13] Adam Howard. “How ‘Saturday Night Live’ Has Shaped American Politics.” NBC News. September 30th, 2016. [14] Richard L. Berke. “The 2000 Campaign: The Debates; In Debate 2, Microscope Focuses on Gore.” The New York Times. October 11th, 2000. [15] The Today Show. Twitter Post. December 7th, 2016, 4:47 AM. [16] Bob Cesca. “Thanks, Trump! “Saturday Night Live” reclaims its satirical mojo amid a national emergency.” Salon. February 6th, 2017.

Spring 2017

National

Clash of Garry Canepa / Political Science & Economics 2019

he election of Donald Trump as President has highlighted several divides within our nation along the lines of class, race, and gender. And as the interests of the young and old continue to clash, the often overlooked age gap has also become more prevalent. Trump, the oldest president to have ever taken office, is emblematic of this generational divide. His support stems primarily from “baby boomers,” the massive generation born in the post-war era. As baby boomers continue to retire in growing numbers and enjoy ever-rising political influence, the United States risks becoming a gerontocracy at the expense of its younger citizens. These asymmetric age dynamics have failed to be adequately addressed and have become a major obstacle to achieving a fairer and more just democracy with a government that serves the needs of all. In interpreting the generational divide in America, it is important to understand who exactly voted for our current president. While Trump supporters are often portrayed as unemployed blue collar workers who lost their manufacturing jobs due to outsourcing and trade, this image is largely a myth. Trump supporters have relatively high incomes, and they are no more likely to be unemployed than Clinton supporters.[1] There is, however, a strong correlation with one's age and the likelihood that they voted for Trump, with voters over the age of 65 preferring Trump by an 8-point margin and voters between 18 and 29 preferring Clinton by an overwhelming 18-point margin.[2] These statistics demonstrate the sharp contrast between the interests of young and old voters. Per Pew Surveys, millennials place greater emphasis on the protection of the environment and the treatment of marginalized groups, while baby boomers care more about national security, programs for the elderly such as Medicare and Social Security, and immigration.[3] Additionally, while 72% of millennials say that immigrants strengthen the country due to their hard work and talent, just 48% of baby boomers share that view. [4] Similarly, according to a YouGov poll, 33% of 18- to 29-year-olds hold a favorable view of Islam; that share is just 15% for those over 65.[5] These distinct polarities in perceptions cannot be overlooked, and as the population continues to age and retire, the views of the elderly will hold greater sway. As shown by the controversy over Trump’s policies, including

Spring 2017

the proposed Mexican border wall and the travel ban imposed on six Muslim-majority nations, the values held by the generations have come into conflict. While millennials’ prioritization of tolerance and equality lead them to extend greater support for Hispanics and Muslims, baby boomers’ desire for tougher immigration and national security laws directly oppose these ideals. Fiscal policy has also demonstrated an overwhelming age bias. While Republicans portray themselves as advocates for smaller government, over one-third of the federal government’s spending is funneled exclusively into one of its primary voting blocs: the elderly.[6] These funds are dedicated to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which are among the largest and the fastest growing public expenditures. This dwarfs spending on the young, including child care and education.[7] Per Julia Isaacs of the

“

Socialism appears to be acceptable when it benefits the elderly but not the young.

”

Brookings Institute, the U.S. spends 2.4 times more on the elderly than on its youth. Isaacs states, “Our current system of public expenditures is unfair to younger generations… The vast and growing size of unfunded health and retirement benefits will require today’s children to bear a heavy tax burden when they grow up to be working-age adults. For our children’s sake, we should restrain growth in elderly benefits and pay our share of taxes.”[8] The massive expenditures that go toward the elderly will also burden future generations with debt, while young people’s chances of receiving the same benefits are jeopardized. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that federal debt held by the public will rise from its current 75% of GDP to 141% by 2046, largely due to growth in Social Security and

Medicare.[9] Excessive spending on these programs has also put long run fiscal sustainability at risk. Social Security derives much of its current revenue from payroll taxes, and the elderly have received far more from Medicare than they have paid into the program.[10] In effect, these programs are dependent on intergenerational transfers from young workers to old retirees. So despite arguments that the U.S. cannot afford expanded child care programs and affordable universities, Social Security and Medicare are allowed to balloon without question from either side of the aisle. Socialism appears to be acceptable when it benefits the elderly but not the young. This negligence toward the young has caused the standard of living for children in the U.S. to lag behind other developed nations. Investments in early education, child care, and nutrition have been shown to make significant impacts into adulthood.[11] One such study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which measured the effects of food stamps, concludes that “expanding resources in utero and in early childhood can lead to significant improvement in adult health.”[12] Conversely, chronic underspending has had severe consequences. Compared with other advanced nations, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of child poverty, the highest rate of child mortality, and the lowest weight of newborn babies.[13][14][15] This should be an embarrassment for the world’s richest nation. Since the “War on Poverty,” spearheaded in the 1960s by President Lyndon Johnson, the elderly have seen the largest decrease in poverty rate, from about 35% in 1959 to 9% in 2012. Unfortunately, while child poverty has declined, it has decreased at a much lower rate, from 27.3% in 1959 to 21.8% in 2012, and it has even increased in recent years.[16] Problems facing students also fail to be addressed. As the workforce increasingly requires higher education, university tuition costs have rapidly increased by nearly 80% from 2003 to 2013, more than twice the rate of inflation.[17] As a result, three out of ten young people cite student debt as their biggest financial challenge.[18] This is a valid concern, nupoliticalreview.com

National

as student loans comprise nearly one-fifth of expenses for college graduates under 35 with debt.[19] The climbing debt levels have delayed many graduates’ life events, including marriage and home purchase.[20] Donald Trump ran his campaign on a promise to battle special interests and “drain the swamp” of Washington corruption. Of a survey of registered voters, most respondents, even many Clinton supporters, believed that Trump would do a better job than Clinton at reducing the influence of special interests.[21] However, according to the lobbying watchdog group Open Secrets, the most influential special interest group, based on contributions to members of Congress during the 2015-2016 election cycle, was retirees. As Open Secrets states, “The top industry isn't really an ‘industry’ at all, but individuals who list their occupation as ‘retired’ in federal documents.”[22] Retirees are the largest special interest group by an extremely wide margin. Those who list their occupation as “retired” donated $93 million to members of Congress during the 2015-2016 election cycle. This is well above every other special interest group, including the financial industry ($55 million), the oil industry ($24 million) and the pharmaceutical industry ($22 million). However, this support is not unique to Republicans, as retirees gave Democrats $25 million during the same cycle, serving as the third largest special interest group. As a result, both sides have been staunch defenders of Medicare, Social Security, and the overall interests of the elderly. The lobbying group American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) further equips retirees with political muscle,

“

as it is one of the most influential lobbies in Washington.[23] Though Trump won the elderly vote because of his promise to take on special interests, he has actually served them significantly. Much of the age divide, like many of our nation’s inequalities, can be attributed to the composition of Congress. The congressional makeup is not at all representative of the American people. The Congressional

The 2016 presidential election represented more than divided economic interests; it portrayed a cultural divide between the old and young.

”

Research Service states that our current 115th Congress is among the oldest of any Congress in recent U.S. history, with the average American being about 20 years younger than their representative.[24][25] Thus, young people face an uphill battle to gain any sort of influence in an institution that is inherently disconnected from their needs. Much of this lack of representation derives from a low voter turnout among young Americans. But this partially falls on politicians, who must do a better job ensuring youth representation. There needs to be a countervailing force for the young, whose low voter turnout is a threat to the United States’ future. Perhaps what we need is a Department of Youth Development – an agency committed to advocating for policies that would

enhance the lives of the young through early child care, education, nutrition, and student debt. This proposed state agency would be active in legal disputes, policy research and advocacy, and ensuring the protection of rights and welfare of children and students. Roles such as addressing child nutrition, juvenile rehabilitation, and college financing may be streamlined into this agency, with the goal of promoting the well-being of youths. While a federal agency may not be popular, it may be necessary to counteract the overwhelming and growing political influence of the elderly. Easing the voting process could also encourage more youth participation, thus leveling the democratic playing field. The 2016 presidential election represented more than divided economic interests; it portrayed a cultural divide between the old and young. With the election of Trump, the voices of the elderly have been heard and prioritized, crowding out the concerns of the young. As baby boomers push for cultural homogeneity and greater security for their ever-expanding social safety nets, children in the U.S. continue to live with high levels of poverty. Young people shouldn’t have to wait until they’re 65 for the government to start looking out for their interests. The nation needs to start putting the youth first and focus on policies that invest in the future. Automatic voter registration, making election day a Sunday, and a Department of Youth Development would be a modest start. The U.S. must provide the youth with a fair voice in government and level the playing field for the preservation of democracy and the legitimacy of our government. •

[1] Rothwell, Jonathan T. "Explaining Nationalist Political Views: The Case of Donald Trump." SSRN Electronic Journal, August 15, 2016. [2] Tyson, Alec, and Shiva Maniam. "Behind Trump's victory: Divisions by race, gender, education." Pew Research Center. November 09, 2016. [3] Fingerhut, Hannah. "4. Top voting issues in 2016 election." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. July 07, 2016. [4] Jones, Bradley. "Americans' views of immigrants marked by widening partisan, generational divides." Pew Research Center. April 15, 2016. [5] Edwards-Levy, Ariel. "Americans View Islam Less Negatively Than They Did A Year Ago." The Huffington Post. February 08, 2017. [6] "Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?" Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. March 04, 2016. [7] Niu, Xiaotong , and Julie Topoleski. "What Are the Causes of Projected Growth in Spending for Social Security and Major Health Care Programs?" Congressional Budget Office. October 27, 2014. [8] Isaacs, Julia B. "Spending on Children and the Elderly | Brookings Institution." Brookings. July 28, 2016. [9] "The 2016 Long-Term Budget Outlook." Congressional Budget Office. February 02, 2017. [10] Jacobson, Louis . "Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get." PolitiFact. February 1, 2013. [11] Calman, L. J., & Tarr-Whelan, L. (2005, April). Early Childhood Education for All (Rep.) [12] Hoynes, Hilary, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas Almond. "Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net." NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES, November 2012. [13] Smeeding, T. M. (2006). Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal, 20(1), 69-90. [14] MacDorman,, Marian, and T.J. Mathews,. "International Comparisons of Infant Mortality and Related Factors: United States and Europe, 2010." National Vital Statistics Reports 63, no. 5 (September 24, 2014). [15] "Countries Compared by Health > Births > Low birth weight. International Statistics at NationMaster.com, OECD. Aggregates compiled by NationMaster.," [16] DeSilver, Drew. "Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait." Pew Research Center. January 13, 2014. [17] Kurtzleben, Danielle. "CHARTS: Just How Fast Has College Tuition Grown?" U.S. News & World Report. October 23, 2013. [18] Cook, Nancy. "Confirmed: Millennials' Top Financial Concern Is Student-Loan Debt." The Atlantic. June 20, 2015. [19] "Millennials spend 18 percent of salaries on student loans." Hartford Business Journal. April 11, 2016. [20] Kitroeff, Natalie. "Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials." Bloomberg.com. December 10, 2015 [21] Fingerhut, Hannah. "4. Top voting issues in 2016 election." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. July 07, 2016. [22] "Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2016 Cycle." OpenSecrets.org. [23] "The Center for Responsive Politics." OpenSecrets.org. Accessed March 19, 2017. [24] Manning, Jennifer E. "Membership of the 115th Congress: A Profile." Congressional Research Service, March 13, 2017. [25] Palmer, Brian. "Is Congress Getting Older?" Slate Magazine. January 02, 2013.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

National

The Shaky State of LGBTQ+ Rights

Nicholas Napolio / Political Science 2018

GBTQ+ rights, in their current state, have no solid foundation. President Obama’s administration did a great deal to expand LGBTQ+ rights and protections. However, although President Trump has claimed to advocate for LGBTQ+ issues and pledged to protect LGBTQ+ people in his Republican National Convention speech, his presidency ultimately threatens the state of LGBTQ+ rights.[1] Trump has nominated or tapped several anti-LGBTQ+ appointees for his cabinet and the courts.[2] Should Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ selections extend to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), LGBTQ+ people could lose what precarious protections against employment discrimination they currently have. The path to equal rights for LGBTQ+ individuals is riddled with legal and political obstacles. The legal route is complicated and unlikely to result in immediate protections. The political path to equal rights was unfortunately shut off on November 8. Absent a miraculous leftward shift come 2018, that path will remain an impossibility. Not having anti-discrimination laws gives employers freedom to legally refuse to hire or promote, to offer different terms and conditions of employment, and to terminate LGBTQ+ people because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Congress has legislated protections against employment discrimination based on other protected classes, but not for gender identity or sexual orientation, and is unlikely to. The legal route to equal rights is slightly more promising. Passed in 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act guarantees federal protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Since then, legislation has created new protected classes such as age and disability, but Title VII’s five protected classes remain unaltered. Yet over 50 years after the Civil Rights Act’s passage, the EEOC, the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII, has begun to interpret the word “sex” to include protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.[3] The EEOC, however, enjoys no authority to create substantive rules, so its ruling on the definition of “sex” is purely interpretative and therefore precarious. In fact, interpretative rules are neither final nor technically binding, and they are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act’s formal and informal rulemaking procedures.[4] Rebuking the current definition of “sex” is almost entirely at the discretion of EEOC staff – a staff that President Trump will soon appoint. To arrive at the interpretation that “sex” encompasses gender identity and sexual orientation, the EEOC relied mainly on a 1989 Supreme Court decision that held that being denied a promotion for failure to conform to sex-based stereotypes violates Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex.[5] Using that case’s logic, the EEOC, first in 2012 and later in 2015, found that discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation is often discrimination on

“

Spring 2017

The path to equal rights for LGBTQ+ individuals is riddled with legal and political obstacles.

