WUPR 23.2 Migration and movement by Washington University Political Review

Washington University

political review 23.2 | October 2015 | wupr.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

MIGRATION & MOVEMENT

The Newest Migrant of the Seas

Clinton Victory

Dan Sicorsky

Is it Really About Economics? The

EU and Freedom of Movement Tomasz Cebrat

INTERNATIONAL 10

Bisma Mufti

A Lack of Healthcare Mobility

Syrian Refugees

Anika Kabani

A Day Late and A Shell Short

Where Did The Girls Go? Grace Portelance

When Piyush Met Bobby

in the Gaza Strip

Alex Mines

The Ins and Outs of Smuggling Alex Petri

Two Candidates Sell Themselves Benjamin Szanton

International Humans of WUSTL Peri Feldstein

Politician Isn’t a Bad Word Sean Lundergan

Ellen Birch

Sanctuary Cities Max Handler

St Louis’ Legacy as an Asylum for Refugees

NATIONAL

Jack Goldberg

“True” Singaporeans Kwok Hao Lee

DNC Rigs Debates for

The Real Cost of Free College Tuition Andrew Eichen

Who Can Change FIFA? Min Heo

EDITOR’S NOTE Editors-in-Chief: Billie Mandelbaum Aryeh Mellman Executive Director: Hannah Waldman Staff Editors: Sam Klein Rachel Butler Grace Portelance Features Editors: Aaron Christensen Serena Lekawa Finance Director: Jake Belinky Director of Design: Andrew Kay Assistant Directors of Design: Nikolai Laba

Dear Reader, When we announced that this issue’s theme would be “Migration and Movement,” Gabe Rubin, one of last year’s Editors-in-Chief, texted us the following: “Great theme choice! Tragically timely.” From EU infighting over the European migrant crisis to divisive debates about illegal immigration within the American political sphere, the topics of migration and immigration are at the forefront of domestic and international affairs. In terms of policy, these topics are difficult to grapple with, as the talk of politics and economics becomes entangled with the personal questions of identity and belonging. This issue hits close to home for many of our readers; the U.S. is traditionally a nation of immigrants. Migration is a salient regional issue for the Wash U community, as St. Louis has the largest Bosnian population outside of Europe. In the magazine’s theme section, Ellen Birch profiles two Bosnian refugees who are now members of the University’s housekeeping staff. In the context of contemporary conflicts, Alex Petri writes of the journey Syrian refugees are taking to escape their war-torn country. Dan Sicorsky describes migration of another kind—that of trash moving through the sea. As always, we invite all who are interested to get involved in WUPR, whether that be through writing, illustrating, or attending one of our programming events. With the presidential primary debates in full gear, we hope that you’ll join us at our watch parties. In partnership with SPB, we’ll be streaming the next Republican debate on October 28 in the DUC’s Fun Room. We predict that the candidates will have a thing or two to say about migration into the United States.

Ezekiel Saucedo

Happy Reading!

Director of New Media:

Billie Mandelbaum and Aryeh Mellman

Ari Moses Programming Director: Reuben Siegman Front Cover: Steph Waldo Theme Page: Ezekiel Saucedo Back Cover: Jeremy Sandler

Editors-in-Chief

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

The Newest Migrant of the Seas M Dan Sicorsky

any people complain that the news is garbage. But for more than six months in 1987, it actually was.

We’re talking real garbage. Trash. Waste. More than 3,150 tons of it, all on one barge—the Mobro 4000. An almost-bankrupt Alabama businessman, wary that one New York town’s landfill was almost full, suggested its trash be shipped to North Carolina, where it would be incinerated to generate methane gas for electricity. With this pioneering idea, the Mobro set sail. But things didn’t go as planned. When the Mobro docked in the Tar Heel State, a port official said its waste was hazardous and turned it away. The barge tried Louisiana next, but the governor threatened to send out the National Guard if the Mobro docked in one of his state’s ports. The media, apparently not busy enough covering the year’s Black Monday stock market crash, quickly jumped onto the story, giving it primetime coverage. For six months, helicopters and news crews tracked the barge’s every move as it was rejected by six states, Mexico, and Belize. Ironically, the Mobro’s load was eventually incinerated close to home in Brooklyn, but not before allegedly inspiring a 1999 episode of Futurama titled “A Big Piece of Garbage.”

tons—are shipped out of New York every day. And in the U.S. at large in 2003, 17 percent of all municipal solid waste (MSW) crossed state lines for disposal (that percentage is likely much higher today.) While most ends up in the largest state importer of waste, Pennsylvania, some of the trash goes as far as Europe, Asia, and Africa. This means the Chinese takeout box that you threw out last night, if it’s lucky, might end up in China in a few days.

The net benefit of moving trash around the world depends on who you choose to believe, which reports you read, and what values you hold.

The whole time the “Gar-barge” was at sea, Lowell Harrelson, the Alabama businessman responsible for it, was ridiculed for his vision that trash could be traded. Many couldn’t understand why he believed waste would translate into money. Besides, people thought, why would a state or country ever want to import trash?

“Wow, I really underestimated that opportunity,” a 78-year-old Harrelson said of the trash trade during a 2013 New York Times interview. He really did, especially considering his greater vision was also realized; trash can be made into energy. In fact, in 2013, almost 13 percent of the United States’ total MSW—more than 32 million tons—was combusted in nearly 90 waste-toenergy (WTE) facilities across the country, which use the heat produced from burning trash to generate electricity. Other countries, like Norway and Germany, now import trash by the boatloads to produce the energy that, for cities like Oslo, can heat half of the city’s buildings.

In 2015, however, Harrelson is hardly seen as the sucker he was made out to be 28 years ago. On the contrary, he’s considered a visionary, because if there’s one thing he got right about today’s world, it’s that trash moves. A lot.

WTE facilities charge roughly $68 on average to dispose of one ton of waste. For some plants that process upwards of 2,000 tons of waste a day, this amounts to yearly revenues of more than $20 million.

The domestic and international trash market is larger now than it has ever been. Seven Mobros-worth of trash—more than 23,000

For the business-minded, the dollar signs look appealing. But like all energy sources, WTE must be weighed for its environmental and

social tolls. The net benefit of moving trash around the world depends on who you choose to believe, which reports you read, and what values you hold. Ask an Oslo WTE plant owner or a ranking official of a leading WTE company in North America, for example, and you’ll hear that moving and burning garbage is a great way to process waste and generate electricity—and they’ll have research to prove it, too. Furthermore, some municipalities like New York have virtually exhausted their landfill space, and so they have no option but to export their trash. This is great, WTE supporters argue, because other places, especially in Northern Europe, need more trash than they produce domestically to power their schools, homes, and offices. To quiet worries about the environmental toll of burning garbage, WTE plant owners mention that their facilities generate 20 percent of all renewable energy in the U.S., minimize the volume of trash that is sent to landfills by more than 90 percent, and receive praise from the EPA for taking care not to pollute the air. Ask an environmentalist or humanitarian, however, and you’ll hear a similarly convincing argument for why moving and burning garbage is far from ideal. Many environmental leaders criticize the WTE industry for focusing on burning trash rather than reducing its creation to begin with. Some say this attitude encourages the production of waste. “There is pressure to produce more and more waste, as long as there is this overcapacity,” the chairman of a Norwegian environmental group explained. But in detailing what they see as the horrors of the trash trade, these activists don’t stop at the environmental toll. In 1986, the cargo ship Khian Sea left Philadelphia with 15,000 tons of incinerated trash, but its cargo was rejected by eight countries over the course of 16 months. Fed up, the crew dumped 4,000 tons of its load in Haiti, where officials welcomed what they were told was topsoil fertilizer. But the lead-contaminated