”

the basis of noncompliance with sex-based stereotypes, and therefore prohibited. The EEOC’s finding is logical. For example, if a woman is fired for being lesbian, she is being fired for failing to conform to the sex-based stereotype that women should be attracted to men. But for her sex and attraction to women, she would not be fired. The EEOC argued the sex-based stereotype point, and two others, before a federal judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania and, in November 2016, the judge accepted the EEOC’s interpretation.[6] The two other arguments were that LGBTQ+ people are discriminated against (1) because of their sex, and (2) because of their relationship to someone of the same sex, which necessarily takes sex into account. The judge held that all three arguments were functionally the same, and that Title VII includes a per se protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, meaning that the sex-based stereotyping argument is unnecessary and one can simply argue that they were discriminated against based solely on their sexual orientation. This interpretation was expressed first by the EEOC in 2012 for gender identity, and in 2015 for sexual orientation, and has since only been accepted by the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.[7] [8] However, this argument is being heard by other courts across the country. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard the argument en banc – before all judges of the Seventh Circuit – in November 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard the argument in December 2016, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the argument in January 2017.[9][10][11] On March 10, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against nupoliticalreview.com

the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII, though it ruled on procedural grounds and largely avoided the substantive issue of whether sexual orientation is covered under Title VII. As it currently stands, any employee alleging discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation can have their case heard before the EEOC, or a federal court if they are employed in the Western District of Pennsylvania. However, President Trump could appoint EEOC commissioners who are hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. If that is the case, LGBTQ+ employees are at risk to lose all federal rights to relief from employment discrimination. The state of LGBTQ+ rights is shaky. Only one District Court has accepted that discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation is illegal, and only three Circuit Courts are considering or have considered the issue. The five years of precedent against discrimination based on gender identity and the two years based on sexual orientation could have been brief tastes of equal rights instead of foundations for lasting protections. Furthermore, employment discrimination cases take a considerable amount of time. Per the EEOC, the investigation of an employment discrimination case typically takes 10 months to complete. After an investigation concludes, if the EEOC finds probable cause of discrimination, it attempts to mediate the issue, and if mediation fails, the case may be brought to federal court.[12] Many with pending complaints may have their complaints dropped for lack of jurisdiction if a new EEOC removes protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Even if the other courts of appeals uphold the EEOC’s current interpretation, only the six states in the Second and Seventh Circuits would enjoy federal protections against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Many of those states already have state-level protections. The sixstate outcome would lead to an interesting enforcement scheme for the EEOC. It would be obligated to accept gender identity and sexual orientation cases from these six states, but not obligated to accept cases alleging the exact same facts from the other forty-four. A split in circuit courts, though, could lead to a Supreme Court case, which happened in 2015 over the issue of same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court took the case, it would most likely split five-to-four, meaning LGBTQ+ employees lose all federal protections. Despite Justice Kennedy’s liberalism with regards to LGBTQ+ rights, the Supreme Court will not reach a majority because of the unique issues presented by employment discrimination. In striking down same-sex marriage bans, nupoliticalreview.com

the Defense of Marriage Act, and anti-sodomy laws, Justice Kennedy invoked the privacy and individual liberty requirements of the Constitution.[13][14][15] Essentially, Kennedy’s argument was a libertarian one for negative rights, the right to do something without governmental intrusion. Employment discrimination does not touch upon privacy and individual liberty in the same way. Upholding the EEOC’s interpretation would require endorsing governmental enforcement of a new positive right, the right to be employed regardless of one’s gender identity or sexual orientation. Kennedy will likely vote against the EEOC’s interpretation citing lack of administrative authority, lack of legislative intent, and the creation of a new positive right. In other decisions (for example, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.), Justice Kennedy has shown that he treats sexuality and gender issues differently when his decision would create an obligation for private individuals or corporations, rather than stop the government from taking some action.[16] Though Justice Kennedy has been the surprisingly liberal justice with regards to LGBTQ+ rights on the Supreme Court, his liberalism will probably not extend to the creation of a positive right to be employed regardless of one’s gender identity or sexual orientation. Under President Trump, we can expect either the some-states scheme of federal protections, or no federal protections at all. Legislative change is unlikely to occur given the composition of the Congress and its history on expanding employment discrimination protections to gender identity and sexual orientation. Courts will likely grow more conservative as Trump appoints new judges and a new Supreme Court justice. The outlook is grim. Hope, however, lies in a bit of administrative case law: Chevron v. National Resource Defense Council, Inc.[17] Chevron holds that courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it enforces if that statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is based on a “permissible construction” of the statute. It is unclear, however, whether “sex” is legally ambiguous as to warrant deferral to the EEOC’s interpretation. It is also unclear whether a court must defer to an agency’s interpretation if it conflicts with a prior interpretation.[18] So, if a Trump EEOC rebukes the interpretation of “sex” to include gender identity and sexual orientation, a plaintiff may have standing to sue because they were denied relief when the EEOC reinterpreted Title VII against its prior interpretation. This, of course, presupposes that (1) “sex” is ambiguous, and (2) that the EEOC’s expansionary interpretation is a “permissible construction” of Title VII. The Supreme Court

”

granted certiorari to answer whether “sex” is ambiguous and whether an interpretation of “sex” to include gender identity is permissible, but in the context of discrimination in education under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.[19] The Supreme Court, however, remanded the case back to the Circuit Court in light of the Attorney General Sessions’ reversal on the issue.[20] Achieving fully equal political and legal rights for LGBTQ+ people is unlikely to occur in the near future. The EEOC’s decisions in 2012 and 2015 showed promise, but were only administrative actions that Trump’s EEOC can ultimately overturn. Trump can also appoint federal judges and at least one Supreme Court justice that could overturn the EEOC’s decision. Both houses of Congress are Republican-controlled and unlikely to legislate any new protections, and the House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively overruling Chevron.[21] Fortunately, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and other legal non-profits that advocate for LGBTQ+ folks are working diligently in the courts to ensure equal rights regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation. Other employment discrimination cases are surely making their way through lower courts and will eventually lead to appellate decision in circuits other than those already hearing gender identity and sexual orientation cases. As the issue becomes more salient and publicized, more attorneys will take on more cases, which could help individual plaintiffs prevail. However, any way the issue splits in the courts, it is unlikely that LGBTQ+ people will gain full, federal protection from employment discrimination during Trump’s administration. Success is ultimately dependent on Trump’s appointments to the EEOC and the courts, and all evidence leads to the conclusion that he will not appoint officials sympathetic to expanding rights. Trump’s presidency greatly threatens already-precarious LGBTQ+ rights. •

National

“

Any way the issue splits in the courts, it is unlikely that LGBTQ+ people will gain full, federal protection from employment discrimination during Trump’s administration.

[1] Politico Staff. “Donald Trump 2016 RNC Draft Speech Transcript”. Politico, July 21, 2016. [2] Landsbaum, Claire. “Every One of Donald Trump’s Cabinet Picks So Far Opposes LGBT Rights.” New York Magazine, November 30, 2016. [3] Baldwin v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 120133080 (July 15, 2015); Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012). [4] Administrative Procedure Act, US Code 5 (2016), §553(b). [5] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). [6] EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, P.C., W.D. Pa., Civ. No. 2:16-cv-00225-CB (2016). [7] Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012). [8] Baldwin v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 120133080 (July 15, 2015). [9] Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, F.7d, No. 3:14-cv-1791 (2016). [10] Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, F.11d, No. 15-15234 (2016). [11] Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., F.2d, No. 2:10-cv-04334 (2017). [12] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “What You Can Expect After You File a Charge,” https:// www.eeoc.gov/employees/process.cfm (accessed January 3, 2017). [13] Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). [14] United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). [15] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). [16] Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014). [17] Chevron v. National Resource Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). [18] Givati, Yehonatan, and Matthew Stephenson. 2011. “Judicial Deference to Inconsistent Agency Statutory Interpretations.” 40(1): 85–113. [19] Gloucester County School Board v. G. G., Docket No. 16-273, (2016). [20] Peters, Jeremy, Jo Becker and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. “Trump Rescinds Rules on Bathrooms for Transgender Students.” New York Times, February 22, 2017. [21] Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, H.R. 5, 115th Cong. (2017).

Spring 2017

National

Prasanna Ra

jasekaran / E conomics 20 18

n October of 2015, black students at the University of Missouri (Mizzou) launched a protest against racism on campus. They were responding to two things in particular. First, to the all-too regular incidences of racial insensitivity they faced at school. Second, to the national Movement for Black Lives, birthed a mere hundred miles away after the killing of Michael Brown. The Mizzou protests started as most college protests do, with a small and ultimately ignored group of students marching through campus, loudly expressing their grievances, hoping someone might listen. But in a little over a month, the protests – culminating in the Mizzou football

Spring 2017

team’s refusal to practice or play in games – had turned a Midwestern college town into the epicenter of racial tension in America. The protests also spurred individual but connected anti-racism movements at colleges throughout the country, with students at Yale, UNC, UC Berkeley, Amherst, and many more schools calling for solidarity with Mizzou and an end to racism on their own campuses. But over the course of the next several months, the legitimacy of the protests was questioned. Were the incidents at Mizzou, Yale, and other universities in response to a real grievance? Or were they symptomatic of a “coddled” generation, taught to perceive

the slightest cultural insensitivity as racist threat? Eventually, these questions began to cast a pall over the black student movement of 2015, and the media decidedly turned against the protests. But the media narrative belies an undeniable fact: Black students were fighting an unjust status quo. They were fighting to change the deep, systemic racism of American higher education.

n oft-ignored reality underlies American higher education; it’s that “college” does not mean the same thing for everyone. For many, college is not an idyllic, escapist four years away from the real world. Rather, it’s an nupoliticalreview.com

National

“

Were the incidents at Mizzou, Yale, and other universities in response to a real grievance? Or were they symptomatic of a “coddled” generation, taught to perceive the slightest cultural insensitivity as racist threat?

”

online degree through a for-profit university or night classes at a local community college. The systemic racism of higher education, the racism students at Mizzou were responding to, starts before a black student even steps foot on a college campus. It starts with the type of institution black students have access to. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), black and white college enrollment rates are within 5% of each other as of 2014 (63% black, 68% white).[1] That gap has closed significantly since 1995, when black students trailed white students by nearly 13%. But the black students who are now going to college are not, for the most part, attending Mizzou, Yale, or other prestigious four-year universities that receive media attention for their roiling protests. Instead, 68% of the black college enrollment increase from 1995 to 2013 is attributable to black students who attend community colleges or for-profit universities.[2] Conversely, 82% of new white college enrollments during this period went to the 468 most selective universities in the country, all of which are nonprofit or public four-year schools.[3] Whereas white students easily make up the vast majority of students attending four-year public and nonprofit universities, people of color make up half of all community college students and majority of all for-profit students.[4] Most importantly, of the 100 “very high activity” American research universities, most of them saw their black student enrollment shrink from 1994 to 2013.[5] Why does this matter? Because almost all of the country’s most prestigious universities are still predominantly white and less black than they were 25 years ago. At least some of this has to do with the roll-back of affirmative action policies in the 90s and early 2000s, as well as the growth of for-profit universities as flexible (if equally expensive) alternatives to traditional four-year and two-year colleges.[6] But the fact that a shrinking amount of black students attend highly ranked PWIs does not necessarily mean the campus environments at these schools are racist. Surely universities – bastions of liberalism and inclusive thought – would shelter black students, and all students of color, from any sort of real racist experience. nupoliticalreview.com

If only. Racism at PWIs is difficult to discuss because its effect is rarely overt. Most students fortunately do not have the experience of Payton Head, the Mizzou student body President who was called the n-word by a group of white students on campus (which is not to say that these experiences don’t abound).[7] There is, however, non-anecdotal proof that systemic racism exists at America’s top universities. At four-year public institutions (i.e. traditional state universities such as Mizzou), the six-year graduation rate for white students is 60%. For black students, it’s 40%. At four-year non-profit institutions (i.e. private universities such as Yale), the six-year graduation rate for white students is 68%; it’s 43% for black students.[8] The largest discrepancies are at highly selective – but not the most selective – schools. For fouryear non-profits that accept between 25% and 49.9% of their students, white students graduate at a clip of 81%, black students at a mere 51%.[9] For four-year public schools of this caliber, those percentages are at 69.3% and 44%, respectively.[10] Many argue that the reason for such discrepancies is that black students get preferential admission into universities, even if they are academically unqualified, leading to worse performance in college. But the last 20 years have seen the death of state-sanctioned affirmative action, and six-year graduation rate discrepancies between black and white students have increased during this time. Further, in their seminal book The Shape of the River, economists William Bowen and Derek Bok show that, after controlling for academic indicators including high school GPA, standardized test scores, and socioeconomic status, as well as gender, school selectivity, and field of study, black students still fare worse than white students at PWIs.[11] Let’s not be afraid to say it. Lower performance by black students at top universities is the product of systemic racism. It’s the product of a failed or non-existent effort by PWIs to create an environment in which black students can succeed. But if black students are not outwardly harassed by their fellow students, what is meant by systemic racism? And what does it mean “to create an environment in which black students can succeed”?

The question has been studied extensively in higher education academia. For the last three decades of the 20th century, sociologist Vincent Tinto’s theory of student integration dominated education circles.[12] It argued that “students must go through a process of separation from their precollege communities, navigate a period of transition into college life, and integrate into the academic and social subsystems of their campuses to maximize their likelihood of success.” But Tinto’s ideas of integration conflict with the experience of culturally diverse students. If a college’s “academic and social subsystems” don’t reflect a student’s cultural background, that student will have to minimize or entirely disregard their identity to fit in. Further, researchers have shown that “integrating” is psychologically more difficult and harmful for racial minority groups than it is for racial majority groups, and that Tinto’s theory implies an inherent disadvantage for, say, black students trying to integrate into the culture of PWIs when compared to white students trying to do the same. To satisfy this critique, higher education scholars now view college success through a culturally conscious lens. Many argue that encouraging students to engage with their cultures, and validating all students’ cultural backgrounds through active, culturally relevant programming is key to the success of students of color. Recent models put the onus on colleges to provide these culturally relevant resources to students of color so that they can succeed. For example, Samuel Museus’ Culturally Engaging Campus Environment (CECE) model argues that “undergraduates’ access to culturally engaging campus environments is associated with higher levels of sense of belonging and, in turn, greater likelihood of success in higher education.”[13] The model includes nine elements of culturally engaging campus environments that allow students of color to feel like they belong. The first five fit into the subcategory of “cultural relevance,” which “refers to the degree to which students’ campus environments are relevant to their cultural backgrounds.” The next four are about “cultural responsiveness,” or the “extent to which campus programs and practices effectively respond to the needs of culturally diverse populations.” Museus goes Spring 2017

National

on to note various ways faculty members and academic advisors can implement the CECE model by “integrating lessons on diverse histories from the perspectives of indigenous and immigrant communities” or trying to “understand how students’ cultural backgrounds, family relationships, and community obligations might be influencing their experiences and success in college.” Models like the CECE model are reflective of black students’ experience at PWIs. Museus’ own study testing his model – a survey of three universities (one four-year PWI and two twoyear community colleges) – shows that, of the model’s nine elements of culturally engaged campuses, eight show positive correlations with sense of belonging, five of which are statistically significant. Various studies have suggested similar conclusions. A study by Dr. Michelle Denise Gilliard in 1996 suggests that, in a survey of black and white students at six Midwestern PWIs, “African American students look to college administrators to define the institution's racial climate, and that student perceptions of a racially inhospitable environment may negatively impact the success of all students.”[14] It specifically notes “African American students’ focus on participation in minority-focused support services (e.g., Black Student Union) contributes to their overall involvement within the college community.” Professors Douglas Guiffrida and Kathryn Douthit review higher education literature that shows how experiences with faculty, membership in black student organizations, and relationships with family and friends back home significantly impact black students’ retention, persistence, and success at PWIs.[15] They conclude that “school and college counselors who understand the sociocultural challenges that black college students face in their transitions to PWIs can provide an invaluable means of support and advocacy for these students to facilitate their academic success.”

Higher education academics are right to be concerned with cultural insensitive and racially inhospitable campus environments considering the ample evidence that these environments significantly impact a black student’s chance for success. And because the gap between black and white student success at PWIs remains large, it’s inarguable that PWIs are failing to provide adequate culturally-conscious resources and support to black students in order for them to succeed. Racism does exist at PWIs. Not always through overt racial name-calling or intimidation, but through a lack of cultural consciousness that pervades every aspect of the university. College administrations fail to provide the money and resources for culturally-conscious

“

If we are unable to stomach singular instances of racism, we cannot ignore the systemic racism they represent.

organizations and programming; faculties fail to hire enough black professors or adequately account for cultural differences of black students; and the ratio of black to white students remains low, while many students continue to evince cultural ignorance or inhospitality.

receive media attention – start like this, with one unfortunate incident provoking heated campus activism. But this characterization, promulgated by the media, is inaccurate. It’s premised on the falsehood that colleges like Yale and Mizzou are entirely harmonious, non-racist spaces until a random incident creates tension. This ignores the quotidian racism many black students are forced to live with at PWIs. If we are unable to stomach singular instances of racism, we cannot ignore the systemic racism they represent. Yes, Payton Head was called the n-word, and this did partially instigate the Mizzou protests. But protesters have made it clear that racism was a regular part of their college experience, that it was

he Mizzou protests were seemingly sparked by a single incident. Payton Head, president of Mizzou’s student government, was repeatedly called the n-word one night on campus. Similarly, the infamous Yale protests were caused, it was told, by a single email, sent by Professor Erika Christakis regarding Halloween costumes. It would seem that most college protests – at least the ones that

”

something they lived with consistently, and that this was what the protests were trying to address.[16] At Yale, student activists made the same distinction; Professor Christakis’ email was only the last straw of cultural insensitivity, an incident that was unacceptable because of its normalcy.[17] Higher education academics have shown that this critique is real and proven; their research suggests that closing the black-white graduation gap is about making campuses culturally engaging and sensitive to non-white students. PWIs’ failure to do so means one thing: the accepted and continued systemic racism of American higher education. •

[1] "Percentage of recent high school completers enrolled in 2- and 4-year colleges, by race/ethnicity: 1960 through 2014." National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed April 1, 2017. [2] Iloh, Constance, and Ivory A. Toldson. "Black Students in 21st Century Higher Education: A Closer Look at For-Profit and Community Colleges (Editor's Commentary)." The Journal of Negro Education 82, no. 3 (2013): 205. doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.3.0205. [3] Ibid. [4] "Characteristics of Postsecondary Students." National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed April 1, 2017. [5] McGill, Andrew. "The Missing Black Students at Elite American Universities." The Atlantic. November 23, 2015. Accessed April 1, 2017. [6] "How Minorities Have Fared in States With Affirmative Action Bans." The New York Times. June 23, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2017. [7] "Campus Racial Incidents." Journal of Higher Black Education. Accessed April 1, 2017. [8] "Graduation rate from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor's degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, control of institution, and acceptance rate: Selected cohort entry years, 1996 through 2007." National Center for Education Statistics. Accessed April 1, 2017. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Guiffrida, Douglas, and Kathryn Douthit. "The Black Student Experience at Predominantly White Colleges: Implications for School and College Counselors." Journal of Counseling and Development, Summer 2010. [12] Museus, Samuel D., Varaxy Yi, and Natasha Saelua. "The Impact of Culturally Engaging Campus Environments on Sense of Belonging." The Review of Higher Education 40, no. 2 (2017): 187-215. doi:10.1353/rhe.2017.0001. [13] Ibid. [14] Gilliard, Michelle Denise. "Racial climate and institutional support factors affecting success in predominantly white institutions: an examination of African American and white student experiences." PhD diss., 1996. [15] Guiffrida, Douglas, and Kathryn Douthit. "The Black Student Experience at Predominantly White Colleges: Implications for School and College Counselors." Journal of Counseling and Development, Summer 2010. [16] Naskidashvili, Nana. "Students march through MU Student Center in protest of racial injustice." Columbia Missourian. October 1, 2015. Accessed April 1, 2017. [17] Wang, Victor, and Joey Ye. "Hundreds discuss race at forum." Yale Daily News. November 5, 2015. Accessed April 1, 2017.

Spring 2017

nupoliticalreview.com

Campus Campus

In An Era Of Trump And DeVos, Northeastern Is Failing Sexual Assault Survivors Martha Durkee-Neuman / Human Services and International Affairs 2019

he President of the United States of America is a sexual predator. During his campaign, a now-infamous tape leaked of Donald Trump boasting about assaulting women. He subsequently dismissed the comments as casual “locker room banter.”[1] The scandal – and the nineteen women who have accused him of sexual assault – contributed to national discussions about the prevalence of harassment across the country, especially on college campuses.[2] Now a man who doesn’t understand consent is President, and the conversation must turn

nupoliticalreview.com

to what’s next. While there remains much to witness, his choice for Secretary of Education speaks volumes about the direction the administration is taking. The appointment of Betsy DeVos as Secretary for Education proves that Trump’s administration will not stand up for the rights of survivors of sexual assault. As a donor and lobbyist, DeVos has financially supported the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization that speaks out for students’ and professors’ rights to free speech and, among other services, has provided legal

assistance to and advocated for the rights of perpetrators of sexual assault on college campuses.[3] During her confirmation hearing, DeVos was asked by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA) whether she would uphold the 2011 guidance on Title IX, which requires colleges and universities to actively work to prevent and appropriately respond to sexual assault on campuses. She refused to answer; she said, “it would be premature to do so today.”[4][5] Title IX, though created in 1972, was fundamentally changed by the Dear Colleague Letter, circulated in 2011 by the Department Spring 2017

Campus

“

[The ViSION Resource] Center fits into patterns of Northeastern co-opting student advocacy, branding it with an NU flair, and reproducing it in a way that reflects the university’s agenda.

of Education, which mandated universities to evaluate sexual assault cases based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, as opposed to the “clear and convincing evidence” standard that had previously been in place.[6] [7] The latter standard tends to favor students accused of sexual violence over survivors. Though Northeastern University utilized the latter until the Dear Colleague Letter, the school now operates on a “preponderance of evidence” standard. This standard means that an accused party can be found guilty if the jury believes that there is a 51% chance the accusations are true.[8] The letter also mandated that universities conduct campus climate surveys of how students experience, witness, and perceive sexual assault on campus and fairly and accurately publicize the results; Northeastern is currently under fire for failing to do so.[9] Student organizers, administrators, and community advocates rely heavily on Title IX policies and funding. An attack on this guidance will have an enormous effect on students and survivors at Northeastern. And across the country, the power of campus organizers speaking out for their rights, safety, and autonomy is growing despite significant challenges and institutional barriers such as the active silencing of dissent, legislation that attacks survivor safety, and others. Students are rising up against Trump and DeVos and the threats they pose to Title IX.[10][11] The Sexual Assault Response Coalition (SARC) at Northeastern was formed in 2014 as a campaign to support survivors at a university that seeks to silence them. The first campaign centered on a proposal to establish a gender resource center on campus – a space to connect students to resources, hold meetings and events, and provide confidential support to survivors of sexual violence. SARC drafted a referendum, collected signatures, presented the proposal to the Student Government Association, and the student body voted. The referendum passed with 89% support in the Spring of 2015.

Spring 2017

”

The coalition then entered a year of frustrating and drawn out negotiations with the administration in which student organizers who pushed to be included in the process of forming, planning, and establishing the proposed gender resource center were repeatedly dismissed. Emails requesting meetings were ignored or delayed, and when they did happen, student organizers were silenced and disrespected. Finally, in the Spring of 2016, the university announced the opening of the ViSION Resource Center to house Northeastern’s Violence Support, Intervention, and Outreach Network (ViSION). Despite aforementioned efforts, SARC was not consulted or respected in the process of developing the center. SARC leaders were not even informed of the Center’s opening until the day of. Actively excluding student voices in the planning means that the center does not address student concerns. These include the need for confidential resources, staff for the center that are not responsible employees/mandated reporters, or a peer-to-peer help hotline for student survivors. SARC is continuing its demand for a space that respects and responds to voiced needs of survivors and allies. The formation of the ViSION Resource Center embodies and exemplifies Northeastern’s paternalistic attitude toward addressing students’ needs. As a coalition of student survivors and allies, SARC understands the needs of the survivors in its community through consciousness-raising and story-sharing. Many students who report assaults at Northeastern are re-victimized by the reporting process, re-marginalized through being denied autonomy over decision-making, and re-traumatized by a non-student-centric justice system. However, Northeastern chose to ignore survivors’ advocacy and center the administration’s priorities of marketing student resources and having a positively-perceived façade. It is the university’s image and reputation that are served by the ViSION Resource

Center, not student survivors. This center fits into patterns of Northeastern co-opting student advocacy, branding it with an NU flair, and reproducing it in a way that reflects the university’s agenda. Current campaigns of the SARC coalition include advocating for an increase in confidential resources for students on campus, promoting visibility around mandated reporting, fairly analyzing and publicizing the results of campus climate surveys, and working with the Student Government Association to reform the Student Conduct Board so students are not deciding the legitimacy of sexual assault cases and determining punishment for perpetrators at Northeastern. The coalition is also working to advocate for the specific needs of survivors who are also people of color, queer folk, international students, immigrants, differently-abled, and neurodivergent, whose rights are specifically targeted and denied at Northeastern. This is an especially poignant time for this work due both to the context of aforementioned political threats and the current Title IX lawsuit filed by fourth-year Morgan Helfman for the mishandling of her 2013 sexual assault case.[12] Northeastern, as well as five individual administrators, is being sued for counts of negligence, breach of contract, violation of Title IX, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of the state equal rights act, and misrepresentation of crime statistics by the school. This is not the first time allegations of this nature have been incurred against Northeastern. Katherine Rizzo filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in 2011 for the inappropriate and unethical way that her sexual assault case was handled by Northeastern.[13] University administrators first actively discouraged Rizzo from reporting or seeking action. University Health and Counseling Services (UHCS) refused to help. After the assailant was nupoliticalreview.com

Campus

found guilty, he successfully appealed to the university that the “level of consent” the committee used to accuse him was “too high.”[14] He transferred to another school without penalty or follow-through. Students were in solidarity with Rizzo during her proceedings and are in solidarity with Helfman today, demonstrating their support for the past several months. When Helfman first filed suit, SARC engaged in supportive dialogue with the community to build consciousness around the nature and character of sexual assault at Northeastern. The coalition hosted a community gathering in which students aired grievances and experiences. SARC also participated in a direct action to drop a banner on campus reading “Students Stand With Survivors,” and another banner was later dropped reading “Nor the as tern P r o t e c t s Rapists.” The administration quickly removed both banners and threatened the students with vague disciplinary action. “It’s disappointing that the university wouldn’t allow us our right to free speech,” said SARC President Roxanne Anderson, a senior human services major. “Northeastern’s rules on free speech are limiting and arbitrary, evident of a kind of maniacal control over students.”[15] Later, Northeastern cited a rule that states no banners may be hung on campus without permission, despite the fact that this rule has never been enforced before to remove Patriots flags or

“

state or national flags. “Basically, I was intimidated to take it down,” said Mackenzie Coleman, the student who hung the second banner.[16] SARC published a list of demands in November detailing what students expect from the university, including an expansion of confidential counseling and mental health services for students, a change in the ViSION Resource Center to be a confidential space, and a release of the raw data from the campus climate survey, rather than the misleading positive interpretations that have been released by the Office for Student Affairs. The administration has been silent both on SARC’s demands and on Helfman’s case, refusing to address these considerations and neglecting to make a statement on these issues. SARC’s visibility and power is growing. This semester student engagement, participation, and interest in the campaign are at an all time high. Students are resisting the policies and procedures of the university, coming together in resilience and courage, with the knowledge that unity is even more important given the current regime. All around the country, students are in action; conversations driven by the women’s marches in cities across the U.S. and the world are bringing women’s issues to the table. Whether women are marching or growing local campaigns, this movement is being led by intersectional, millennial feminists who

Power is building among students, not just on Northeastern’s campus, but on campuses across the country.

”

understand that the conversation around sexual assault is incomplete without talking about how it affects black, brown, queer, non-binary, trans, and immigrant lives. The conversation is incomplete without discussion of male survivors of sexual assault and how to break down toxic masculinity in the fight to end gendered violence. This work is valuable through coalition-building and a willingness to work across difference. This is a terrifying time, both on college campuses and around the country, to be a survivor of sexual assault under the current administration. But there is hope. Power is building among students, not just on Northeastern’s campus, but on campuses across the country. Organizers are advocating for the rights to safety, health, and autonomy, resisting the tides that seek to normalize sexual assault and devalue survivor experiences. Together, with the power of community and resistance, millennials are building a grassroots movement. And if Betsy DeVos revokes Title IX funding, students will stand up and fight back. •

Martha Durkee-Neuman is the Outreach Coordinator for the Sexual Assault Response Coalition.

[1] Fahrenthold, David A. “Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005.” The Washington Post. October 8, 2016. [2] Kurtzleben, Danielle. “1 More Woman Accuses Trump Of Inappropriate Sexual Conduct. Here's The Full List” NPR. October 20, 2016. [3] Wermund, Benjamin. “DeVos' donations spark questions about her stance on campus sexual assault.”Politico. January 9, 2017. [4] “Dear Colleague Letter.” US Department of Education. April 4, 2011. [5] Anderson, Nick. “Under DeVos, Education Department likely to make significant shift on sexual assault” The Washington Post. January 18, 2017. [6] “Dear Colleague Letter.” US Department of Education. April 4, 2011. [7] Cauterucci, Christina. “What Will Happen to Title IX Under Trump?” Slate. February 2, 2017. [8] Kingkade, Tyler. “Law Professors Defend Use Of Preponderance Standard In Campus Rape Cases” The Huffington Post. August 7, 2017. [9] Walrath, Rowan and Morford, Rachel. “Student files lawsuit against Northeastern University.” The Huntington News. November 1st, 2016. [10] Kane, Laura. “University of Victoria silencing sexual assault victims, students say.” The Globe and Mail. March 15, 2016. [11] Cook, Rhonda. “Opposed by sex assault victims, campus rape bill clears Ga. House panel.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution. February 1, 2017. [12] Krantz, Laura. “Northeastern student sues over 2013 sexual assault.” The Boston Globe. November 3rd, 2016. [13] Baker, Katie JM. “Alleged Rapist At Northeastern University Transfers Without Penalties.” Buzzfeed. May 7th, 2014. [14] Ibid. [15] Meyer, Logan. “SARC banner in solidarity with survivors taken down.” The Huntington News. November 10, 2016. [16] Grewal, Ryan. “Student removes banner criticizing NU’s handling of sexual assaults.” The Huntington News. November 10, 2016.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

Featured

Why I Joined The

Alyssa Rubin / International Affairs 2017

“

When Jewish institutions prevent young Jews from engaging in critical and complex conversations about Israel, the Jewish community becomes complicit through silence on the 50-year occupation of Palestine.