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons garbage was far from topsoil fertilizer. To top it off, while Haitian workers buried the load and officials sought justice, the Khian Sea dumped the rest of its toxic load into the Atlantic Ocean. If you’re thinking, “but that was in 1986; That sort of thing would never happen today,” then consider these timelier cases—in 2006, 17 Ivorians died and 30,000 were sickened when a Dutch ship dumped more than 500 tons of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast’s largest city. In 2009, almost 1,500 tons of British household trash were sent to Brazil disguised as recyclable plastic. Around the same time, an American shipping container filled with rotting paint cans was illegally dumped in Nigeria. Call it cruel, selfish, or barbaric, but the injustice committed against the people of the developing world (and against the Atlantic Ocean) has a name: toxic colonialism. Dr. Zada Lipman, an Australian professor of environmental law, defined it as when “underdeveloped states are used as inexpensive alternatives for the export or disposal of hazardous waste pollution by developed states.” Searching for the causes of toxic colonialism, T.V. Reed, an environmental

justice professor at Washington State University, reasoned that “the colonizing process that labeled some people ‘primitive,’ ‘under-developed,’ and ‘inferior’ [has] justified, rationalized, and enabled degradation of the land.” But according to Lawrence Summers, the former chief economist of the World Bank, there’s nothing wrong with dumping waste in the developing world. He offered this justification for “toxic colonialism”: “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. [Any] healthimpairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages.” In other words, throwing stuff away in poor countries is cheap, and the people who live there don’t really care about pollution and disease, so let’s do it.(one academic noted that Summers and the World Bank has since withdrawn the statement.) More than 180 countries are parties to the Basel Convention, a 1992 United Nations treaty drafted to deter toxic colonialism. Not included is the world’s biggest producer of

waste—the United States “We’ll be grappling with that in this administration,” one State Department official told the New York Times in 2009, a few months into President Obama’s first term. Now in 2015, the issue has not received much attention. Ultimately, like with so many other issues, it comes down to the the money side or the humanitarian side. Maybe you’re like Harrelson, who in 2013 said of the WTE industry, “I thought it was a very good idea, and still do!” Or maybe you’re someone who, unlike the former vice president of the World Bank, thinks developing countries need the developed world’s help—not its trash. No matter which side you’re on, who you choose to believe, or what values you hold, one thing is clear: The words “migration” and “movement” no longer just refer to humans; they belong to our trash, too.

Dan is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at dan.sicorsky@wustl.edu.

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

“True” Singaporeans Kwok Hao Lee

here is no one “true” Singaporean, just as there is no one “true” American, but the changing face of the Chinese-majority city-state came under intense scrutiny in the General Elections held on September 11. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), espousing mostly conservative social and economic policies, sought to defend the supermajority of seats they held in the country’s unicameral parliament against a rising tide of opposition vitriol. Luckily for the PAP, aided by high emotions from the country’s 50th anniversary and empathy for the passing of the founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, their candidates won all but six seats in parliament. Despite the overwhelming support for the ruling party, opposition parties did not let go of the issue of unchecked immigration. In a rally held on September 3, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary-General of the center-left Singapore Democratic Party, lambasted the PAP for Singapore’s high cost of living. In particular, he blamed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Kuan Yew’s son, for attracting the super-rich to Singapore by rewriting the Banking Act in his capacity as Finance Minister in 2001. “The massive inflow of foreign capital pushed prices up,” he said. “At the same time, the PAP opened the floodgates, and imported en masse cheap foreign labor… [pushing] wages down.”

needed to engage foreign workers from such countries as Malaysia and the Philippines to do such jobs. Few Singaporeans are willing to work under the midday sun in 93ºF weather; taking their place are poorly paid Chinese and Bangladeshi workers. These transient workers are often deprived of adequate nutrition and living space. In particular, their contractors often confiscate their passports at the start of their stint in Singapore, making it difficult for them to leave the country or seek help when they are mistreated.

Perhaps the PAP has done the right things for now to defuse its immigration time bomb, but many analysts are still cautious about their optimism for the ruling party.

Unfortunately, Dr. Chee’s impassioned speech does not tell the full story. Singapore’s status as an industrial and financial hub is heavily reliant on the influx of capital and talent from all over the world. Many multinational companies are based there, attracted by Singapore’s low income taxes and generous corporate tax rebates. Thus, many foreign professionals take up residence, or even citizenship, in Singapore. In fact, Singapore was the domicile of choice for Eduardo Saverin, a Facebook co-founder seeking to reduce his tax burden.

Another result of the influx of foreign talent and laborers is that the added commuters have exacerbated the strain on the city-state’s aging public transport infrastructure. In December 2011, train services were repeatedly disrupted on the North South Line (NSL), an old trunk metro line linking the financial district to the northern part of Singapore. Frustrated by packed metro trains filled with foreigners and increasingly frequent train breakdowns, commuters lashed out at the Ministry of Transport and SMRT Corporation, the NSL operator.

Moreover, the government has always maintained its stance on foreign labor: if there had been more Singaporeans willing to go into the construction, cleaning, and service industries, the government would not have

The PAP government, beset with transportation woes and shellacked in the May 2011 election (losing a significant bloc of parliamentary seats), was quick to respond by shifting to the left. Rather than curtail the influx of immigrants

and foreign workers, in 2014, the government launched a Pioneer Generation Package, heavily subsidizing healthcare costs for 450,000 Singaporeans aged 65 and above. Moreover, the government revamped the national insurance scheme, now called Medishield Life, to provide “better protection and higher payouts” to reduce out-of-pocket costs for large hospital bills. In addition, single mothers would soon benefit from more equal access to maternity leave and tax rebates. Perhaps the PAP has done the right things for now to alleviate the discontent of many Singaporeans towards foreign labor. Many analysts, though, are still cautious about their optimism for the ruling party. Yoong Ren Yan, a second-year Masters student at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, wrote for The Middle Ground: “To me, a swing this large can only mean this: the Singaporean swing voter is persuaded by reform… But the PAP would do well to note what the mandate is for: a more responsive, caring [government]. They have no ‘blank cheque,’ even if they’ve done better than most were expecting.” Even as Eduardo Saverin celebrates the electoral victory from the balcony of his penthouse, he has every reason to be concerned about his country’s future.

Kwok Hao Lee is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at kwokhao@wustl.edu.

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

St Louis’ Legacy as an Asylum for Refugees Ellen Birch

ne winter afternoon in 1995, fifteen and a half-year-old Hedija went down to the river by her house to do her family’s washing. Like other rural Bosnians, she always did her laundry by hand. Hedija’s baby was by her side when, suddenly, she heard the noise of a bomb falling overhead. She knew from it’s sound that it had fallen nearby—a whistling indicated that the bomb had gone by and she was safe, while booming meant that it was dangerously close. “So I was looking for the bomb, and I saw it— the big bomb. And I just thought oh my gosh.” Turning inside, Hedija saw that the explosive had fallen inside her kitchen. “I went back and I opened the kitchen cabinet and I just started to… You know, you’re in shock, and your baby’s right there…”

may be unaware of this significant event that changed both the city and our campus. The presence of Bosnian refugees is especially strong on the South 40, where over half of the housekeeping staff is from Bosnia. Though Hedija is now one such member of Wash U’s housekeeping staff, she lived in the mid-sized city of Goražde between 1992 and 1995. Aged twelve at the breakout of war, she says that every Bosnian family was touched by the violence. “We were okay, me and my siblings. But [my cousin] got killed. He was just driving a bike. He was the sweetest person ever. He wouldn’t kill an ant.” Hedija’s cousin was killed at a post office one city over when he left Goražde to pick up legal papers for his brother. Hedija remembers the morning that he left. “He had just had a little baby. He was sitting on

The influx of refugees to the city has stabilized neighborhoods, led to the creation of new businesses, and enriched the city’s culture. Still holding a piece of clothing from her laundry, Hedija looked down and saw that the garment had been ripped in the course of the bomb’s flight. The bomb had crossed her porch, destroying its wooden railing and passing close enough to Hedija to graze her leg, before coming to a rest inside the kitchen cabinet. Hedija now forms part of St. Louis’ prominent community of Bosnian refugees. Mainly concentrated in the Bevo Mill neighborhood in south St. Louis, colloquially known as “Little Bosnia,” the Bosnian-American population surpassed 70,000 in 2013, making the city home to the largest concentration of Bosnians outside of Europe. The influx of Bosnians began twenty years ago, during the country’s bloody 1992-1995 civil war. Most St. Louis Bosnians belong to the Bosniak ethnic group, a majorityMuslim community that bore the brunt of the war’s violence. Two decades after the war and subsequent migration, many Wash U students

the floor. And he said ‘I don’t want to go’ and his mother said ‘but you have to go.’ She was covered, and he’d mess up her headscarf. She said ‘stop!’ and she’d hit him.” Hedija mimed an affectionate swat. His baby had been lying in a cradle. “He took the whole cradle in his arms with his daughter—he didn’t want to leave. And he left and he never came back.” After the civil war, Bosnia remained in disarray. Widespread destruction led Hedija and thousands of other Bosnians to leave the country, searching for better jobs and greater stability. “They kept saying it was safe, but it still wasn’t safe, you know, because the Serbs took all the hills in Bosnia. They could see everything, and they bombed mosques, they bombed schools, they bombed ambulances.” Both Hedija and her colleague Amira, who help maintain Lee-Beaumont residential college, entered the U.S. via Germany after applying to be accepted as refugees. Hedija was sent

to St. Louis as part of her refugee program, while Amira came because her sister already lived in the area. In the early 1990s, the federal government selected St. Louis to be the primary American city to receive Bosnian refugees. According to Patrick McCarthy of Saint Louis University, the city was an ideal destination because of its good housing stock and the availability of non-language-based jobs. Though the assimilation of refugees into the community was rapid and rocky, many feel that the results have been overwhelmingly positive. In his book Ethnic St. Louis, McCarthy argues that the influx of refugees to the city has stabilized neighborhoods, led to the creation of new businesses and has enriched the city’s culture. When asked in an interview with Fox 2 News in the Morning whether the Bosnian refugee crisis of the ‘90s had parallels with the current situation in Syria, McCarthy argued that the issues were “more similar than different.” In both cases, the refugees were in desperate need of asylum. He and hundreds of other St. Louisans believe that the acceptance of Syrian refugees to the city can yield equally positive results if they are welcomed with effort and commitment. In a rally on September 13, hundreds of people protested the unreasonably low cap on refugees that will be accepted into the area, asserting that the city of St. Louis has the resources to accept at least 60,000 Syrians. According to McCarthy, the success of the Bosnian assimilation “says something very good about St Louis and about the Bosnians who came here.”