Spring 2017

”

n March, I joined over one thousand young Jews in Washington, D.C. to protest the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) at their Annual Policy Conference. We marched, chanted, and sang outside of the conference – and some of us even risked arrest – to demonstrate that AIPAC does not speak for all American Jews, as it claims to. AIPAC, as the largest pro-Israel lobby in the United States, has done more almost any other Jewish organization to continue Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. I protested AIPAC’s support for the occupation not in spite of my Judaism, but because of it. As a young Jew who cares deeply about social justice issues both in the United States and across the world, I know that my commitment to social justice is tied to my Jewish identity. Jewish tradition and teachings are rooted in the history of resistance, resilience, and justice. Jewish history is littered with revolutionary figures who fought both anti-Jewish oppression and stood in solidarity with other oppressed groups – from Doña Gracia Nasi, who illegally harbored Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500s, to Joe Slovo, who worked to bring down South African Apartheid in the 20th century.[1] But in many Jewish communities, pursuing social justice stops at a hard line: Israel. The Jewish establishment expects students to unquestioningly support Israeli policy. On campus, AIPAC supports efforts through Hillel and other organizations to obfuscate the painful realities of the occupation. AIPAC trains Jewish students to be uncritical advocates for Israel and to

silence critics by conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.[2] It is the political influence of major Jewish institutions like AIPAC that enable Hillel international to adopt “Standards of Partnerships” on Israelrelated programming, which prohibit local Hillel chapters from partnering with any speakers or organizations – including Jews – who support boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.[3] In this way, Jewish institutions stifle students who criticize Israel, isolating and ostracizing those of us who stray from the rigid party line. Like many progressive Jewish students, I have felt cast out from the Jewish community because of my views on Israeli policies. While on a Birthright trip to Israel through Northeastern’s Hillel, I attempted to start a conversation about the ongoing IsraelPalestine conflict. I was told by our trip leader that we would not be discussing the occupation (my words, not hers) or any other aspect of the conflict because, “This isn’t a trip about the conflict. This is a trip about Israel.” (Her words, not mine.) When Jewish institutions prevent young Jews from engaging in critical and complex conversations about Israel, the Jewish community becomes complicit through silence on the 50-year occupation of Palestine. The consequences of decades of silence and complicity are severe. AIPAC’s support for the endless occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem has made life for Palestinians a daily nightmare and continues to undermine Israel’s security. And when AIPAC applauded the confirmation of David Friedman, a far-right supporter of

nupoliticalreview.com

Featured

settlements and opponent of the two-state solution, as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, it showed that it does not represent the American Jewish community, 61% of whom support a two-state solution.[4] While claiming to be bipartisan, AIPAC has cozied up to the Trump administration and its officials because of their supposed pro-Israel policies. However, AIPAC’s silence on both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dismissal of the rising tide of anti-Semitic hate crimes following the election was a clear indication that AIPAC will go to any lengths to ensure pro-Israel policies – including ignoring mounting anti-Semitism in the U.S. Furthermore, AIPAC and other mainstream Jewish institutions continue to deepen divides between the Jewish community and other oppressed groups in the name of Israel. Jewish institutions distanced themselves from the Movement for Black Lives after the architects of the platform advocated for a boycott of Israel. [5] Recently, Ohio State University’s Hillel expelled an LGBTQ Jewish student group after they co-sponsored an event for Syrian refugees with Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization that supports BDS.[6] Most glaringly, AIPAC funded and supported the Center for Security Policy, a think tank that has been described as an extremist anti-Muslim group and that was instrumental in crafting Trump’s Muslim ban.[7] Standing in solidarity with over a thousand young Jews outside of AIPAC, singing songs of resistance and hope in Hebrew and in English, I began to imagine what a

nupoliticalreview.com

liberated Jewish community could look like. One that roots itself in Jewish tradition, justice, and solidarity, rather than fear and isolation. A community that knows that our liberation is tied to the liberation of all people. The #JewishResistance stands against the occupation, against anti-Semitism, and for freedom and dignity for all. As the Israeli government and the United States government move to the right, the Jewish establishment has fallen in line behind them, alienating a growing number of young Jews who oppose both Israel’s occupation and the Trump administration’s hateful rhetoric and discriminatory policies. In its complicity and silence, AIPAC has failed to be the moral leadership the Jewish community needs in this moment. As a movement of young American Jews, the #JewishResistance is taking on this moral leadership, building a strong, diverse, and liberated Jewish community. Like the words we sing in Hebrew and in English, “Olam chesed yibaneh/we will build this world with love.” •

“

The #JewishResistance stands against the occupation, against anti-Semitism, and for freedom and dignity for all.

”

[1] Bodian, Miriam. “Doña Garcia Nasi.” Jewish Women’s Archive. March 2009.; “Remembering Joe Slovo, 20 years on.” Brand South Africa. January 7, 2015. [2] “College Training Opportunities.” AIPAC. [3] “Hillel Israel Guidelines.” Hillel International. [4] “A Portrait of Jewish Americans Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews.” Pew Research Center. October 10, 2013. [5] Ndugga-Kabuye, Ben, and Rachel Gilmer. “Invest-Divest.” Movement for Black Lives. 2016. [6] King, Danae. “Ohio State Hillel Drops Jewish LGBT Student Group.” The Columbus Dispatch. March 21, 2017. [7] ”AIPAC paid $60,000 to group that peddles anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency. March 15, 2017.; “Center for Security Policy.” Southern Poverty Law Center.

Spring 2017

Featured

Roxbury: A Neighborhood on the Brink Alex Frandsen / Journalism 2019 Illustration by Katie Metz

arshall Cooper waited all night to speak. He waited in his flimsy plastic chair as the presentation room in the Central Boston Elder Services building slowly filled with Roxbury residents. He waited as the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) representative introduced the meeting, one that would go over a proposed development in his neighborhood. He waited as the developers presented the packed room with their plan for Parcel P-3, an empty lot in Roxbury that they hoped to turn into a retail and housing complex. He waited as his fellow community members, who know him as Mr. Marshall, asked question after question to the developers and the BPDA representative, each more piercing than the next. “You consider that affordable housing?” “This is the best y’all could come up with?” “Where are all the people who live in that area going to go?” Finally, the BPDA suit gestured to him. It was Mr. Marshall’s time to speak. He rose from his seat, cane trembling slightly, and adjusted a dark green beanie over his gray hair. He introduced himself. Then, he let loose.

Spring 2017

“Y’all are just running the low-income people out so we can’t come back no more! You’re running us out of where we’ve been our whole lives!” he said. The developer looked down. The BPDA rep squirmed, tugging at his purple tie. Cooper pointed at them. “You should be ashamed of yourselves.” The meeting was originally supposed to be a chance for Roxbury residents to weigh in on the proposal, one that would involve more than a million square feet of apartments, shops and museums. Instead, it turned into an airing of grievances, a release of frustration for a neighborhood that is feeling the slow pressure of gentrification and outside development. Roxbury has long been considered the center of African-American culture in Boston. Thousands of black southerners relocated to the neighborhood during the Great Migration, and for years, a black middle class thrived. When Martin Luther King, Jr. came to Boston in 1965, he started his march in Roxbury, leading protesters down Columbus Avenue. But now, it is at risk of losing its identity. Boston’s population has grown 14.2% since 1990 and the cost of living is nearly 40%

higher than the rest of the U.S., according to census data.[1] This combination has driven a storm of development to the neighborhood, with institutions and companies lusting after the cheaper real estate prices and relatively bountiful available lands. Northeastern University, perched right on the border of the neighborhood, has been one of the most aggressive intruders. That pressure is rapidly raising property values to untenable levels. “We’re really at a tipping point, where if the market continues to heat up, a lot of people aren’t going to be able to live in Boston anymore,” said Helen Matthews, the communications manager for City Life / Vida Urbana, a local nonprofit that seeks to empower communities facing displacement. Traditionally, Roxbury has been one of the poorest parts of Boston. The neighborhood has a median income that is roughly $20,000 less than the rest of the city, according to real estate tracker website Area Vibes. [2] Combine that with the glut of developers eager to sink their teeth into the area, and you get a lot of residents who can no longer stay in their longtime homes. “A lot of the properties that have been bought, they’ve nupoliticalreview.com

Featured

“ been displacing a lot of people,” said Steven Posey, a Roxbury resident. “We can’t afford to live here anymore.” The neighborhood is fighting back, though. A community group called Reclaim Roxbury has been working to combat gentrification in the area, and in fact was at least partly responsible for the large turnout at the BPDA meeting. They sent out dozens of flyers, pleading for community residents to raise their objections. Along the bottom of the sheet, in all bold, it was written, “Come Out And Say That Roxbury Residents Want Development Without Displacement!” And come out they did. After Cooper spoke, scores of residents gave their two cents. Whether spoken in a soft pleading voice or a booming yell, the message was the same: We’re tired of displacement, and we’re tired of losing our neighborhood. The BPDA representative tried to calm the crowd down and assure them that there was nothing nefarious about what the developers were doing. Besides, he said, “This is just a proposal – we want to get your input on the matter, that’s what this is all about.” A voice countered from the crowd: “You’re talking about changing our culture!” Without hesitation, Cooper piped up with his addition. “They did it with the South End, too. And now they’re trying to do it here.” Roxbury’s official history starts in 1630. That was the year the Massachusetts Bay colony made landfall on the East Coast, quickly making themselves comfortable by settling six towns. Roxbury was one of them. The Roxbury of today, though? That history starts in the mid-20th century. Mostly due to the enormous influx of migrants from the South during that time, Roxbury’s demographics did a complete 180 during this time nupoliticalreview.com

Between 2010 and 2015, Roxbury’s median housing costs saw the biggest jump of any neighborhood in the city, rising by nearly 70%.

period, according to the Roxbury Historical Society. What was once a mostly white neighborhood turned into a mostly black one, as white residents fled for the suburbs. With that population change came a culture change, as well. Roxbury become a hub for civil rights activism, with Malcolm X living in the neighborhood for nearly a decade and Martin Luther King preaching at the Twelfth Baptist Church. Certainly, the neighborhood has dealt with its fair share of threats, perhaps the direst being the city’s plan to build an expressway that would cut right through the heart of Roxbury. If carried out, it would have irreparably torn the neighborhood in half. But Roxbury residents would have none it, and protested throughout the 1960s to halt the plans. Their V-day came in 1972, when the city formally canceled construction. But the community’s victory was not complete. The proposed highway was just one part of a broader urban renewal program, one that put aesthetic desires over the needs of the community. “They just came in and razed businesses,” said Bruce Bickerstaff, a Roxbury resident since the 1970s and the former chair of the Roxbury Neighborhood Council. “Coming here, you had the dregs of not only a depressed economy but the dregs of urban renewal.” The fallout from this period brought heightened crime rates and poverty, two factors that burnished Roxbury a new reputation. It became one of those parts of town that you simply don’t go to. In the words of Charles Fountain, a longtime journalism professor at Northeastern University: “Around Columbus Avenue [in Roxbury], that used to be considered a combat zone.”

”

But Boston kept growing around Roxbury, both economically and in population. Before long, outside developers and institutions began encroaching into the area, eager to take advantage of the cheap property values and choice location. By the turn of the century, Roxbury was once again under threat. “When we first get a sense of outside interests, it was probably around 2000. That was when you really got a sense that a change was occurring, and the sense of gentrification has just gotten more intense every year [since then],” said Bickerstaff. According to Japonica Brown-Saracino, a sociology professor at Boston University and the author of a book analyzing urban change in the city, there are early indicators of gentrification that can be easy to spot. “There are many signals, but one of the most immediate is that the racial and ethnic characteristics may change,” she said. Sure enough, between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, 1,180 white people moved into the neighborhood.[3] Another statistic is even more revealing: Between 2010 and 2015, Roxbury’s median housing costs saw the biggest jump of any neighborhood in the city, rising by nearly 70%, according to an Imagine Boston 2030 draft report. For comparison’s sake, the median housing cost in Boston as a whole increased by 36%. The rents in Roxbury are literally rising twice as quickly as everywhere else.[4] The question is no longer, “Is gentrification happening in Roxbury?” Instead, it’s, “Who is causing the gentrification and what can we do to slow them?” The answer to the first part of that question is wide-ranging. In the BPDA meeting held at the Central Boston Elder Services building, the culprit was Feldco Development, a real estate development company with projects Spring 2017

Featured

in New York and throughout New England. The Bolling Building, a shiny new structure in Dudley Square that houses several trendy cafes and businesses, was spearheaded by Mecanoo, a global development firm. One institution, though, has been a particularly present force in Roxbury and serves as a microcosm of the gentrification threat: Northeastern University. The college has built a multitude of facilities in Roxbury in the past 20 years, slowly creeping into a community that is starting to resent it. The group Reclaim Roxbury made combating Northeastern one of their main action points, and Tito Jackson, the city councilor for the district and a mayoral candidate, has minced no words in describing the school. “They’re the absolute worst,” he said. To understand that tension, however, you must first understand the history of Northeastern. Starting with its inception in 1898, the school earned a reputation for providing education to the working class. Small in size and nondescript, it was primarily a commuter school that served the city of Boston and its surroundings. “This was the ‘give us your poor, your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ campus,” said Fountain. But then came the University of Massachusetts Boston. The newest addition to the state university system had a similar focus as Northeastern, in that it provided a shot at higher education for those who otherwise might not have gotten it. A noble pursuit, but one that cut directly into Northeastern’s corner of the market. “Once UMass Boston was built, we started losing students rapidly,” said Barry Bluestone, founding director of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern. Fewer students meant less tuition money, a formula that spelled trouble. On the verge of bankruptcy in the early 1980s, the school had a harsh reality to face: adapt or die. Administration chose to adapt by going bigger. “What was decided was to become a national university,” said Bluestone. That moment marked the launch of a concerted effort to rise in the rankings and gain prestige. The vision of being a school for the people of Boston shifted to becoming a school for the intellectually elite. Forget UMass Boston. Northeastern wanted its company to be Boston University, Boston College, and Tufts. By all measures, they were successful. Northeastern is currently tied with Boston University in the U.S. News and World Report rankings at 39, and roughly 70% of its student body now hails from outside of Massachusetts.[5] But that growth didn’t come without costs. All of the out-of-state and international students meant that facilities had to be constructed at a rapid pace. Just

“

Spring 2017

since 1999, 14 new residence halls have been built. Some of the largest of those were built in Roxbury, including International Village. At 22 stories, it is the tallest structure in the neighborhood.[6] Quite literally, Northeastern looms over Roxbury. All that development has dramatically increased rents in the parts of Roxbury adjacent to campus. “If there’s an institutional involvement, rents will go up quickly. [Realtors will] use new developments as a sign to raise rent prices,” said Brown-Saracino. That impact has been undeniably felt in the neighborhood. “It puts some fear in my heart,” said Posey. A graduate of a now-defunct youth program hosted by Northeastern called GearUp, Posey has long been a supporter of the school. But as the development has continued, he has seen more and more of his neighbors become disillusioned with the institution. “When you mention Northeastern, [Roxbury residents] have such a disdain in their mouth,” he said. “It’s disheartening, because I love

The market has made clear what it wants to do. Build and profit. Rinse and repeat. If some residents are forced out, so be it.

”

the university. I just feel like sometimes they’re just not thinking. They’re just thinking about their bottom line and what’s going to be cost effective.” Bickerstaff similarly believes that Northeastern has lost its connection with the community. “I think that the institution across the board thinks, ‘Oh, we’re doing them a favor for the neighborhood [by developing].’ Well, if you’re walling off the rest of the community, then you’re not doing a favor. You have to give us a larger access, more opportunities,” he said. “Not to say that Northeastern is an ogre, but if you look at their expansion over the last decade, there absolutely needs to be a balance.” Roxbury has found an ally within the school in the pursuit of that balance. Not from anywhere within administration, however. The support has come from a student group. The campus coalition Students Against Institutional Discrimination (SAID) has made combating gentrification in Roxbury one of its top priorities, setting up a task force specifically designed to help address the issue. Their most recent priority was adding a referendum to the ballot in the Student Government Association elections that would give final decision-making power

regarding campus expansion to affected community residents. Joe Taché, a fourth-year entrepreneurship major and head of the task force, is disheartened by what he perceives to be a misalignment of priorities. “I get the impression that to Northeastern, the priority is becoming this global university and having the most prestige. Whatever has to be given up in that process is fair game,” he said. “I can respect the growth, but that doesn’t mean you have to give up the identity of being in this community and having commitments to the community.” Bluestone has noticed the same problem. From his perspective, the school has become fixated outwards. “It’s not paying as much attention to the community that it’s part of,” he said. “My greatest fear is that the current administration at Northeastern is so focused on globalism, on building, that we sometimes forget that we live right here.” For its part, Northeastern administration does not seem to believe that a problem exists. University spokesperson Matt McDonald neglected to acknowledge the outward growth of the school. “The university is not expanding, but rather, is building on land that it has owned for decades, with the Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering Complex and the Burke Street residence hall being examples,” he said. The technical details of who owns what land is secondary, however, for many residents. It is the effects that development has had on Roxbury in terms of rising rent prices that are the most impactful. For many, Northeastern has failed to sufficiently address that concern. “You have to hold yourself on account to the community and mitigate costs. Some people might like the rise of property value, but there are a lot of people where that rise just makes their rent higher,” said Taché. “We’re benefiting off of other people’s sacrifices. People had to give up their homes. To not care about that? It just doesn’t sit right with me.” Going forward, an unavoidable dilemma is looming in the relationship between Northeastern and Roxbury. One of the largest fuel sources for gentrification in the neighborhood has been the increasing number of students moving off campus. Often from more affluent backgrounds than Roxbury residents, Northeastern students (or their parents) are generally able and willing to pay more for somewhere to live. “The single biggest issue has been student housing,” said Gerald Autler, a senior project manager at the BPDA. “As Northeastern has undergone a transformation from a regional commuter school to a residential campus with an international profile, that’s meant that the number of nupoliticalreview.com

For Posey, that means getting involved in the neighborhood and giving what you can. “The students need to volunteer in the community,” he said. “If they made that a graduation requirement, [Northeastern] would get so much love from the community. It opens the [students’] minds to a whole new different world.” Autler proposes investing educationally in Roxbury. “You need to increase educational opportunities for people in those neighborhoods. Northeastern should do everything they can to help you achieve a college education,” he said. For Bickerstaff, who also serves on a Northeastern-created task force that aims to gain community input on institutional development, making the relationship more cooperative than imperial is critical. “I would like to see them become a partner in development. I think Northeastern could be a staunch ally of developing along Columbus,” he said. “We have models, it’s not like we’re inventing the turducken, you know?” Bickerstaff hasn’t yet seen that, however, leaving him pessimistic about the years to come: “[Based on their] previous interactions with the community, [I don’t] feel warm and fuzzy about future negotiations.” He is not the only one skeptical that Roxbury will be better off soon. Taché looks back on history and doesn’t see a precedent for development actually improving the neighborhood. “Maybe it’s hypothetical that gentrification can make a neighborhood safer and help businesses. But I’ve yet to see to an example of institutions expanding into communities of people of color without displacement and further marginalization,” he said.

Brown-Saracino is similarly conditioned to believe that Roxbury will have a difficult time warding off the clutches of outside development. “On the whole, most neighborhoods and most areas have been quite unsuccessful [in combating gentrification.] We let the market do what the market wants to do,” she said. The market has made clear what it wants to do. Build and profit. Rinse and repeat. If some residents are forced out, so be it. Northeastern is just one developer. The wave of gentrification is sure to continue as long as the city keeps booming and Roxbury stays cheap. And right now, it might even seem like a boon for Boston. Every city wants to flourish economically, to have every neighborhood be a Beacon Hill or Back Bay. It’s a nice principle, but an ill-fated one. “In the long term, this is something the city will have to grapple with and confront,” said Brown-Saracino. “What happens when you don’t have an economically heterogeneous population? There are real consequences for the place and culture and character of the city.” Part of the development plan proposed for Parcel P-3 is a museum. Massive and modern, it would be a center for African-American arts and culture. In an area with as rich a history as Roxbury, it would seem fitting. But at the raucous BPDA meeting, a woman named Stacy, adorned in pink and white glasses put it this way: “How about instead of having an African-American museum there, we build housing units instead so people can look at AfricanAmericans who are still alive?” •

Featured

students who are living at home has shrunk. That’s created an impact on the local housing market, especially in Roxbury.” According to Bluestone, the college has “done a decent job in housing our undergraduates.” But many, especially in the higher grade levels, still opt to live outside campus borders. Bluestone estimates that about 40 to 50% of Northeastern students still live off campus. The solution to keeping kids on campus, then, is to build more dorms to accommodate more students. But without much acreage to work with, one of the only options for administration is to build on land outside of campus. Meaning, build in Roxbury. “What that means is that even when they’re trying to house their students, they’re still going to be putting a lot of people in the surrounding communities,” said Steve Meacham, the organizing coordinator at City Life / Vida Urbana. “It will transform Dudley from being the heart of a black community to a whiter, wealthy enclave.” It’s a catch-22 for Roxbury. Either they pressure Northeastern to stop building in their community, and thus risk students taking over crucial housing, or they allow Northeastern to build more housing to hold those students, which could very well end up aiding gentrification anyway. There are other avenues through which Northeastern can help ease the injury being done to Roxbury, however. The first is simple – just be better neighbors. “It’s not like UMass Amherst,” said Posey. “You’re actually stepping into a community. You join my community when you join the school. You treat it at as your home, because really, it is your home away from home.”

[1] “Boston city, Massachusetts,” United States Census Bureau, December 9, 2016. [2] “Roxbury, Boston, MA Employment,” Area Vibes, December 9, 2016. [3] “Boston city, Massachusetts,” United States Census Bureau, December 9, 2016. [4] “Imagine Boston 2030,” City of Boston, November 2016. [5] “Northeastern University,” College Board, 2016. [6] “Northeastern Institutional Master Plan,” Boston Planning and Development Agency, November 20, 2013.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

Featured

Neiha Lasharie / Political Science and International Affairs 2018

don't remember when I became aware of the reality of the Holocaust. At some point, between heavily censored history books with veiled allusions to the fact, an unprecedented access to the Internet, and Zlata’s Diary, my presumably too-young mind was forced to grapple with the systematic murder of millions of people. Millions. Numbers are strange for children. Being able to count to one hundred is a matter of pride, and the more zeroes you get to tack onto a figure, the more grown-up you feel. To that point, my brother and I had a game we used to play with my grandmother every summer that we spent in Karachi. It was silly and sweet in the usual way of children: “I love you.” “I love you more!” “I love you to a hundred!” “I love you to a thousand!” “I love you to INFINITY!” “I love you to infinity to the POWER of infinity!” And the game would end with that. If infinity was the largest number conceivable to a six-year-old, then a million or two isn't just a large sum, it's a dangerously realistic number. Up to six million?[1] That is harrowing, unconscionable in the deepest sense of the word. So you learn very quickly that being a Nazi, a fascist, a supremacist, a terrorist of any kind is the worst type of human you could ever be. This was illustrated to me throughout my childhood by living in a country that saw terrorist attacks, assassinations, violence, and kidnappings fairly often. Rising death tolls,

graphic images on the TV, the sound of sirens blaring past my school in Pakistan, standoffs between armed forces and insurgents, coldblooded murders of public officials – existing became a traumatic experience in itself. When the numbers became too overwhelming to conceive, when murder took children as trophies, then as a country we would whisper to one another, “That is enough.” While we in the East struggled with our daily fire-with-fire fights, the West had a mantra of its own billowing over the ashes of World War II into this 21st Century: “Never again.” Never again would an entire generation brush off the discomfort of prejudice. Never again would politics become a game of

“

Spring 2017

While we in the East struggled with our daily fire-with-fire fights, the West had a mantra of its own billowing over the ashes of World War II into this 21st Century: 'Never again.'

”

appeasement. Never again would cities of love, lights, and finance be reduced to rubble in a war of ideology left to stew. Never again would identities be reduced to numbers. Never again would politeness be more important than destroying fascism. And never again would we bear the shame of denying victims of violence

or seekers of opportunities refuge the way that entire countries – including the U.S. – denied Jews who sought asylum: including another fervent diarist, Anne Frank and her family.[2] But the United States has had a history of picking and choosing what is American and what gets through its borders. After World War II ended, an entire era followed with Nazis as the baddest of the bad, the Boss Fight in innumerable instances of media. Indiana Jones punching out Nazis, Call of Duty: Black Ops with its famed – and stressful – game mode in which you take on hordes of Nazi Zombies, Brad Pitt in his iconic Tarantino scene calling for “one hundred Nazi scalps” – all became important elements of modernity itself. At the same time, an ideological scare of epic proportions began. McCarthyism turned into a domestic policy spurred by the Cold War; socialism – for better or for worse – became conflated with fascism on the basis of being un-American. This became a further basis of discrimination against individuals in the United States, with people deported, arrested, or otherwise investigated based on any un-American ties they may have had. And make no mistake, the term un-American and similar descriptions are not exaggerations.[3] Then the tragedy of 9/11 took place. American lives were taken by terrorists, an attack on U.S. soil against U.S. actions abroad; an attack against the coexistence crafted between people of different religions, races, and ethnicities. Sometimes a tenuous coexistence, but a coexistence nonetheless. The terrorists, naturally, identified themselves as Muslims. Real Muslims blanched, and soon anyone who looked Muslim learned to blanch nupoliticalreview.com

“

reprimanded by the government (which, constitutionally, is all that freedom of speech really encompasses). The issue is, apparently, that an individual chose to react to an incitement of violence with righteous, non-lethal, not even bloodletting violence – and that is where the outrage lies. Let me be clear. Richard Spencer is a man who has led “Heil Hitler” chants and is banned from 27 European countries for his white nationalist beliefs.[11][12][13][14] But it is more important that his opinions be heard than it is to curb the trauma of peoples who have survived sustained, systematic attempts to cull or control them. Never again. Richard Spencer has the freedom to speak his mind. But if other Americans react with some degree of violence to inflammatory speech, it is their prerogative to do so. It may not be a legally protected right the way freedom of speech is, but it is the onus of the provocateur to understand the implications of their speech. And if a well-placed punch is a way to process trauma, perhaps “peaceful ethnic cleansing” wasn’t such a good idea to begin with. Alas, people like Richard Spencer are becoming notable political figures. Most notable, of course, is Stephen Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and now an insider on the National Security Council in lieu of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. The Trump administration has held to campaign promises, as proven by the executive orders confirming construction of the now-infamous wall and pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and by the executive order closest to my heart – the banning of immigrants, legal residents and otherwise, from seven (Muslim-majority) countries including Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and Somalia. More recently in March, Trump tried again (with some more changes, such as the exclusion of Iraq), no more palatable morally than the first attempt. Both attempts have been, of course, purportedly in an attempt to reduce terrorism from the aforementioned countries and curb the threat of extremism in the United States. I grew up in Pakistan, a country confronted by extremism and radicalization, from a combination of domestic ethnic cleavages and foreign intervention, which has radicalized

Featured

as well, as hate crimes suddenly spiked to the tune of 481 reported incidents in 2001 alone. [4] Even the broadly controversial George W. Bush called for unity in this time, attempting to provide a voice of reason and peace – a gesture that did not go unappreciated – saying “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true…face of Islam.”[5] The hate crimes continued. They hovered around 100 a year, but they continued. Until 2015, when Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States and began his campaign of exploiting fear. We laughed it off around the world, but after 2015 became the first year that hate crimes against Muslims spiked since 2001, we began to blanch once more.[6] These crimes were almost definitely linked with the rise of Trump and associated rhetoric–but unlike George W. Bush’s graceful statement, Trump never took on the responsibility of denouncing those who would commit crimes in his name. All the while, violence around the world, producing largely Muslim victims, grew and grew. According to the Global Peace Index, the 21st Century, for all its advances, has seen a breakdown in the general peacefulness of the world.[7] The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, home to some of the oldest civilizations known to us and the cradle of three major world religions, is the least peaceful region on earth, thanks in no small part to the archaic and, frankly, evil entity that calls itself the Islamic State. The refugee crisis that has emerged from this is the moral question of our generation. According to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, the total number of refugees worldwide is 21.3 million, to say nothing of internally displaced peoples.[8] But this article isn’t about the refugee crisis; it is about the reaction thereto, and the legitimization of exclusionary and extremist politics. The emergence of Donald Trump as the champion of the self-proclaimed victims of political correctness, and his subsequent victory and positioning as the Leader of the Free World, has forced a rebalancing of political opinions. This by itself is not terrible. Free speech is part and parcel of the United States – but the rise of the so-called alt-right and its politics of hate have bastardized what is best about the freedom of speech. Richard Spencer, of being decked in the face fame, has become the poster child of this.[9] Rather than condemning Spencer unequivocally for opinions including the formation of a “white ethnostate,” social media has seen a discussion on whether or not violence against fascists is in line with liberal values.[10] The issue is not that he is able to espouse genocide without being

Free speech is part and parcel of the United States – but the rise of the so-called alt-right and its politics of hate have bastardized what is best about the freedom of speech.

”

already economically and socially disenfranchised people. This isn’t different from the way many American “homegrown” terrorists have been radicalized. The point is not to sympathize with terrorism. I have about as much patience for terrorist sympathizers as I do for Richard Spencer (and if I made my point clearly enough, it should be obvious that I have negative patience to those ends). But it is an indisputable fact that most radicalized Muslims in the United States have either found themselves tugged apart by competing identities instrumentalized by law enforcement or callous peers, or they have been victims of entrapment.[15] Instead of reducing terrorism, this discriminatory, exclusionary policy will likely stoke the embers of desperation that burst into wrath given the right kind of fanning. But here’s my argument against Trump’s discriminatory executive orders: never again. The images that have been coming out of airports around the United States since January have been harrowing. Young children separated from their mothers, detained simply for being of one of those six or seven nationalities; Muslims of all stripes reported that they found it significantly harder to enter the country regardless of citizenship; and the refugees, twice, thrice displaced, arriving in the United States with the light of Lady Liberty’s torch in their eyes, were told that they would be forced to go back – where? Never again. I hold my green, Pakistani passport with a mixture of pride and trepidation. I carry my two American visas knowing that they are a privilege, not a right. I live my days in camaraderie, and my nights in fear. What if Pakistan is placed on the list? I’m leaving for co-op in the Netherlands in July, but will I be able to come back to Boston – my home – for my final semester? Will I get to graduate from this university that my family has given, and given, and given to, for my continued attendance? Will I have to choose between my brother’s wedding and my diploma? I am not a refugee. There are people who will be hurt much worse than I ever will. But this is personal – an affront to every principle I was raised with, and an affront to many, many people I love, most of whom I do not and will never know. Never again. We either stick to that principle or we admit the lie. •

[1] "Documenting Numbers Of Victims Of The Holocaust And Nazi Persecution." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. [2] Izadi, Elahe. "Anne Frank And Her Family Were Also Denied Entry As Refugees To The U.S." Washington Post. November 24, 2015. [3] Storrs, Landon R. Y. "Mccarthyism And The Second Red Scare." Oxford Research Encyclopedias. 2015. [4] Ser, Kuang Keng Kuek. "Data: Hate Crimes Against Muslims Increased After 9/11." Public Radio International. September 12, 2016. [5] "The President's Quotes On Islam." The White House Archives - George W. Bush. [6] Lichtblau, Eric. "Hate Crimes Against American Muslims Most Since Post-9/11 Era." The New York Times. September 18, 2016. [7] "Global Peace Index." Institute For Economics & Peace. 2016. [8] "Figures At A Glance." United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees. 2016. [9] Murphy, Paul P. "White Nationalist Richard Spencer Punched During Interview". CNN. January 20, 2017. [10] Harkinson, Josh. "Meet The White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train To Lasting Power." Mother Jones. October 27, 2016. [11] Graham, Chris. "Nazi Salutes And White Supremacism: Who Is Richard Spencer, The 'Racist Academic' Behind The 'Alt Right' Movement." The Telegraph. November 22, 2016. [12] Cox, John Woodrow. "‘Let’s Party Like It’s 1933’: Inside The Alt-Right World Of Richard Spencer." Washington Post. November 22, 2016. [13] Appelbaum, Daniel. "'Hail Trump!': Video Of White Nationalists Cheering The President-Elect." The Atlantic. November 21, 2016. [14] Krupkin, Taly. "Alt-Right Leader Has No Regrets About 'Hail Trump,' But Tells Haaretz: Jews Have Nothing To Fear." Haaretz. December 3, 2016. [15] "Illusion Of Justice: Human Rights Abuses In US Terrorism Prosecutions." Human Rights Watch. 2014.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

Featured

Tyler Hall / Mechanical Engineering 2017 Alissa Zimmer / Environmental Studies and Political Science 2018 Illustration by Suma Hussien