Ellen is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at ellen.birch@wustl.edu.

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

Is it Really About Economics? The EU and Freedom of Movement Tomek Cebrat

ny political debate in modern Britain is inevitably turning into a litany of issues caused by immigration. The recent race to Labour Party leadership, following Ed Miliband’s resignation after he lost the general election last May, was no exception. From the four candidates, hundreds of thousands of Labour’s members and supporters could hear about problems ranging from foreign worker exploitation to decreasing wages for unskilled British workers to the right for immigrants to receive social benefits. The now-famous catchphrase of one of the contenders, that immigrants’ “freedom to work is not the same as freedom to claim,” does indeed suggest that the Labour Party is at a crossroads. Labour members’ acceptance of these immigration issues in their discourse seems to be in line with the party’s position as the political force of British working people, who are seen to be most negatively affected by immigration. It also, however, conflicts with principles of internationalism, which led the government to open borders to Poles and other Eastern European nationals when their countries entered the European Union in 2004.

Immigration is a problem… but not for British workers? We should not be fooled; although the immigrants are mostly unskilled workers, the pressure on the Labour party to discuss controls on immigration did not come from British trade unions. The anti-European and anti-immigration sentiment has been growing since Margaret Thatcher’s tenure on the conservative side of British politics. Ironically, the belief that the stereotype of a ‘Polish immigrant robbing British workers,’ reflects the huge share of the Polish nation in British immigrant population, has a thoroughly nationalist, right-wing character. It contributes little to the debate about the economy, to which immigrants make a net positive contribution. It does, however,

strengthen dangerous national feelings both in immigrant and welcoming nations, makes the “Brexit” (British exit from EU) look like a real possibility, and undermines the appeal of Labour’s traditional values of internationalist social democracy. The distribution of the results of the May 2015 general election across the United Kingdom indicates that these anti-immigration arguments are limited to right-wing voters, concerned with national identity rather than welfare. While Labour remains the main pro-EU and pro-immigration party, it won by huge margins in working-class areas with high immigration, despite the fact that immigrants are generally not entitled to vote. In areas like East Ham in Eastern London, Labour received 77.6 percent of vote, leaving Eurosceptic Conservative Party (which won the election on the national scale) and radically antiimmigration United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) far behind. Notably, just before the election, the Financial Times published a report showing that Labour voters, if they receive higher education at all, are more likely make careers in teaching or social work, thus making the Labour Party the force of ‘employees.’ The Conservatives, meanwhile, attract those working in management, banking or consulting—‘employers’. And paradoxically the latter, who would potentially benefit from a cheap workforce much more than the former, are voting for the Eurosceptic Conservatives on the basis on their more free-market policy. The Labour and Conservative sides alike give little dynamism to parties in solving this paradox.

Would a Eurosceptic Labour get even more votes? The wing of British media that targets Eurosceptic and anti-immigration readers might claim that the British political system is becoming obsolete. From this perspective,

UKIP is an opportunity for the working people, who would not vote for the Conservatives due to their pro-austerity economics and who are disillusioned with Labour’s support of immigration. An editor of The Spectator, a Eurosceptic British magazine, claims that new UKIP voters “are coming from those areas of the country where mass immigration of largely unskilled labourers and agricultural workers has had its most deleterious effects on the wages of local people.” To his credit, the UKIP won its single parliamentary seat in Clacton and its vote share rose in the 2014 European Parliament Election and the 2015 General Election in some areas that have recently seen high immigration. Nonetheless, counterexamples dominate on national scale. Most strikingly, in the Western city of Lancaster, which has seen one of the higher rates of immigration in past years, Labour took a seat earlier held by Conservatives, and any rise in UKIP vote share was at the expense of the Conservatives. The Labour Party thus still gets broad support in its ideological, internationalist approach to social democracy. Championing the cause of British working people can and should go in tandem with support for immigration and Britain’s presence in the European Union, and the recent Labour leadership contest was the ultimate proof of this. When it began in May, few expected Jeremy Corbyn, identified with far-left of the Party, to gain any significant share of votes. Over the following months, he campaigned with policies of scrapping university tuition fees at public institutions, introducing a 75 percent top tax rate and… support for mass immigration. These ideas would give a headache to anyone trying to decide whether to call him a radical ideologue or a radical populist, but in the end, 59.5 percent of Labour Party members voted for him. Three other candidates, more moderate on economic issues and more skeptical of immigration, were left far behind. Apparently,

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

there was no need for an economically left-wing and anti-immigration candidate to emerge; traditional, pro-immigration Labour is far from obsolete.

Stereotyping, defense, and the lost reason Economic logic may not explain British politicians’ concern with immigration; however, involvement of all parties in this political debate is inevitable today as British citizens and immigrants have entered a vicious circle of mutual accusations and stereotyping. It is much more than mere figures that shape the view on immigration in Britain, as a study conducted on 6000 British children earlier this year revealed. Most strikingly, when asked to estimate the percentage of UK residents who were born abroad, the average estimate was among study participants was 47 percent, nearly four times the actual figure of 13 percent. Sixty percent of these young people believe that immigrants and asylum seekers are “stealing” their jobs. By the time they become voters, they may review their numbers about the scale of immigration. Nonetheless, their perspective on immigration will have already been shaped. While they may adopt economic language in pressuring their political leaders, they will often not come from the working classes, which would claim to suffer most from immigration, and in fact be driven by hugely irrational sentiments. We already observe that increasing numbers of people and political groups, which used to be open to both sides of the argument about immigrants, are becoming deaf to the economic defense of the masses of less skilled laborers. There is no reason to think that this trend will soon change for better. The immigrants, on their part, are obviously aware of those underlying sentiments. Among newcomers from Europe, the Poles, who now number well over half a million in the UK, form a particularly strong group with a developed immigrant identity. They know they come from a country perceived positively by only 30 percent of Britons according to YouGov’s 2014 Poll of Poles. They internalize the stereotype of the Polish immigrant who steals British jobs and

robs the British budget of social benefits. When over a month ago they organized a strike and donated blood to the British National Health Service, it could be seen as a desperate move to defend their contribution to the British economy and combat the misleading and irrational antiimmigration debate.

Ironically, the belief that the stereotype of a ‘Polish immigrant robbing British workers,’ reflects the huge share of the Polish nation in British immigrant population, has a thoroughly national, right-wing character. It contributes little to debate about the economy, to which immigrants make a net positive contribution. When he was chosen to be the President of the European Council, it was sensible for Donald Tusk, the former Polish Prime Minister, to say, “I come here from a country which deeply believes in the sense of a united Europe.” Thanks to membership in the EU, Poland has seen a great influx of European funds, constant economic growth, and decreases in unemployment and economic inequalities. Moreover, Polish workers could earn greater sums of money abroad and bring them to

families in Poland. However, the conflict between Polish patriotism and economic prospect of emigration to a country when they would feel unwelcome caused many young Poles to reject this logic in their political decisions. In the 2014 European Parliament election, the party of Janusz Korwin-Mikke, who compares the EU to Third Reich, got nearly 30 percent of young peoples’ votes. In the presidential election next year, Paweł Kukiz, who calls mass emigration the “extermination of Polishness” got 40 percent of the young vote. While their support remains limited on a national scale, these numbers show that even Poland is becoming less able to stand up against the British anti-immigration sentiment and the prospect of a “Brexit”. The United Kingdom and Poland are just two countries which, through membership in the European Union, have come to be more interconnected than ever before. Robert Schuman, one of the fathers of united Europe, outlined in his famous declaration of 1950 that both countries hugely benefit from unification. Yet, contrary to his vision, solidarity between the people is fading. Today we hear much too often that European leaders will have to work with David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, to fix the EU before the UK decides to leave it. Yes, some economic issues must be addressed. But those of us who believe in the sense of united Europe and its role to play in bringing security, solidarity, equality and economic growth have a responsibility as well. We should spread this belief before Europeans lose themselves and lose Europe in a debate which too often only seems to result from economic considerations.