Tyler Hall and Alissa Zimmer are members of DivestNU, a coalition of over 30 student groups committed to a university-wide campaign advocating that Northeastern divest its endowment from the fossil fuel industry.

xxonMobil is now the world’s most powerful diplomat. In many ways, the Senate’s confirmation of Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State is just an unmasking of a preexisting disposition. Otherwise respectable institutions are too willing to cede public trust to an army of fossil fuel executives and lobbyists hell-bent on wrecking the climate. Tillerson’s confirmation is the product of such concessions – so too are the multitude of board positions, educational programs, and research grants that fortify the front lines of the coal, oil, and gas industry’s PR campaign. Now, their formidable arsenal threatens to dismember the past decade of climate progress. Luckily, disarming their defenses takes only the courage and will to confront and cast aside ties to companies like Exxon – something Northeastern administrators have proven unwilling to do. On a brisk December evening back in 2015, fossil fuel divestment advocates with DivestNU crowded into Northeastern’s Visitor Center. The roughly 30 students were ready to confront former Exxon Senior VP and Vice Chair of Northeastern’s Board of Trustees, Ed Galante. Though barred from entering the event by the Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD) and senior administrators, the students still managed to get their message across. As the former Exxon executive entered the event, the gathered group called him out for “lying to the world about climate change.”[1] After graduating from Northeastern’s College of Engineering in 1973, Galante accepted a marketing job at Exxon, his former co-op employer.[2] His corporate climb began

Spring 2017

in 1988 when he took control of Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery, known within the company as “Exxon Academy.”[3] There, he oversaw an explosion that killed one worker, hospitalized two others, and damaged property in the surrounding community.[4] Handling the incident earned Galante a 1992 promotion to CEO and General Manager of Esso Caribbean and Central America, an Exxon affiliate.[5] Then-CEO Lee Raymond took notice, and in 1995 tapped Galante to serve as his executive assistant. For two years Galante was among Exxon’s top brass, manning the executive suite – or the “God pod” as it was known – when Raymond was away, making late-night phone calls to the boss, and advising the literally earth-shattering decisions of the behemoth petrol pseudo-state. Many of those decisions, particularly during Raymond’s tenure, were unsavory: saving face in the wake of the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill, defending anti-LGBT discrimination in the workplace, ignoring human rights abuses, and executing the mega-merger with Mobil.[6][7] None, however, top Exxon’s strident climate denial. Raymond’s approach to climate change was simple: demur and deny. “Scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate,” he said in a 1997 company publication.[8] He blasted scientists and activists for “trying to stir up unreasonable fears” and dismissed renewable energy as “a complete waste of money.”[9] [10] When it came to the Kyoto Protocol – the international community’s first major effort to curb carbon emissions – his rhetoric was especially scathing. Raymond criticized it as

a “surprise” agreement, warning of “ominous economic implications” and a conspiracy to “cut the use of fossil fuels, based on the unproven theory that they affect the earth's climate.”[11] Owing in part to heavy lobbying from companies like Exxon, the United States failed to ratify the agreement, effectively killing it and stalling climate action.[12] Ostensibly, Exxon’s behavior represents routine corporate interest: If science dictates leaving billions of dollars in assets underground, the science better be damn certain. Taking a closer look, however – as journalists with the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate News did in 2015 – something much less straightforward (and infinitely more sinister) seems to have been happening in the “God pod.”[13][14] According to company documents uncovered by those journalists, Exxon scientists knew about climate change as early as 1977.[15] Those scientists told management that “there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels” and that “man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”[16] Had the world acted then, we would now be miles ahead in the fight against climate change. Yet rather than listen to the warnings of its own scientists, Exxon embarked on a decades-long campaign of scientific misinformation and public deception. Beyond publicly expressing doubt, the company gave millions of dollars to dozens of front groups with the explicit goal of nupoliticalreview.com

“

VP of Exxon Chemical. By 2001, he’d risen to the level of Senior Vice President, overseeing all global downstream operations, 45 refineries, and hundreds of millions of research dollars. In addition, he was responsible for public affairs, and environmental, health, and safety operations.[21][22] As Galante racked up myriad titles and roles, another lifelong oilman – Texas native Rex Tillerson – was making equal gains. Raymond had handpicked the pair to coequal positions within Exxon’s management team. Tillerson, an upstream kingpin, and Galante, a downstream expert, were each being groomed to be the next Mr. Exxon after Raymond stepped down. They spoke at annual company meetings, gave presentations at conferences and board retreats, and engaged in oil-speak over dinners with directors and the CEO. In the end, Tillerson got the spot and Galante quietly retired.[23][24]

Featured

undermining science. Documents uncovered by the Union of Concerned Scientists show that the American Petroleum Institute (which represents Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and many other oil companies) hoped to declare “victory” when “average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.”[17] It wasn’t until 2008 that Exxon publicly pledged to “discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy….”[18] Unsurprisingly, that disconcertingly vague promise didn’t stop them from secretly funneling millions more to climate deniers.[19] It is important to note that this behavior was ongoing – at its peak even – while Edward Galante was the right-hand man to the CEO and a budding corporate prodigy. Given his proximity to the most controversial oilman since Rockefeller and immersion in a corporate culture of climate denial, it is remarkable that Galante avoided public scrutiny. In fact, it was Galante’s clear name and knack for smooth-talking that nearly made him Raymond’s successor.[20] After two years by Raymond’s side, Galante received a series of promotions: first to chairman and managing director of Exxon’s Esso Public Co. in Bangkok, and then to Executive

alante’s exit from ExxonMobil coincided with a different leadership shakeup: the hiring of Dr. Joseph Aoun as Northeastern's seventh president. Aoun succeeded Richard Freeland, who reconnected Galante with his alma mater in 2005 as a member of the Board of Overseers, and in 2006 as an Executivein-Residence at the College of Business.[25] Aoun, following Freeland’s lead of courting capital investment from high-profile donors, made a point of cultivating this relationship.

This is not your run-of-the-mill corporate misconduct; this is fraud on a global scale, and the consequences will likely be measured in lives lost and cities drowned.

”

Galante would later describe himself as having assisted Aoun as “an unpaid consultant,” helping to sort through issues during the administrative transition.[26] During this period, the two conceptualized the idea of a combined engineering-business program. Aoun pounced. The Galante Engineering Business Program was established in 2007 with a $5 million pledge, an early victory for the newly inaugurated President Aoun.[27] The College of Engineering speaks glowingly of the benefits afforded to the “Galante Fellows,” all owing to “Ed Galante’s generosity.”[28] In 2009, Galante was invited to become a member of the Board of Trustees, where he currently serves as one of three Vice Chairs. In Galante’s own words: “Now I’m knee-deep in it.”[29][30] nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

Featured

Ed Galante's path from Exxon to Northeastern University's Board of Trustees 1977

Exxon scientists warn senior management about impacts of carbon emissions and climate change.

1973

Ed Galante graduates from Northeastern’s College of Engineering and accepts a marketing job at Exxon, his former co-op employer.

1997

Exxon lobbies heavily to keep the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol. They succeed, stalling climate action.

1995

Exxon CEO Lee Raymond taps Galante to serve as his executive assistant.

2001

Galante promoted to Senior Vice President of Exxon Chemical.

2005 By bringing Galante into the fold in such a prominent way, Northeastern extols his career and business acumen. Yet this is a career spent conspiring with one of the corporate world’s most outspoken climate deniers. This business acumen, in all likelihood, rested on deliberate ignorance of science and a singular focus on expanding the bottom line, even if it meant the end of a livable climate. This is not your run-of-the-mill corporate misconduct; this is fraud on a global scale, and the consequences will likely be measured in lives lost and cities drowned. To this day, despite the ever-growing scientific alarm and the increasing competitiveness of renewable energy, companies like Exxon spend millions looking for more coal, oil, and gas.[31] By entertaining the disturbed notion that somehow Rex Tillerson is qualified to be Secretary of State, the Trump Administration is legitimizing the fossil fuel industry’s reckless behavior. By retaining Ed Galante on the Board of Trustees – in the face of the ExxonKnew scandal – Northeastern is further legitimizing this behavior. In a January 2016 address to the Student Government Association, President Aoun was asked if Galante’s history with Exxon deterred administrators from presenting fossil fuel divestment to the Board, and if having Galante as co-chair of the Board undermines the university’s efforts to combat climate change. With a glance out the window, Aoun responded, “I think he left Exxon over twelve years ago. So that’s a footnote.” After the address, Aoun was again confronted by students waiting outside of the SGA senate

Spring 2017

chambers. When asked for a comment on “Northeastern’s relationship to ExxonMobil,” he again demurred, claiming that “we have no relationship that I know of.” As our university president was whisked away, flanked by staff and police officers, the students persisted. When asked if he had spoken with Galante about the ExxonKnew scandal, Aoun again repeated, “[Galante] hasn’t been there in eleven years.”[32][33] To claim that Galante’s time away from Exxon absolves him of culpability belies the fact that the scandal concerns conduct that coincided with his tenure as an executive. Moreover, Galante maintains strong ties to the industry: He sits on the board of Tesoro, a petroleum refining company, and likely retains some of the half a million shares he was granted while at Exxon – today worth over $40 million.[34][35] It is just as preposterous as believing that Rex Tillerson’s $180 million retirement package will make his conflicts of interest magically disappear.[36] Perhaps, in this anecdote, President Aoun was simply unaware of the ExxonKnew scandal. Disconcertingly though, the administration has continued to employ this flawed reasoning to protect Mr. Galante from scrutiny. In another interaction, seen on DivestNU’s Facebook page, students approached Aoun outside Snell Library to ask about Galante. Again: “…so when somebody leaves and has been away for 10 years…”[37] During an October 2016 meeting with DivestNU representatives, Northeastern Senior VP for External Affairs Michael Armini acknowledged that he was “aware of the time frame,” referring to the

Richard Freeland, who preceded Dr. Joseph Aoun as President of Northeastern University, reconnects Galante with his alma mater as a member of the Board of Overseers.

overlap between Galante’s time with Exxon and the company’s misconduct, but called the focus on those ties “gratuitous.” Armini defaulted to the “he’s been gone for over a decade” refrain, and claimed that there’s no need to “keep whacking him all the time.”[38] Though the administration denied holding any briefing about ExxonKnew, it doesn’t take a sleuth to see the pattern here. Northeastern appears to be purposely deflecting inquiry into Ed Galante’s position and influence at the university. Administrators are watching their steps carefully to avoid making any move that could jeopardize their relationship with Galante, Exxon, or the fossil fuel industry as a whole for that matter. What exactly that relationship looks like is unknown. While Galante is a known mega-donor, the Board of Trustees is about as transparent as a Masonic ritual, and the box in the Northeastern archives pertaining to ExxonMobil is sealed for 25 years (the authors requested access from Robert Silk, the Associate Vice President for Corporate and Foundation Relations, but were rebuffed by Michael Armini).[39] Northeastern administrators, at the forefront of university commercialization and rankings-worship, shrink back from any perceived controversy. Perhaps that explains nupoliticalreview.com

Featured

“

Northeastern administrators, at the forefront of university commercialization and rankingsworship, shrink back from any perceived controversy.

”

2006

Rex Tillerson, Galante's competitor, becomes CEO of Exxon. Galante retires after 34 years with Exxon. Dr. Joseph Aoun becomes Northeastern's seventh president.

2008

Exxon publicly pledges to stop funding climate denial, secretly continues funneling money to denier groups.

2015

Reporters with the LA Times and InsideClimate News expose Exxon’s long history of climate misinformation.

2007

Galante and Aoun establish the Galante Engineering and MBA Program at Northeastern.

2009

Galante is invited to become a member of Northeastern's Board of Trustees, where he currently serves as one of three Vice Chairs. last summer’s rejection of fossil fuel divestment on the obscure grounds of “elevating the discourse,” as NU Senior VP Philomena Mantella said in a meeting with DivestNU. [40] Whatever administrators choose to call it, and whatever their reasons, they are propping up and defending a man with deep ties to a company with a well-documented history of climate denial. Administrators claim the university must be a “model for society” yet adopt firm, progressive stances on issues only after they’ve gained widespread, mainstream acceptance.[41] The fact that resisting climate denial is not yet considered “mainstream” enough is a reminder of the potency of the fossil fuel industry’s pernicious influence.

t is deeply troubling that though our institutions may accept the reality of climate change, they are unwilling to hold anyone accountable. Rather, they extol a vague, soft, and feel-good notion of “sustainability” while embracing fossil fuel criminals as paragons of skill and virtue. The mindset that rewards the ceaseless prospecting of fossil fuels with board positions and chunks of investment portfolios is the same mindset that propelled big oil’s darling CEO to the highest diplomatic post in the nation. So long as we’re unwilling to confront these conflicts of interest – on all levels, local and beyond – we’ll be stuck trying to outrun this crisis with Exxon and their ilk shackled to our feet.

Present

Galante sits on the Board of Tesoro, a petroleum refining company, and likely retains some of the half a million shares he was granted while at Exxon, today worth over $40 million. President Aoun denies Galante’s connection to the ExxonKnew scandal.

[1] DivestNU, membership correspondence with author, November 2016. [2] "Biography - Edward G. Galante, E'73," Northeastern University Alumni Relations, accessed November 3, 2016. [3] Scott S. Smith, "The Man Who Will Lead Exxon Mobil," Chief Executive Magazine, April 20, 2011, accessed November 17, 2016. [4] One Worker Killed and Several Hurt in Blast at Louisiana Refinery,” New York Times, December 25, 1989, accessed January 16, 2017. [5] "Edward G. Galante: Executive Profile & Biography," Bloomberg, accessed November 17, 2016. [6] Scott S. Smith, "The Man Who Will Lead Exxon Mobil". [7] Nelson D. Schwartz, “Goodbye, Mr. Exxon Lee Raymond is preparing to leave the world's biggest energy company. Who will replace the ultimate oil guy?” FORTUNE Magazine, September 15, 2003, accessed January 16, 2017. [8] "Edward G. Galante: Executive Profile & Biography," Bloomberg, accessed November 17, 2016. [9] Lee Raymond, “Climate Change: don’t ignore the facts,” The Lamp, Exxon Mobil, Fall 1996, accessed January 16, 2017. [10] “The unrepentant oilman,” The Economist, March 13, 2003, accessed January 16, 2017. [11] Lee Raymond, “Climate Change: don’t ignore the facts,” The Lamp, Exxon Mobil, Fall 1996, accessed January 16, 2017. [12] Shannon Hall, “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago,” Scientific American, October 26, 2015, accessed January 16, 2017. [13] Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni, and Susanne Rust, “How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research,” Los Angeles Times, October 23, 2015, accessed January 16, 2017. [14] David Hasemyer and John H. Cushman Jr, “Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty,” InsideClimate News, October 22, 2015, accessed January 16, 2017. [15] Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer, “Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago”, InsideClimate News, September 16, 2015, accessed January 16, 2017. [16] Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer, “Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago”, InsideClimate News, September 16, 2015, accessed January 16, 2017. [17] “The Climate Deception Dossiers,” Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015, accessed January 16, 2017. [18] David Adam, “Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups,” The Guardian, May 28, 2008, accessed January 16, 2017. [19] Suzanne Goldenberg, “ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge,” The Guardian, July 15, 2015, accessed January 16, 2016. [20] Nelson D. Schwartz, “Goodbye, Mr. Exxon Lee Raymond is preparing to leave the world's biggest energy company. Who will replace the ultimate oil guy?” FORTUNE Magazine, September 15, 2003, accessed January 16, 2017. [21] “Executives in Residence: Ed Galante,” Northeastern University D’Amore-McKim School of Business, accessed January 16, 2017. [22] "Edward G. Galante: Executive Profile & Biography," Bloomberg, accessed November 17, 2016. [23] Nelson D. Schwartz, “Goodbye, Mr. Exxon Lee Raymond is preparing to leave the world's biggest energy company. Who will replace the ultimate oil guy?” FORTUNE Magazine, September 15, 2003, accessed January 16, 2017. [24] Steve Coll, Private Empire (London: Lane, 2012), ch.9. [25] “Corporation & Board of Trustees,” Northeastern University Libraries, accessed January 16, 2017. [26] “Edward G. Galante E'73,” Northeastern University Alumni Relations, accessed January 16, 2017. [27] Meghan Flynn, “Growing together: after nearly three years as president, Joseph Aoun has reinvigorated this historic university and is guiding it to greater success in the face of a recession,” American Executive, April 2009, Academic OneFile. [28] “Engineering@Northeastern Spring 2016,” Northeastern University College of Engineering, June 26, 2016, accessed January 16, 2017. [29] “Corporation & Board of Trustees,” Northeastern University Libraries, accessed January 16, 2017. [30] “Edward G. Galante E'73,” Northeastern University Alumni Relations. [31] Conglin Xu, “Capital Expenditures to be Squeezed Further in 2016,” Oil & Gas Journal, March 7, 2016, accessed January 15, 2016. [32] DivestNU, membership correspondence with author, November 2016. [33] DivestNU, membership correspondence with author, November 2016. [34] "Edward G. Galante: Executive Profile & Biography," Bloomberg, accessed November 17, 2016. [35] ExxonMobil, FY16 Form DEF 14A (filed April 12, 2006), p.13, from SEC website, accessed January 16, 2017. [36] Dan Alexander, “Secretary Of State Appointee Rex Tillerson Reaches $180 Million Severance Deal With Exxon,” Forbes, January 4, 2017, accessed January 15, 2017. [37] DivestNU, membership correspondence with author, November 2016. [38] DivestNU, membership correspondence with author, November 2016. [39] Michael Armini, email correspondence with Alissa Zimmer and Austin Williams, November 2016. [40] DivestNU, membership correspondence with author, November 2016. [41] Joseph E. Aoun, e-mail message to all Northeastern students, January 9, 2017.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

Columns

Sneha Pandya / English 2017

very movement we’ve ever had has sprung from another. I’m taking a freshman-level course in my final semester at Northeastern. Call it what you will, but I’ve found it’s extremely helpful in reevaluating my education and my perspective on more than just books. In week three, we spent the bulk of our time learning foundational literary theories that frame criticism and research today. We moved from close reading (the practice of sounding out, seeing images in, and questioning each letter on the page) to deconstructionism (thinking each text has a subversive true meaning that contradicts what it says, so basically everything is a lie) to feminist theory (ah, the male gaze) to queer theory and more. My professor said at one point, as we quickly ran through the more recent theoretical approaches, that they all stemmed from identity politics. The feminist theorists questioned why male literature was dominant and preferable to female literature; the African-American theorists pressed for a consideration of why white literature was in the canon but black writers were not; the postcolonial theorists asked how exactly writers of colonized countries could be writing about anything other than a postcolonial experience. All of these movements in literary criticism were pushed by groups who identified in support of some greater representation of people, to have their voices be added to the mix of world literature. They examined the existing field of literature, explained how their particular group deviated from the existing field, and then challenged

Spring 2017

the terms that existed to define literature so that their approach would be included. All because they were excluded in the first place on the basis of identity. I wondered how this applied elsewhere, or if my study of English was both the dawn and end of identity politics enacting change. And that brought me to thinking of a place, area of study, or phenomenon that did not, in some way, evolve under the influence of identity politics. And I’m still trying to find the answer to that question. See, identity politics truly is inescapable as long as hierarchies exist that place people with certain identities on the lower rungs of the ladder. The question first asked is, “Why are we down here?” And then, “Well, since we should get up there, how do we do that?” And so we rally around our identity and the people who share that experience with us, rearranging the hierarchy and creating the social equity we deserve. All of this begins with identity politics. Change comes in waves, and waves are initiated by a deep sense of individual alignment with community values. One of the fastest ways to gather together, as a community, is through identity. Most of the time, it just occurs naturally. I know that when I’m in a

“

space with other Indian Americans I gravitate toward them because of a shared identity, shared history, and shared culture. I feel both safe and supported. And as we start talking about what we face together, I get ready to start moving with them, fighting with them, and what do you get? A movement. If we think that ignoring identity politics is the answer, then we are wrong, plain and simple. Many, but most notably Mark Lilla of Columbia University, believe the election results reflected misused identity politics by the Democratic Party. [1] I won’t say that’s completely untrue. The Democratic Party has been built off of minority interest groups, while its policies only weakly reflect the interests of those identities. And yet, it has seriously taken an initial step to consider its constituents’ wants and needs. Though far from complete, it has considered identity politics to be an asset. Identity politics is not at the root of the Democrats’ loss, but they need to very seriously consider how they were using them and whether they were serving their constituents to the fullest extent. Conversely, the Republican win is also deeply rooted in the politics of identity. Of all the groups and constituencies that turned out to vote in the general election of 2016, one group wildly overperformed: the suburban and urban white male population. Many

Identity politics truly is inescapable as long as hierarchies exist that place people with certain identities on the lower rungs of the ladder.

”

nupoliticalreview.com

assume the white vote was singlehandedly necessary to secure a win, as it wildly favored Trump over Clinton.[2] But this is not because of a lack of identity politics – Trump appealed to their identities. Ignoring identity politics fails to recognize that the majority of Trump voters, primarily identifying with their white or male identities, acted based on their identity. Michael Tesler of the University of California at Irvine explains the growing trend of white Republicans who vote based on racial resentment and its direct connection to Trump’s appeal to white conservative voters.[3] Furthering the trend, it became clear that “Trump has been willing to go where most Republican presidential candidates haven’t.” The explicit and implicit appeals to white voters, and against people of color and immigrants, became a focal point of Trump’s campaign. He painted a glorified image of an America that did not welcome immigrants purely because they were taking jobs he believed were reserved for white people. This rhetoric not only divided Americans into white and non-white, but also drew upon existing racial resentment, characterized by the racist notion that “race-based inequality is due to cultural deficiencies.” This belief has existed amongst white Republicans, according to 2008 and 2012 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project data that Tesler cites, but it failed to significantly energize white voters with previous nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney. Trump was a much more popular candidate to this race-resenting white voting population of the Republican Party. Clouding the election in terms of appeal to the “working-class” or “blue-collar voters” deviates from the real crux of the issue: These voters largely identified with Trump through whiteness and the common ground of being male. Trump crucially attracted these voters through his support of their identities, promising that the threat of minority groups, primarily people of color, would dissipate through his presidency and return to them some of the wealth they thought had been stolen.[4] Consequently, the Democrats weren’t able to use his various calls against minorities to unite the Left in 2016. This war of identities did not begin with the 2016 election, but it was exacerbated. And it will continue to quintessentially be a part of our politics in elections to come. On the other hand, where white voters overwhelmingly went for Trump, Clinton managed to underperform in the votes of people of color and minority groups, groups that typically carry a Democratic candidate nupoliticalreview.com

through to the White House.[5] The Democratic Party has historically presented itself as the only party dynamically concerned about people of color, most notably in the election of President John F. Kennedy. As Matthew Delmont explains in The Atlantic article titled, “When Black Voters Exited Left,” Kennedy’s win heavily depended on black voters.[6] But upon Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it became clear that “there is a gulf between what black Americans hoped the legislation would achieve and what Democratic politicians actually delivered.” The notion that the Democratic Party will adopt and deliver on “progressive” policies time and time again for people of color is one that is ideologically flawed. The 2017 Democratic National Committee elections brought this to light, in many ways, through upholding the party’s archaic acceptance of donations from corporate political action committees.[7] This decision was not only unsurprising but also uninspiring for progressive voters, many of whom are people of color, who may already be doubtful of the party’s support for their interests. Furthermore, Tom Perez, newly elected DNC chair, has already mentioned strategy for upcoming elections. In response to a question regarding Republican strongholds over certain areas of the United States, Perez said, “We have allowed so many ZIP Codes to be ignored. Our message in rural America is just as powerful as it is in urban America. But because we haven’t been a physical presence there in any sustained way, we have a lot of voters there who no longer believe that the Democratic Party is still working for them… But we have to be out there everywhere talking about it.”[8] The DNC’s first stated priority is getting back those voters, predominantly white and rural, and getting the message out to them. In the wake of an election lost due to underperformance, especially of the black vote, the Democratic Party needs to welcome identity politics into its platform holistically, rather than picking generalized moderate platform interests that support corporate donors and the white vote.[9] The failure to do so will result in the continued loss of its most powerful and existing base, which has been hesitant to trust that this party will deliver on its interests. Based on the Democratic rebuttal to Trump’s

”

Columns

“

In the wake of an election lost due to underperformance, especially of the black vote, the Democratic Party needs to welcome identity politics into its platform holistically, rather than picking generalized moderate platform interests that support corporate donors and the white vote. address to a joint session of Congress, the party currently appears to be uninterested in inspiring these voters again, as noted by its representation of a small Kentucky diner bringing together white voters (the constituency the party feels it lost the most) and one black voter (who truly represents the constituency that the Democrats will inevitably lose the most if they begin ignoring identity politics for their real base).[10][11] Aptly noted, there simply is no other way to do politics than to do identity politics.[12] Calls to remove identity politics from party focus areas will ignore real concerns of voters who naturally view their status, as a group or community, through their identities. They hope to see that status reflected in politics so that they may participate in a government that understands their wants and needs. As identity politics course through every movement, every hierarchy, and even in the way we read books that pressure others to read from a different point of view, we find that it is irrevocably tied to politics. We call it “identity politics” for a reason, and its place in politics is as clear as politics is to its name. •

Get To Know The Columnist Sneha is a fourth-year English major with a minor in Psychology. She's relatively famous in CSSH for having dabbled in four different majors at Northeastern, ultimately deciding to pursue a degree in explaining that women can in fact specialize in James Joyce to the rest of her peers. Her thesis and research focus has been second-generation identity in the South Asian Diaspora, which led her to consider the importance of identity in politics. On campus, she's been greatly involved in sorority life and advocating for women's spaces of undergraduate collegiate development. Off campus, she maintains a reading/lifestyle/thoughts blog and silently wishes Boston winter will have mercy on her Florida soul while conversely wishing for climate change to reverse itself. You can find her at Pavement Coffeehouse ordering green tea lattes to ignore her real cravings for sweet tea, sharing her theory on Harry Potter house sorting (identity crises, no more!), and listening to the Avett Brothers.

[1] Lilla, Mark. “The End of Identity Liberalism.” The New York Times. November 18, 2016. [2] Fidel, Emma. “White People Elected Trump.” VICE News. November 9, 2016. [3] Tesler, Michael. “Trump is the First Modern Republican to Win the Nomination Based on Racial Prejudice.” The Washington Post. August 1, 2016. [4] Friedersdorf, Conor. “Donald Trump’s Threats Against Minorities Are Unifying Democrats.” The Atlantic. July 26, 2016. [5] Luhby, Tami. “How Hillary Clinton Lost.” CNN Politics. November 9, 2016. [6] Delmont, Matthew. “When Black Voters Exited Left.” The Atlantic. March 31, 2016. [7] Scher, Bill. “The Resistance Will Be… Underwritten By Corporations.” Politico Magazine. March 8, 2017. [8] Finnegan, Michael. “Democrats Abandoned Rural America: Won’t Happen Again, Says New DNC Leader.” The Los Angeles Times. March 21, 2017. [9] Peters, Jeremy W., Richard Fausset and Michael Wines. “Black Turnout Soft in Early Voting, Boding Ill for Hillary Clinton.” The New York Times. November 1, 2016. [10] “Democratic Response to Trump’s Address to Congress, Annotated.” NPR Politics. February 28, 2017. [11] Rappeport, Alan, Matt Flegenheimer and Peter Baker. “Trump Addressed Joint Session of Congress For the First Time.” The New York Times. February 28, 2017. [12] Yglesias, Matthew. “Democrats Neither Can Nor Should Ditch ‘Identity Politics.’” Vox. November 23, 2016.

Spring 2017

Columns

The Rise of Trump: A Revolt Against Neoliberalism or Whitelash? Sean Keith / History 2019

or many of us on the Left, November 9th was a surreal night. Leftists had no trouble comprehending that Trump emblematized the most nefarious, atavistic elements of American society and was indicative of a rising Right current. Yet, few thought he stood a serious chance at beating Hillary Clinton. And even after he shockingly won, vigorous debate ensued – and still ensues – about whether or not his election was a revolt against neoliberalism or a whitelash. Leftists felt quite confident about a Clinton victory. From August 2016 until the week leading up to the election, prominent left wing political scientist Corey Robin took to his Facebook page to wax poetic about how Clinton would win the election by a landslide. In a post on October 23rd, he affirmed his confidence in Clinton, writing that Trump’s vote count would be “squarely within McGovern territory (i.e. about 40% of the electorate)… [and that] this election will go down as a catastrophic defeat for the Republican Party.”[1] He believed that after Clinton’s decisive win, the neoliberal Democrats would be robbed of their farRight boogeyman, thus oxygenating the political environment and re-emboldening the Bernie Sanders, social-democratic wing of the party.[2] Pundits like Robin were further supported by mainstream wonks. Nate Silver, the ever-esteemed, supposedly objective whiz kid over at FiveThirtyEight, gave Clinton an almost two-thirds chance of winning the election (which, he noted, was relatively conservative when compared to other projections).[3] Additionally, discord about Jill Stein playing a supposed “Nader spoiler effect” was noticeably quieter, and most Leftists felt comfortable encouraging safe-staters to exercise their protest vote and put Green on their ballot. And even without looking at poll numbers, it seemed like Trump stood little chance of winning. Though Corey Robin’s comparison to McGovern was incorrect in the context of the election outcome, there were indeed splits within the Republican party similar to the schisms within the Democratic party during McGovern’s nomination. When George McGovern became the Democratic Presidential candidate in 1972, he distinguished himself from hawks like Truman and Johnson by campaigning on a platform of peace. He vowed to withdraw all American troops from Vietnam, reduce defense spending, and reinvest that money into social welfare programs.[4] Then-democrats like

Spring 2017

Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were disillusioned by such anti-militarism and threw their weight behind Washington Senator Henry Jackson, a Cold War Democrat who supported both a strong social safety net and an aggressive foreign policy.[5] However, when Jackson failed to beat McGovern, Wolfowitz, Perle, and other liberal hawks moved rightward to the Republican Party and played a decisive role in crafting Reaganite foreign policy. Thus marked the true beginnings of neoconservatism, a complex ideology best defined as belief in a conservative welfare state combined with an extremely large military committed to spreading American power beyond traditionally realist-defined national security interests. These neoconservatives quickly ascended within the Republican party and marginalized isolationist, “America-first” voices like Pat Buchanan who were adamantly opposed to supposedly idealistic nation-building outside of American national security interests. After Trump secured the nomination, the Republican Party went into complete disarray and few political observers of any stripe thought it could unify by the time of the election. Neoconservatives began to retreat back to their home in the Democratic Party. For example, Robert Kagan wrote an editorial in the Washington Post accusing Trump of being a proto-fascist and proudly proclaimed his support for Hillary Clinton.[6] Many other beltway Republicans – some neoconservative, others in the more traditionally realist mold – like Colin Powell, Mitt Romney, Lawrence Wilkerson, and William Weld either sharply denounced Trump or followed Kagan’s path and supported Hillary. And even as early as August, a group of fifty Republican national security officers signed a letter warning that Trump posed a direct threat to the national security of the United States.[7] In other words, with the exception of Republican holdouts, the establishment seemed by-andlarge unified against Trump. The question thus arises: What happened on November 8th? People within the Left offered varying explanations and narratives. On the one hand, many saw Trump’s victory not as a whitelash, but rather a revolt against

“

neoliberalism, or the economic ideology that emphasizes free trade, deregulation, and economic austerity. For instance, the Guardian columnist Richard Longworth notes that numerous counties throughout Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa voted for Obama in 2012, but shifted to Trump due to continued economic stagnation. [8] Jacobin Magazine’s article entitled “Politics is the Solution” similarly explains that the election was decided by former Rust Belt Obama supporters, and that it simply can not be the case that all such voters were motivated by a “white supremacist political program.”[9] It continues by stating that Clintonian neoliberalism was unable to defeat – or perhaps even enabled – Trump’s right wing populism.[10] Contrary to this dominant viewpoint, Trump’s victory was a whitelash and did not represent a triumph against neoliberalism because Trump never even spoke out against neoliberalism in the first place. As veteran political activist Bill Fletcher noted in his reflections on the election, “Trump focused on the symptoms inherent in neoliberal globalization, such as job loss, but his was not a critique of neoliberalism.”[11] In fact, the average income of a Trump supporter was $72,000, an amount far exceeding the national average American income of $51,939.[12] By embracing economic protectionism and strong border controls while also advocating for tax cuts, deregulation, and economic austerity, Trump cultivated the image of a populist devoted to draining the swamp when his true priorities lay in advancing his own class’ interests. This, of course, is not to deny that Clinton’s rotten, neoliberal politics are widely unpopular and generate pervasive disgust and alienation from the American political system. After all, more eligible American citizens chose not to vote rather than vote for either Clinton or Trump. However, it is simply inaccurate to create the image of an immiserated,

By painting Chinese businessmen, Mexican workers, and an unaccountable globalist elite represented by George Soros – an anti-Semitic dog whistle for white nationalists like Richard Spencer – as corrupting forces chipping away at a once pure country, Trump elevates whiteness as the thing that can make America “great” again.