Tomek Cebrat is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at tcebrat@wustl.edu.

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

International Humans of WUSTL U Peri Feldstein | Infographic by Nikolai Laba nless you’re one of the few who is actually

“Well to start, I don’t consider myself an

from St. Louis, you technically “migrated”

international student. Puerto Rico is a US

to attend Wash U. While we’re taking

territory, but everyone here seems to think

the time to discuss migration on a national

I’m international. Its not like I had to get a visa

and international scale, it seems wrong not to

to come here though, Puerto Ricans have US

discuss the processes of migration to our own

passports. People don’t even know where Puerto

campus, especially for those who must take an

Rico is let alone that it’s technically part of

international flight to Lambert Airport. Wash U

the US. We don’t get to vote for the president,

is lucky to have such a diverse student body and

but the president gets to dictate what we do.

this photojournalism essay intends to showcase

We have a representative in DC, a non-voting

that through the migration of four International

Commissioner position, but we don’t have a vote

Humans of WUSTL.

in Congress yet. When people here find out that I’m from Puerto Rico, they always ask if my family is from there, probably because I don’t really look like your stereotypical Latina. It’s pretty weird for me because in Puerto Rico when I go places, people automatically speak to me in English just because I look so American. I always answer in Spanish just to prove a point. Here it’s the same. There’s definitely a language barrier a little, but I spoke English at home, and this isn’t as different as you think it would be for me. That being said, I went to an American school, and it might be different if instead I’d been through the Puerto Rican public school system. You can get a better education in the States than you would at a Puerto Rican university, so most of my school came to study in the States. It’s no different for me to come and study here than it is for any of you. When my dad came to the States for university, he had to take the TOEFL, but now that’s not the case anymore. We’re considered domestic applicants.”

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

“Because I was born in the US, there was always

RITA: “America has the most complicated

this interior motive to come back at some point.

application system, and I think it’s better than the

I went to elementary school in London and then

Chinese one. Our school had a quite complete

middle school in Istanbul, and neither ever felt

platform to abroad for college, so this might be

like the right place for me—there was always this

another reason why we came to America. All

culture clash. When it came to where I would

students who want to go to America have to

go for University, it was really up to me, and in

take SATs and TOEFL tests. After taking those,

the end, the US was the right decision, to come

we have to go through the applications just like

back to a place I longed for and felt I wasn’t a

American applicants do. Then you have to get a

part of anymore. I didn’t even think about Europe,

visa in Shanghai. It took me almost a week to get

definitely not about Turkey. The US has always

my visa. We packed pretty simply compared to

been a culture I’m more comfortable in. I’m used

Americans, and we don’t have any decorations

to Turkey though, and adjusting is hard. The

in our room because of packing limits on the

weirdest thing has been the traffic here. In Turkey,

long flights. We saw Americans with trucks full

if you step into the street, you’re as good as dead,

of stuff—I just had my suitcases. I didn’t bring a

but here, when I cross Shepley to get back to my

lot of traditional Chinese things either, just my

dorm for example, people stop for you. And in

herbal medicines. I’m not sure if after college I’ll

Turkey we greet each other by kissing on both

stay in America. I think I want to stay abroad, but

cheeks, but you definitely wouldn’t do that here.

not necessarily in the US.”

You’re less intimate in the US.

GRACE: “In China, getting into college is really

And breakfast has been the worst. In Turkey it’s

hard, but once you’re in, it’s a quite easy life. No

a huge meal with tomatoes, cucumbers, lots of

one even goes to classes, they just stay in their

eggs, meats, breads... but here people try and

rooms and play video games. I came to America

pass it off with a croissant or a bagel or just

because I don’t want to give myself a life without

coffee, sometimes nothing, and I can’t do that.

pressure in these precious four years. Half of my

So in terms of meal points, us Turkish students

school went abroad.”

are way over.

RITA: “Our college entrance exam is super

My roommate is from Chicago. I called him

selective. Because of our huge population in

yesterday to ask if he wanted to grab dinner

China, for most average students from traditional

with me in BD and he was like “Yo dude, I’m

Chinese high schools, the only way to get into

at the train station, I’m heading home for the

college is to pass those examinations. If they

weekend.”He went home to go see his girlfriend,

want anything better, or to leave China for

connect with his family... its easy for them. I’m an

University, they need to study harder, so maybe

eight hour flight away, I can’t do that. I’ve been

thats why most foreigners think of their Chinese

trying to set up a time to Skype for weeks, and

students as super scholars.”

I think tonight’s the night we’ll hopefully get it to work, but they’re so many hours ahead and it’s really hard to find a time to talk. They go to sleep, I’m awake. I go to sleep, they’re awake. I go to bed around three AM because I’m up talking to my Turkish friends until I realize, like, shoot, I have class tomorrow.”

GRACE: “People in front of you smile at you and hold doors, and if you did that in China it would be super weird. People work hard and play hard, in China you pick one.” RITA: “We also have a lot of different habits compared to American students. Like for example, tiny details, you guys love to drink ice water, even in the winter! And I can’t take that. I think American students are more open, nicer. It’s easier to make friends here. For now, there’s a language barrier and we’ve been sticking together, but I think that’ll change as we get used to it.”

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

The Ins and Outs of Smuggling Syrian Refugees Alex Petri

afety is a priceless commodity. But Syrian migrants paying an average of 2500 euros ($2840) to be smuggled into European nations at great risk to themselves would argue otherwise. Since its start in 2011, the Syrian Civil War has displaced over 7.6 million of the nation’s citizens. Originally, many refugees fled to neighboring nations in the Middle East, notably Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. However, Lebanon has closed its borders and Turkey will only grant temporary protection to refugees, while overcrowded camps in Iraq and Jordan have left those countries unable to accept more refugees. The Syrian refugee crisis continues to be an international issue as the United States and other non-European nations have taken steps towards extending asylum offers to refugees. Meanwhile, European nations have conducted an exhaustive search for means to help refugee programs handle the massive influx of asylum-seeking refugees pouring through their borders. German borders have flooded with the highest number of refugees, and the country has received nearly 109,000 asylum applications as of August 2015, according to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Nations like France will have no worry, as refugees fear migrating there and becoming victims of the strong Islamophobic sentiment they have heard permeates the country. But for Germany and other more welcoming countries, maintaining both border security and refugee well-being will prove a difficult task financially. On the other hand, unreceptive neighbor countries will hope the recent 230 million euros the EU invested in researching methods to hinder illegal immigration will prove successful in deterring refugees who are considering crossing borders. European nations have spent

a further 995 million euros on border security since 1999, and so it has been a tumultuous fight to compete against human traffickers constantly creating unique and innovative routes and methods to smuggle aliens. In late September, the EU announced it’s donation of $1.1 billion to UN agencies for the aid of Jordan, Iraq, and more Middle Eastern nations accommodating refugees. They will hope to take some of the burden off of EU member states by helping Jordan and Iraq better handle their own refugee population, better equipping them to house more as the need arises. These figures pale in comparison to the revenue that human trafficking generates in Europe, partly due to migrants desperately searching for safety from turmoil in their homeland. European trafficking industry revenue exceeded 16 billion euros between 2000 and 2015 according to The Migrant Files, a premiere online database ran by international journalists fighting human trafficking. The media has caught on to the issue as well, and migrant deaths resulting from the actions of careless smugglers make international headlines. Nations are scrambling to combat the smuggling industry and raise awareness about the issue.

is more than double the average pre-conflict yearly salary in Syria. Even before the civil war, Syria’s economy had been in shambles after a drought wiped out 75 percent of crops and killed 85 percent of the nation’s livestock. Millions of citizens relying on agriculture for income were forced to abandon their past lives and start anew, only to do so once more during the civil war. For wealthier citizens who can afford to charter a plane, the likelihood of successfully finding asylum in a European nation is higher despite a far more intricate operation. First, wealthier prospective migrants must book a hotel room near the Turkey border or even in Turkey. Near an airport, they wait for an opportune time to board a flight. (Some reports describe migrants crawling through underground tunnels to get to Turkey or the airport.) As the time draws near, they are snuck onto a chartered flight. If they are caught, they will lose 10,000 euros, but the extra money typically ensures the smugglers can bribe all officials involved and forge necessary documents.

According to The Migrant Files, for 700 euros, a Syrian migrant can be placed in the cargo hold of a ship headed to Europe, similar to what the 84 people who died in a capsized boat off the coast of Zuwara, Libya in late August may have experienced. Meanwhile, spending close to 2000 euros will fetch a place on the upper deck of that ship, complete with fake documents and a possibly comfortable voyage to Europe.