”

nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

anti-neoliberal white working class that carried the victory for Trump. Instead, as Fletcher points out, it was a newly mobilized white middle class that helped Trump carry traditionally blue states like Wisconsin and Michigan and ultimately win the election. Trump’s conservative economic policies appealed to their class interests, and his obsession with undocumented immigration and job loss appealed to their strident nationalism and intense xenophobia. Pat Buchanan reflected such xenophobia when he lamented about the state of America on CNN, claiming that “the establishment has left the borders open and millions of people have walked into this country and changed its character.”[13] Buchanan did not decry neoliberal economics, but the fading memory of a white America. This newly mobilized white middle class represented by Buchanan seeks to defend the country’s white character against all external, sinister threats. Trump’s campaign relied on intense Sinophobia, anti-Mexicanness, and anti-Semitism.[14] By painting Chinese businessmen, Mexican workers, and an unaccountable globalist elite represented by George Soros – an anti-Semitic dog whistle for white nationalists like Richard Spencer – as corrupting forces chipping away at a once pure country, Trump elevates whiteness as the thing that can make America “great” again.[15] In this sense, the election truly was a whitelash, which can be best defined as a group of middle class whites scavenging to preserve their white privilege in an America of ever-changing demographics and rising Left wing political movements. The notion that poor whites voted for Trump in defiance of neoliberalism not only ignores the solidly

middle class whites that did vote for him en masse, but also validates the elitist view that poor, non-middle class whites – pejoratively referred to as “white trash” – are irredeemably racist, and atavistic. Of course, racist attitudes persist amongst all facets of white America, but specifically painting poor whites as incorrigible and more racist excuses the more “respectable” petit-bourgeois and bourgeois racism that seems ever more dominant today. For instance, the National Review – a magazine certainly representative of this strand of “elitist conservatism” – published a piece by William Buckley-acolyte Kevin D. Williamson entitled “Chaos in the Family, Chaos in the State: The White Working Class’s Dysfunction” that excoriated the white working class’ wretched backwardness. Williamson writes: The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale [read: white trash] communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.[16]

Thus, Williamson slants a respectable, measured conservative elite represented by someone like Mitt Romney or William Buckley against a wretched underclass that simply “deserve[s] to die.” Nevermind Mitt Romney’s racially, class coded comments about 47% of American society being blindly wedded to federal government welfare programs.[17] Nevermind William Buckley writing a National Review article in 1957 entitled “Why the South Must Prevail” and opposing federal Civil Rights legislation on the basis that “the white community… is the advanced race.”[18] After all, Mitt Romney wears a three-piece suit, and William Buckley had a federally syndicated television show in which he spoke with a posh, British-esque accent. They both pale in comparison to the residents of heroin-abusing, decaying Rust Belt factory towns... •

Get To Know The Columnist Sean is a second year History student with a minor in Chinese. His areas of interest are America and China, and he is specifically interested in labor history, economic history, political economy, and the history of social movements. He is a proud member of Students for Justice in Palestine and supporter of various Left groups at Northeastern. Inspired by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, his New Years resolution is to build hegemony by engaging in (and hopefully winning) arcane debates with Brooklynite socialists on Facebook. When not pontificating about whether or not open borders is a feasible Left demand, Sean enjoys playing basketball, watching re-runs of The Office, sending Eric Andre videos to his friends, and roaming around Boston.

[1] Corey Robin, “Six Reasons for Optimism (and one big one for pessimism),” Blog post, October 24th, 2016. [2] Corey Robin, “If I were worried that Clinton might lose, here’s what I would—and wouldn’t—do…,” Blog post, August 10th, 2016. [3] Nate Silver, “Final Election Update: There’s A Wide Range Of Outcomes, And Most Of Them Come Up Clinton,” FiveThirtyEight, November 8th, 2016. [4] Kristi Eaton, “George McGovern: A war hero who fought for peace,” Christian Science Monitor, October 21st, 2012. [5] Robert G. Kaufman, Henry M. Jackson, A Life in Politics (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000), 213. [6] Robert Kagan, “This is how fascism comes to America,” Washington Post, May 18th, 2016. [7] David E. Sanger and Maggie Haberman, “50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’,” New York Times, August 8th, 2016. [8] Richard C Longworth, “Disaffected rust belt voters embraced Trump. They had no other hope,” The Guardian, November 21st, 2016. [9]Megan Erickson, Katherine Hill, Matt Karp, Connor Kilpatrick, and Bhaskar Sunkara, “Politics is the Solution,” Jacobin Magazine, November 9th, 2016. [10] Ibid. [11] Bill Fletcher Jr., “Quick reflections on the November 2016 elections,” Blog post. [12] Mark Gimein, “The Desperate Middle-Class Voters Who Made Trump the Republican Nominee,” Time Magazine. [13] Alexandra King, “Buchanan, Smerconish spar over whether election 'rigged' for Trump,” CNN, October 22nd, 2016. [14] Nikhil Singh, “Trump’s racist oeuvre,” Facebook post, November 9th, 2016. [15] Josh Marshall, “Trump Rolls Out Anti-Semitic Closing Ad,” Talking Points Memo, November 5th, 2016. [16] Kevin D. Williamson, “Chaos in the Family, Chaos in the State: The White Working Class’s Dysfunction,” National Review, March 17th, 2016. [17] Chris Cillizza, “Why Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment was so bad,” Washington Post, March 4th, 2013. [18] William Buckley, “Why the South Must Prevail,” National Review, August 24th, 1957.

nupoliticalreview.com

Spring 2017

Columns

Putting “America First” by Recommitting to Global H Anthony Formicola / Behavioral Neuroscience 2018

n Monday, November 14th—six days after the presidential and congressional elections—I piled into an Enterprise rental car with a few friends, and we made the short trip up to Nahant, MA. Representative Seth Moulton was holding a town hall meeting at the public library there, and we hoped to speak to him or to one of his staffers about a bill related to U.S. funding for global health initiatives. But let’s back up. You might not have realized that our government puts money toward improving the public health of developing nations. It does; in fact, we are “the largest funder and implementer of global health programs worldwide.”[1] In this realm, the U.S.’s most significant effort to date is PEPFAR, or the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The ongoing initiative, which President Bush put into action in 2003, has slashed the HIV-related mortality rate in the countries that it targets—from Angola to Zimbabwe and approximately 50 countries in between. Some evidence shows that PEPFAR has resulted in a 16 to 20% reduction of mortality from any cause in its African countries of interest.[2] Furthermore, the initiative continues to support life-saving drug treatment for 11.5 million men, women, and children around the world with HIV.[3] PEPFAR drastically altered the trajectory of an epidemic that once seemed unstoppable, and its success is a testament to what sustained bipartisan support of a global health program can achieve. We do more than just PEPFAR, though. Via many different modalities, the U.S. budget includes health-related assistance to more than 60 low- and middle-income countries. Our government acts as a direct operator of global health programs, a partner with other governments/NGOs/the private sector, and a participant in international health organizations. In order to reach global socioeconomic benchmarks set by the UN for the year 2015

Spring 2017

(known as the Millennium Development Goals), this funding has become more of a national priority over the last decade. In 2006, we spent $5.3 billion on global health. For 2017, our global health budget request reached an all-time high of $10.3 billion.[4] For someone like me, who considers himself a member of the right to health movement, this statistic is heartening. The protection of the right to health is not merely a domestic concern; it is a concept that crosses all borders. Yes, I do believe that the United States has the responsibility to guarantee access to health care to its own citizens. Yes, I do find it troubling that 30 million Americans currently live without health insurance.[5] I also find it deeply troubling that, despite the failure of the American Health Care Act,

“

though. Even if you have been, perhaps you don’t think that our government has the obligation (or the authority, or the cultural competency) to protect the rights of non-Americans. I share your concern that these efforts can easily become misplaced and even detrimental; maybe a follow-up column that pits the white-savior industrial complex against the concept of accompaniment will be necessary.[6][7] But above all, I believe that

The protection of the right to health is not merely a domestic concern; it is a concept that crosses all borders.

a GOP-sponsored healthcare reform law that would substantially increase this number has a strong chance of passing at some point in 2017. Even so, I am infinitely more disturbed by the idea of widespread preventable death in developing countries. Let me say it another way: Millions of global citizens die every year from afflictions that have simple cures and that have not killed large numbers of Americans in over a century. Surely, if an American lacking affordable access to health care counts as a human rights violation, a Liberian or Cambodian lacking any access to health care—and often lacking clean water and adequate nutrition as well—constitutes something much more severe. Perhaps you still haven’t been convinced that health is a fundamental human right,

our global standing both allows and compels our nation to intercede at the sight of foreign injustice. Even if these interventions require increased conscientiousness or an adjustment to our national budget, we cannot ignore the call to minimize suffering, stop preventable deaths, and lessen abject poverty. I see the existence of these disparities as a moral imperative—something that demands us to act—but I understand that you might not. Thankfully, there are other reasons why any American should support our government’s commitment to global health. Let’s return to the November 14th town hall meeting where I heard Seth Moulton speak. You need to know that Seth isn’t some career politician. He’s a 38-year-old former Marine who enlisted just a few months before nupoliticalreview.com

Columns

y Health

the September 11th attacks and served four tours in Iraq. Moulton joined the House of Representatives in 2014, and as you might imagine, he has shown a particular interest in veterans’ issues. He also seems to have a higher-level understanding of how war works and how it fails; indeed, he served as a special assistant to General David Petraeus during two of his tours. With all of that experience in mind, I was rather taken by an idea that he supported in the library that morning. Moulton strongly emphasized his belief that an international war against terror will never succeed without international aid and diplomacy. He spoke of a downward spiral—a never-ending cycle of violence and upheaval in certain regions of the world that will continue unabatedly if all we do there is fight. Plenty of research supports this claim; the links between food insecurity, poor health, political instability, and violent conflict are clear.[8][9] Certainly, we need to dedicate significant resources to fighting terrorist groups when they are strong enough to commit atrocities, but maybe we can also try to prevent their rise in the first place. In other words, we could identify countries that experience dismal health outcomes and that are at high risk for instability—and then respond with meaningful investments in food, water, and care. Maybe violent unrest wouldn’t be so prominent in regions where bellies are filled and care is freely given. Maybe anti-Western ideology wouldn’t take root so easily where Americans are involved in that feeding and caring. nupoliticalreview.com

To be sure, we already do this type of targeted encouragement of stability, but we could make that strategy much more of a priority. Even though our government allocates more money to global health than ever before, our commitment to these programs has plateaued over the last few years ($10.2b in 2014, $10.1b in 2015, $10.2b in 2016, and $10.3b in 2017). [10] I believe that this figure should start to increase at a rapid rate once again—especially in contrast to the U.S. defense budget, which currently hovers just below $600 billion per year.[11] I am not necessarily disputing that peacekeeping through military presence is important in certain countries, but I am suggesting that the balance should continue to shift toward peacemaking through health-focused intervention. If the United States started to see itself as the global health corps in addition to the global peacekeeping force, it might begin to snuff out violence and terror a bit more easily. That’s what Rep. Moulton thinks, at least. In any case, this approach (if responsibly executed) would likely improve the health of countless individuals—particularly in places where the right to health is so difficult to obtain. For both of these reasons, we as American citizens need to remind our neighbors and representatives that global health

financing is vital. We cannot allow the new administration to act on its skepticism about such life-sustaining programs as PEPFAR.[12] (Relatedly, we cannot believe that building walls and instituting bans do anything but permit suffering and plant seeds for future violence.) In short, we cannot stand for ideas like “America First” that lack any nuance. The U.S. does not play a zero-sum game when it commits to global health; instead, everyone benefits. The human rights of global citizens receive protection, but so does our own country’s national security. •

Get To Know The Columnist Anthony is a fourth-year behavioral neuroscience major and health science minor from Warrington, PA. He's spent countless hours pushing hospital stretchers, hanging out with seniors who live alone, advocating for better mental health services at Northeastern, and learning about health disparities on a local and global level. Because of all of these experiences, he hopes to be a physician and health policy influencer one day. For now, he's just a movie buff, podcast obsessive, and diehard Philadelphia sports fan.

[1] “The U.S. Government and Global Health,” Kaiser Family Foundation, June 19, 2016. [2] Richter, Ruthann, “740,000 lives saved: Study documents benefits of AIDS relief program,” Stanford Medicine, May 15, 2012. [3] “PEPFAR Latest Global Results 2016,” U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, 2016. [4] “The U.S. Government and Global Health,” Kaiser Family Foundation, June 19, 2016. [5] “Key Facts about the Uninsured Population,” Kaiser Family Foundation, September 29, 2016. [6] Cole, Teju, “The White-Savior Industrial Complex,” The Atlantic, March 21, 2012. [7] “Paul Farmer: ‘Accompaniment’ as Policy,” Harvard Magazine, May 25, 2011. [8] Maxwell, Daniel, “Food Security and its Implications for Political Stability: A Humanitarian Perspective,” Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, September 13-14, 2012. [9] Brinkman, Henk-Jan, and Cullen S. Hendrix, “Food Insecurity and Violent Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges,” World Food Programme, July 2011. [10] “The U.S. Government and Global Health,” Kaiser Family Foundation, June 19, 2016. [11] “Department of Defense (DoD) Releases Fiscal Year 2017 President’s Budget Proposal,” U.S. Department of Defense, February 9, 2016. [12] Cooper, Helene, “Trump Team’s Queries about Africa Point to Skepticism about Aid,” New York Times, January 13, 2017.

Spring 2017