Travelling by boat is a cheap and efficient method of smuggling, but the refugees doing this take a greater risk than those who charter private flights. Those who can only afford the 2000 euro option risk finding themselves back in their homeland, as naval ships patrolling the Mediterranean have demonstrated adeptness in capturing boats. Already poor migrants caught by authorities would find themselves out of a significant amount of money; they would not be able to afford the journey again unless they secured work, a difficult task in today’s ravaged Syria.

More expensive and comfortable options also exist; if a refugee can find his or her way into Turkey, for example, for 10,000 euros he can purchase a private plane ticket to a number of European destinations. 10,000 euros, though,

Moreover, those paying 700 euros face similar issues, but the trip comes with an added danger on the ticket—death. In early August, the Greek Naval Service reported rescuing 21 passengers in a small boat departing from

THE TRIP TO EUROPE

political review | MIGRATIONS AND MOVEMENT

Turkey. The smuggler had attempted to escape authorities by capsizing the boat and leaving the passengers to drown, but officials captured him before he could escape. Smugglers treat the refugees just like any other commodity, much like they would treat a bundle of heroin they could stuff in the hull of a boat travelling to Europe. The 71 refugees found suffocated in the back of a truck in late August are another example. Ultimately, the UNHCR reports that 2,500 migrants have drowned this year, including Alan Kurdi, a Syrian boy who washed up on a Turkish beach in early September.

by boat or bus must deal with locating drivers and bribing border patrol employees. With all of these fixed costs, tragedies involving drowning or suffocation, while still unsympathetic and cruel, become understandable within the business context. In the eyes of smugglers, they are offering a product, and the consumers understand the risks associated with the product. Yet the smuggling market makes it easy to maximize profit, which is in fact very simple to accomplish once a prospective smuggler

Already poor migrants caught by authorities would find themselves out of a significant amount of money, enough to where they would not be able to afford the journey again unless they secured work, a difficult task in today’s ravished Syrian landscape. THE INS AND OUTS OF THE SMUGGLING INDUSTRY How then,, does the massive influx of Syrian refugees play into these smugglers’ hands? What has led to the exorbitant death toll of migrants that grows each week? The business of smuggling humans entails a variety of costs. An individual being smuggled from one country to another must have proper clothes, obtain documentation of citizenship to either the destination country or another EU nation, pay transportation costs, and, possibly, cover comfort costs for items such as food and water. Traffickers, additionally, often have to bribe a number of people to make their operation work. This bribery understandably becomes more complex as the business grows larger. A 10,000-euro flight from Turkey will involve bribing entire airline crews and a pilot, while refugees paying 700 euro to be smuggled

meets all startup costs. The marginal cost of smuggling refugees is consistently low until a maximum capacity is reached for a voyage. Each smuggler has the maximum number of people he or she can traffic on the established means of transportation, and each additional person before that maximum number is additional profit. The marginal cost of trafficking another load full of refugees is higher, due to the need to charter an additional unit of transportation, and this leads to smugglers attempting to add as many extra passengers as possible on one boat. Furthermore, operating too many boats either increases the likelihood of a route being found or the need to set up new routes, which becomes unnecessarily costly. The only challenge left after recruiting migrants is transporting them while evading law enforcement.

EUROPE’S OPTIONS Europe is at a disadvantage. At high levels of business, a trafficker generally chooses to halt operations temporarily because of the capital and time it takes to establish new smuggling routes. Traffickers, therefore, do not take on too much business at one time. There are, at any point in time, thousands of separate networks smuggling persons, which makes it nearly impossible to shut down the business completely. Smugglers learn to weave in and out of the business. Muammer Küçük, a high profile smuggler, has successfully evaded international authorities for this very reason, despite the 77 capsized ships reported to be under his operation. European Union nations face a difficult task. Should they allocate funds primarily to nations accepting refugees and allow illegal immigration to continue, or should they allow illegal immigration to continue and leave nations like Germany to face the refugee crisis themselves? Or might they divide the money evenly and risk underfunding both projects? Relying on current security measures and asking other nations around the world to accept refugees will only help so much.

Alex Petri is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at alexpetri@wustl.edu.

political review | national

A Day Late and A Shell Short I Alex Mines

n his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961, then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term “militaryindustrial complex,” referring to the intertwining of legislative, military, and defense industry interests that manage the development, production, acquisition, and distribution of America’s military equipment and armaments. In the early 1960s, the US military industrial complex was a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to World War II, US military spending languished at relatively low levels during times of peace, leaped during wars, and then declined just as rapidly at the signing of peace accords. After World War II, however, America faced a new combination of bloody wars in Asia, a mighty global adversary in the Soviet Union, and a more rapid pace of technological development that demanded quicker military innovation. The role of “protector of the free world” was assumed by America, and protecting the free world from the incessant communist menace demanded constant military preparedness and rapid technological advancement. Military spending did not decline to tiny fractions of national GDP after World War II like it had after previous wars, but instead leveled off at around ten percent. With this increase and the new emphasis not only on preparedness, but on technological improvement as well, came a dramatic rise in the peacetime military-industrial complex, the supposed dream team of industrial and military innovators tasked with keeping America’s warriors better armed than the Soviets. Tellingly, Eisenhower coined the phrase in the context of a warning, telling Americans that “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.” A half century after Eisenhower’s warning, the US military-industrial complex is dysfunctional. Weapons systems arrive later and are less capable than expected , and come at a higher cost. Once deployed, they consistently require

extensive modifications as they encounter problems not anticipated by the manufacturers, driving up costs and delaying capabilities. Several projects in the past few years have highlighted these issues. The F-35 stealth fighter that was to form the centerpiece of America’s future air force is twice as expensive and less capable in every aspect of combat aircraft performance than originally planed. Additionally, it faces an uncertain role, as new drones and precision munitions can now execute the ground strikes the fighter was designed for. Crucially, these technological developments could not have been anticipated fifteen years ago when the F-35 was being drawn up. Now, with trillions invested in the program, America cannot back out.

Many military industrial programs over the last few years have resulted in similar outcomes, with projects arriving late, over budget, under armed, and out of touch with evolving combat situations. The F-35 fighter, Littoral Combat Ship, XM-29 rifle, and many other programs have suffered similar fates, ending with disappointing results after receiving ungodly amounts of federal money. These high-end projects suck up attention and resources, with the result that once weapons and equipment are operational, they suffer from development neglect, contributing to disasters like sending unarmored Humvees into Iraq. In a time of relative peace and high national debt, expensive and wasteful military projects are unacceptable. Yet leaving our soldiers without the most capable weapons and equipment in the world is disgraceful and dangerous. Our current militaryindustrial complex fails on both accounts. The root of this failure lies in an obsession with long upgrade cycles for weapons and equipment. Over the past fifty years, the US military-industrial complex has shown a preference for investing in long, futuristic, expensive projects followed by massive procurements. These projects have a high failure rate and a tendency to overpromise and then wildly overcharge while not delivering on their promises. The most striking example is fighter jet procurement programs since the

Korean War. Each generation of aircraft has become exponentially more futuristic and expensive. The problem is, long upgrade cycles achieve certain short-term goals for both the military and the industry. For the military, they provide inspiring technological achievements and create massive (if temporary) capability gaps between the US and competitor nations. For the industrial manufacturers, long upgrade cycles drive profits and functionally free them from many contractual obligations, including delivering on time and under budget. The problem is that long upgrade cycles fail the most important constituents of the militaryindustrial complex: the soldiers who rely on it and the citizens who pay for it. Weapons and equipment are delivered to our military late, incapable of performing as promised, out of touch with current combat reality, and not ready to be integrated into existing infrastructure. Even “successful” programs that do provide the US with massive capability advantages, like the F-22, arrive behind schedule, under performance expectations, and with a long and expensive integration process ahead of them. Once weapons systems are integrated, the military industrial complex moves on to its next futuristic project, largely content that the weapon system it just delivered will remain modern for the next thirty years until it is time for another government-funded project. Unfortunately, other nations that use shorter upgrade cycles than the US often gain capability advantages as a once cutting edge but now outdated US weapons system is not upgraded or replaced in a timely fashion. Advanced Russian fighters can now outmaneuver most American fighters in air-to-air combat, because the Russian military industrial complex invested more in upgrading current aircraft while the American complex invested in entirely new fighters. The nature of combat itself can change, and the long upgrade cycle system, with its extensive planning and illiquid long-term investments, is poor at adapting to new realities. The end result is an inflexible roller coaster of advanced and outdated weapons and equipment.

political review | national

current military, at lower cost and without the political anxiety of setting goals and then failing to meet them. Rapid integration of technological improvements as they come is a critical benefit. When the bullets start flying and Americans start dying, the difference makers are not the CAD renderings of a futuristic jet fighter that will not see flight, let alone combat, for fifteen years. They are the improved ballistic vests, jam-proof rifles, and rolled steel plates that sit on the shelves of civilian gun shops but not in the hands of American soldiers, because procurement officers, politicians, and defense contractors were focused on the future, not the present.

Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

For the taxpayers, the benefits of shorter upgrade cycles are simpler and more obvious. Shorter cycles reduce expensive program failures and increase cost effectiveness of successful programs.Â This increases the efficiency of converting tax dollars to military might, providing citizens with more defense for their dollar.

Long upgrade cycles are not only a disservice to soldiers, they are also a disservice to citizens. They drive up costs by mandating an expensive technological development phase, followed by a long design phase that blends new technology with the realities of warfare, then a massive procurement phase where the new systems are built, tested, and corrected, and finally an integration phase where the systems are incorporated into the active military. All of these phases require obscene amounts of time and money.Â

army and proven in modern combat. That would be a very rare result from a long upgrade cycle aiming at the same goal over the same timeframe. In addition, the military did not wait ten years to receive a sudden influx of better vehicles. The Army began improving transports as soon as the problem was identified.

The answer to this problem is to use shorter, more agile upgrade cycles. This option carries a multitude of advantages. For the military, it provides capability improvements that are less ambitious, but cost less, move faster, create less political angst, and deliver results quicker. Instructively, when the military is faced with an urgent problem, it shifts to this model. When US Humvees in Iraq faced a new style of warfare they were completely unprepared for, the army did not begin a two-decade development cycle for a new infantry transport. They bolted steel plates onto existing Humvees, then purchased existing mine resistant vehicles, then developed new, more advanced ones. Each step provided a small, but rapid and life-saving, improvement over the last. The end result over a ten-year period was a fleet of the most advanced mine resistant infantry transports in the world, fully integrated with the existing

Shifting emphasis in the military industrial complex from long upgrade cycles to short upgrade cycles would level out gaps in operational readiness and smooth adaptation to new combat realities while reducing costs and waste.

Over long periods of time, short and long upgrade cycles usually achieve similar levels of technological progress. Had the military chosen to gradually improve the F-15, a

previous generation fighter jet in the process of being partially replaced, rather than invest in massive technological development leading to the new F-35 fighter, it would have ended up with a highly modified F-15 with comparable fighting prowess to the F-35. Importantly, this increase in US fighter capabilities would have come already integrated into the

Shifting emphasis in the military industrial complex from long upgrade cycles to shorter ones would level out gaps in operational readiness, and smooth adaptation to new combat realities while reducing costs and waste. It is a win-win strategy for the American military-industrial complex in a time of strategic uncertainty and high national debt.

Alex Mines is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at alex.mines@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Where Did The Girls Go? I Grace Portelance

n the United States, women earn well over half of the bachelor’s degrees awarded each year. They represent nearly 50 percent of the workforce. Through extensive STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) programs and heavy encouragement, women’s participation in science and math as a whole (though still far less than their representation in the population) has been on the rise. However, one number remains persistently low: the number of women in computer science. It is the only STEM field that has seen a decline in female participation over the last 10 years. At top research universities like Wash U, females earn only 14 percent of computer science degrees

as a male pursuit, parents bought computers for their sons and dolls for their daughters. This early connection is a crucial factor in isolating women from the field. When I ask my female friends why they haven’t taken a computer science class, they usually respond, “I don’t play video games,” or, “It doesn’t seem like something I’d be good at.” Women, with less exposure to these technologies going into universities, assume that computer science belongs to the 90’s movie geek, the professional gamer, or the boy who hacked Neopets growing up. I for one had never thought about taking any sort of computer science class before college, and no one had ever suggested that I should. Young women

Young women like myself enter college every day without an understanding of what computer science is, and what computer scientists do. Many people assume that women have never been interested in this field, but women were well represented in the teams that pioneered the science. Women like Grace Hopper, Jean Sammet, and the person regarded to be the first programmer ever, Ada Lovelace, worked on teams with other women to invent new programming languages, compilers, security measures, and more. Computer science used to be a woman’s world, with nearly 40 percent of degrees and jobs being held by women in the mid-1980s. So why isn’t computer science seen, like teaching and nursing, as a field for women today? More simply, where did all the girls go? It has been hypothesized that the gendering of computer science began in the 1980s, as personal computers began to be available, and with them came the first video games. Seen

like myself enter college every day without an understanding of what computer science is, and what computer scientists do. It’s not always video games and Star Trek, it’s logic, creativity, design, problem solving, and more. However, the gendering of computer science is a social problem as much as an academic one. Consider the archetype of two children, one male, one female, who grew up loving to use computers. As the boy enters high school, he may be considered ‘geeky,’ but the nerdy white boy is both an accepted personality type and oftenromanticized one. He may not be homecoming king, but he will likely be encouraged to pursue engineering, get a well-paying job, and be considered smart and successful. Young boys (and their families and peers) have the Bill

Gateses and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world to model themselves after. But consider a young girl who enters high school preferring to play on her computer than do ballet or hang out with friends. This girl would draw much more concern, and more pressure to adopt a more social or traditionally feminine lifestyle. Because a woman’s value is so deeply tied to her desirability, women are not encouraged (if not actively discouraged) to pursue a “geeky” lifestyle because it is perceived as less attractive. After all, the image of “nerdy” girls in the media isn’t a clever young programmer, or Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, but cliché teen girls who take off their glasses, let down their hair, and suddenly become worth paying attention to. With these negative assumptions about girls who code, how can we be surprised that only four percent of women entering college intend to major in computer science? If you include only minority women, the numbers drop even more precipitously. Society’s narrow views on 1) what type of person a computer scientist is and 2) what computer scientists do is ultimately the reason why women are so underrepresented in the field. Brilliant women made computer science what it is today, and it cannot progress to its full potential if half of the population believes that it is a space where they don’t belong. Learning computer science doesn’t resign you to a lifetime hunched over a computer in a cubicle papered with Battlestar Galactica posters; it gives people a chance to solve puzzles, develop a wide range of skills, and engage creatively with difficult problems. Computer science needs women as much as women need computer science. It’s time to bring the girls back. Grace is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at grace.portelance@wustl.edu.

Research by Caitlin Lee | Infographic by Nikolai Laba

political review | national

The Real Cost of Free College Tuition Andrew Eichen

ith election season kicking into high gear, the cost of college tuition has become a hot button issue in American politics. Plans for heavily subsidized college tuition have been presented by multiple candidates, making this issue an ever increasing part of the mainstream conversation. At his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Obama advocated for free community college, while more recently Hillary Clinton presented her “no loan” student debt plan. The increase in dialogue surrounding tuition costs is unsurprising, considering the seemingly interminable rise in college tuition since the mid 1980s. To put the numbers in perspective, a tuition of $10,000 in 1986, adjusted for inflation, would now cost the same student around $21,500. Instead, private education today costs an average of $59,800, or over 2.5 times the inflation rate. These tuition increases are not only obscene, but also unsustainable. How much more debt can a graduating senior reasonably incur? The most extreme of the subsidy plans is Bernie Sanders’ free public college tuition plan. Unlike most progressives who have only recently started supporting the concept, Sanders has unwaveringly advocated for free college since his days in the House of Representatives. Considering Sanders has gained substantial traction in the polls, and is slowly emerging as a realistic contender in the Democratic Party, it’s time his plan is put under the same scrutiny reserved for “serious candidates.” Free college tuition not only sounds nice, but also resonates well with the general population. What individual can’t sympathize with a struggling graduate, working long hours to make ends meet, while simultaneously paying off thousands in student loans? Further, increasing the education level of the average citizen certainly does sound like a worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, the idealized concept of “free tuition” is not only taxing on society, but also decisively not free. To quote a popular adage, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Anytime the government offers something for “free,” taxpayers ultimately

Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons pay for it. This is an important concept that is oftentimes lost in the mix of progressive rhetoric. That’s not to say that taxation can’t ever be justified to ease economic burden. Rather, we must remember that federal funds come from working Americans and, therefore, will have an effect on the lives of those taxed, as well as society as a whole. Yet taxation alone isn’t the core issue with the concept of “free education.” Rather, it’s the societal impact that comes as a result of students losing their own financial stake in their education. Students who pay for colleges certainly have a stake in their education. Due to the price of higher education, students would be remiss to float through college and slack off, lest they not receive a return on their investments. Even families who pay for their children’s education are incentivized to monitor their children’s performance and hold them accountable. Making students and families less sensitive to costs in turn makes parents less invested in their child’s education, and less likely to hold him or her accountable for poor performance. Free tuition essentially breeds indifference to a service families aren’t paying

for. Without some modicum of a financial stake in one’s education, there is less incentive to be invested in one’s studies and work hard. What about those who drop out of college? With no personal funds invested in education, students become significantly more likely to drop out after a few semesters. While there may be some tangible societal benefits to having a more educated workforce, few would argue that a student who dropped out after consuming several years’ worth of federally subsidized education aids society in any meaningful way. With regards to employment prospects, dropouts leave college as they entered: degreeless. However, under Sanders’ plan, they would leave society with an added burden of increased debt. Considering the low graduation rates at many four-year universities, free college tuition could serve to heavily tax society while showing little benefit. Shockingly, according to a study by The Education Trust, a non-profit based in D.C., just less than 40 percent of college students complete four-year degrees on time. The news is even worse for public colleges. Complete College America, another nonprofit group based in Indianapolis,

political review | national

finds that just 19 percent of full-time students at public universities earn a bachelor’s degree in four years. Worst of all, a mere 50 of more than 580 public four-year institutions graduate a majority of their full-time students on time— that’s only 8.6 percent. As a result of these low graduation rates, a free college tuition initiative could leave the U.S. with billions in wasted taxpayer dollars. Another crucial issue with Sanders’ tuition plan is the potential overcrowding of colleges. College education, like commerce in general, is based on the allocation of scarce resources. However, without the price of tuition as a means to regulate college education, students would flood the system. Not everyone is qualified for, or should attend, college. Free tuition would encourage many more students to attend college, irrespective of their aspirations or interests. For one, the policy would certainly lead to overcrowding of public universities, and by extension the degradation of the quality of education offered. Paying students, who are deeply invested in their studies, may be placed into overcrowded classes—or worse, get locked out of them. Whatever the result, free tuition would lead to limited capacity at public universities, and in turn, lower-quality public education. Finally, free or subsidized college tuition could lead to the paradoxical problem of a potentially overeducated yet under-qualified workforce. In accordance with the basic principles of supply and demand, a system in which almost everyone has a degree would certainly cheapen the value of one. Just as society today puts little value on high school diplomas due to their abundance in the workforce, the same is destined to happen to a society that gives out college degrees for free. Ultimately, this will only serve to drive more students to grad school, an education level unattainable without the means to pay for it. This leaves the vast majority of the middle class with a degree worth a lot less than it was prior to the implementation of the policy. Sanders often holds up Germany as having the ideal free college tuition program. However.

Germany faces many of the issues outlined above. According to the OECD, or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, only 31 percent of Germans who attend college actually graduate. Moreover, very few of those who graduate do so on time. As a result of free education, many students take up to six years to graduate from a three-year program. The situation is so dire that colleges in Germany have become known for their “dauerstudenten,” or “eternal students.” Even if Sander’s plan removed the four-year graduation requirement in an effort to combat low fouryear graduation rates, it seems that a system where students overstay their welcome by multiple years would be inevitable. Moreover, as referenced above, nothing free is actually free, and no place is this more apparent than the German tax system. While education may

whereby the money comes from taxpayers, passes through the student, and ends up in the pockets of universities. Colleges can continue to raise tuition without the consequence of lower enrollment. Recent increases in federal loans have effectively created an “arms race” among universities to attract potential students. Universities continue to invest in new infrastructure, not because schools need it, but rather because it attracts students. Essentially, the federal government is facilitating universities competing against each other to offer the best amenities. Without federally backed loans, colleges would quickly realize that they are unable to attract many students at exorbitant prices hovering around $60,000. As a result, colleges would be forced to substantially lower tuition to attract middle class students.

The federal loans program effectively has a pass-through effect, whereby the money comes from taxpayers, passes through the student, and ends up in the pockets of universities. come at no immediate cost to the student, society as a whole pays the costs through the increased tax burden. In part due to its education system, Germany has the second highest income tax burden of all of the OECD’s 34 countries. Though Sanders puts Germany’s education system on a pedestal, it’s clear that these subsidies have come with an assortment of drawbacks. If further subsidizing education is not the solution, what is? Surprisingly, the answer given in a recent report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is to end government backed student loans, which have risen over 160 percent in the last decade. According to this report, private colleges raise their tuition 65 cents for every dollar increase in federal subsidized loans. As a result, the Fed’s report concluded that federal loans have resulted in little increase in enrollment. The federal loans program effectively has a pass-through effect,

While Sanders’ plan has a variety of holes, he has been successful at bringing the issue of ever-increasing college tuition to the national stage. As universities continue to add tuition increases of over a thousand dollars each year, something has to be done to ease the burden of education costs. Unfortunately, when there is an issue to be fixed, society immediately jumps at the word “free” without thinking of the consequences. We must, however, realize that when we patch a hole on one side, it inevitably leads to another hole opening elsewhere. As such, the root cause of rising tuition costs must be addressed, since a patchwork solution of merely throwing more money at students will not cure the problem.

Andrew Eichen is a sophomore in the Olin Business School. He can be reached at aeichen@wustl.edu.

YOUR IDEAS HERE WRITE

wupr is always accepting submissions from washington university undergraduateS.

SEND YOUR IDEAS TO EDITOR@WUPR.ORG MEETINGS ON THURSDAYS AT 7PM IN THE PRINT MEDIA STUDIO (3RD FLOOR DUC)

political review | national

DNC Rigs Debates for Clinton Victory Jack Goldberg

he Democratic National Committee (DNC) under chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has decided to hold a total of six primary debates, compared to the Republican’s eleven. The DNC sponsored just as few in 2008, but in previous years the majority of debates were unsanctioned events (sponsored by an organization other than the DNC), which in 2008, together with the DNC debates, added up to 26 debates and forums. This year the DNC instituted for the first time an “exclusivity rule,” under which any candidate who participates in an unsanctioned debate can be barred from all sanctioned debates. Candidates’ fear of exclusion from the sanctioned debates has effectively eliminated unsanctioned debates from the primary season, leaving the American public with far fewer opportunities to get to know the candidates. Debates allow candidates to articulate their views publicly and contrast their beliefs and qualifications with those of their opponents. For candidates faring poorly in the polls, debates are their best chance to gain the support of undecided voters and rise above other candidates. It follows that the tiny number of debates gives a major advantage to current Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Clinton, despite losing ground to the more progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), still holds a substantial lead. Clinton is widely perceived as dishonest, and debates leave her open to a number of awkward questions on her email scandal, the Iraq War, her ties to Wall Street, and her too-recent conversion to the LGBT agenda. Debates improve voters’ familiarity with the candidates, and while Clinton is already almost universally known, Sanders has enormous room for improvement in terms of name recognition. Polls say that a full 96 percent of Sanders’ supporters are voting based on his stances on the issues, which suggests that Sanders might have an easier time stealing votes from Clinton than the reverse. All of this together indicates an attempt by the DNC to hand Clinton the nomination.

Sanders has criticized the debate restrictions and launched a petition to increase the number of debates. Former Maryland Governor and current presidential candidate Martin O’Malley vehemently denounced the schedule as it stands, calling it “rigged” and “undemocratic.” Bill Hyers, strategist for the O’Malley campaign, commented in a CBS interview: “The schedule they have proposed does not give voters— nationally, and especially in the early primary states—ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process.”

Was it? I could be wrong, but I think that any candidate so weak as to be hurt by a few extra debates isn’t strong enough to win the general election. There’s no excuse for debate dates that minimize the ability of the public to watch the debates and vote accordingly. The nation deserves a better look at the candidates than six debates will provide. The O’Malley campaign is right: “The debate schedule is rigged to ensure a Clinton coronation as opposed to a genuinely democratic nomination, and that’s nothing short of despicable. A final quote from Wasserman-Schultz, when she was asked back by the Sun-Sentinel in April about her capacity to remain neutral as DNC chair:

The debate schedule is rigged to ensure a Clinton coronation as opposed to a genuine democratic process… Two of the debate dates also raise some questions. The first debate, on October 13, took place just after the deadline for voter registration in New York, which means that anybody in the state not already registered as a Democrat, even if they were impressed by a certain candidate, will not be able to vote for that candidate in the Democratic primary. The third debate is scheduled for December 19, the week before Christmas, when watching a primary debate is one of the last things on peoples’ minds, and viewership is certain to be low. Despite growing resistance from voters, candidates, and even two vice-chairs of the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz has closed the door to adding debates or removing the exclusivity rule. A rare defense of Wasserman-Schultz’s decision comes from former DNC chair Donald Fowler, who argued in a recent editorial, “The current schedule was structured to put the Democratic nominee…in the best position to win next November.”

“Secretary Clinton, I think is arguably one of the most qualified people…who have ever run for president. I was proud to support her in 2008. Of course as DNC chair, I will neutrally manage our primary nomination contest, assuming we have one. Secretary Clinton’s candidacy is another step of progress for women and for my daughters…. [T]his is something that I’m very proud to be able to point to when she announces her candidacy – but I say that neutrally, because I will be neutral during the primary. But Secretary Clinton’s a very special, a special leader and a special woman.”

Jack Goldberg is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jackgoldberg@wustl.edu

political review | national

Sanctuary Cities Max Handler

he left is currently in an uproar over the case of Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple as an act of civil disobedience. Critics have rightly pointed out that as an employee of the government, Davis has no right to deny licenses based on her own beliefs. She is an agent of the government and thus must enforce the rules of the government, even if she disagrees with them. What many people do not realize is that there are many more public officials just like Kim Davis all across the country. In fact, there are entire cities that similarly choose to ignore federal laws: sanctuary cities. These cities refuse to abide by federal immigration laws, ignoring the federal government and taking immigration into their own hands. Sanctuary cities, as defined by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), “protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents.” According to CIS, there are over 200 city, county, and state governments in the U.S. that meet this definition.

They are essentially justifying allowing government employees to decide what laws to enforce based on their own personal beliefs. Were liberals consistent in their outrage, they would be fighting the continued existence of sanctuary cities and they would support recent measures taken by House Republicans to cut federal funding to these cities. Their refusal to do so is nothing short of unprincipled; apparently, it is okay for civil servants to pick and choose what laws to enforce as long as

A selection of major sanctuary cities. Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons they choose to enforce laws that liberals like and ignore the laws that liberals don’t.

unreasonable for them to support ignoring the law due to this disagreement.

The arguments offered for the existence of sanctuary cities are thin. San Francisco’s Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and Mayor Ed Lee have argued that the relaxed immigration policy allows those who are here illegally to feel safer. Oftentimes, they claim, illegal immigrants are scared of the police, creating environments that are ripe with crime. Thus, supporters allege that sanctuary cities lead to less crime.

This is not to say that opponents of immigration laws should have no recourse to fight what they deem to be unjust laws. People can and should fight to repeal laws that they disagree with, and refusing to obey the laws as an act of civil disobedience is certainly one way to express disagreement. But civil disobedience is only justified in extreme cases, such as to protest laws endorsing slavery and segregation. To claim that laws which prevent people from illegally entering the country are on par with laws declaring that people can be bought and sold is a truly incredible leap. Civil disobedience cannot be justified when it threatens the security of innocent people. It cannot be justified simply because a law conflicts with one’s personal beliefs; if that were true, civil disobedience would almost always be justified, and that would lead to anarchy. Thus, just as Kim Davis was wrong to choose her personal beliefs over enforcing the government’s laws, so too are city and county officials who refuse to comply with federal immigration laws.

Ignoring the questionable truthfulness of the alleged crime decrease, the issue with this argument and other arguments in favor of sanctuary cities is that they are essentially justifying allowing government employees to decide what laws to enforce based on their own personal beliefs. The government has a substantial national security interest in keeping track of who is and is not in the country, and sanctuary cities clearly undermine the government’s efforts to keep people safe. Illegal immigrants live outside of the systemthe government cannot keep track of them and doesn’t even know that they are in the country. This poses a serious security threat that government must deal with. Clearly, many liberals disagree with the government’s chosen method for handling illegal immigrants. But it is

Max Handler is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at maxhandler@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Politician Isn’t a Bad Word Sean Lundergan

t’s sad that it’s come to this.

The 2016 presidential election is still over a year away, but the candidates vying for the nomination of each major party have gone through what has been anything but a typical primary process. It’s the election year of the anti-politician. This phenomenon is restricted to the Republican side, because although Bernie Sanders, an Independent running for the Democratic nomination, has gained overwhelming grassroots support, he differs from the Republican Party’s anti-establishment candidates because he has dedicated nearly his entire adult life to public service. Republican candidates Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson, each of whom have led careers in the private sector, use the term politician with disdain. They have touted their lack of any political experience whatsoever not only as a positive quality, but actually as a qualification for the most powerful political position in the free world. Certainly the irony can’t be lost on everybody, but Fiorina, Carson, and Trump have topped every recent national poll because of this anti-politician appeal. And it’s not a good thing. Sure, its refreshing to hear someone speak whose entire career hasn’t been spent catering to wealthy donors, and to a few it does sound more appealing than seeing a third Bush or a second Clinton in the White House. But does the mere disdain for familial dynasties and political insiders’ influence warrant such a stark shift toward complete newcomers? The quick answer: no. The fact that Ben Carson isn’t a politician does not qualify him to be President of the United States. Yet he hopes to be elected to this political office, and somehow claims that even if elected, he’s not going to be a politician. (Because that’s possible!) Take the exchange that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had with Fiorina during the September GOP debate. Christie criticized a

lengthy argument between Trump and Fiorina over their business records, saying that the candidates weren’t there to talk up their own private accomplishments. Fiorina shot back at Christie, noting (accurately) that Christie had highlighted his own career as a governor. But the fallacy in Fiorina’s argument lies in the fact that she and Trump were engaging in an irrelevant exchange; Christie’s previous achievements actually do demonstrate the potential he would bring to the Oval Office. The job of the head executive of a state resembles that of the head executive of a nation much more closely than does that of a business executive.

Herein lies the tragedy of the farce that our democracy has become. A president has to make on-the-fly decisions while considering the legal, political, economic, geopolitical, and other ramifications that have infinitely more profound impact than those concerning a CEO (though Trump has maintained that he will be “phenomenal” due to his financial achievements and his dexterity in negotiation). Trump and Carson have both admitted to knowing little about foreign policy, suggesting that they’ll learn the details further down the road, or in Trump’s case, simply get the gist and delegate most of the responsibilities to others. But if they don’t know enough about foreign policy now, how can these candidates allow voters to assess their options based on foreign policy? International politics is and always will be an important issue for this nation so long as it is one of the world’s superpowers. But Carson and Trump seem to

have forgotten this truth: you can’t delegate the role of Commander in Chief. I sincerely believe that a Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon and two (more or less) successful businesspeople are capable of understanding the fact that presidents fall into the category of politicians. Yet, they continue to assert their oversimplified prescriptions for fixing this country on this notion that we live in the United States of America, Inc., or that simply being a smart person outweighs the benefit of years of experience. And herein lies the tragedy of the farce that our democracy has become. Our standards have dropped so low that a complete lack of experience is considered a good thing. The answer isn’t a candidate who isn’t a politician. The answer lies in our relationship with our government. If this supposed democracy is to function as such, we must hold our elected officials accountable, so that being a political outsider doesn’t have to serve as a positive quality. If the public’s trust in Trump, Fiorina, and Carson demonstrates an extreme form of anti-establishment sentiment, we must revert to the other extreme, and make our politicians accountable enough that we may trust them as many people trust these outsiders. Then voters wouldn’t confuse crucial understanding of government and politics with a downside to any candidate. But for now, let’s just remember that the president isn’t a CEO.

Sean Lundergan is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at seanjlundergan@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Two Candidates Sell Themselves Benjamin Szanton

fter the second GOP debate, a familiar, hairpiece-topped face led the newest CNN poll. Behind blustery billionaire Donald Trump, however, Carly Fiorina (the former CEO of Hewlett Packard) managed to climb into second place. Fourteen months from the election, no poll offers more than a quick glance at the feelings of voters. However, those voters seemed quite open to a pair of outsider, businessperson candidates. Candidates like Trump and Fiorina are nothing new. Ross Perot made billions in the data processing business before running independent campaigns in 1992 and 1996. Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain briefly attracted considerable support in 2012. Many others – like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney – made money in business before entering electoral politics. But until Trump, never had a candidate described his qualifications so simply as “I’m really rich.” He is, as is Fiorina. Their net worths – about $3 billion and $59 million, respectively – place both of them well above the top .1 percent of Americans. Their actual records in business, however, do not paint quite as exceptional a picture. Four of Trump’s real estate companies had to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, one of them – Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. – three different times. He had to bail them out with his personal wealth at least once. From 1999 to 2005, when Fiorina was CEO of HP, the company’s stock plummeted 55 percent. The day that she was forced to resign, stock went up almost seven percent. As one analyst said at the time, “the Street had lost all faith in her, and the market’s hope is that anyone will be better.” The mismanaged or possibly illegally managed businesses of both candidates took a real human toll. Trump was sued by the Justice Department for alleged racial discrimination in renting and was even investigated for possible bribery and racketeering in business dealings with the mafia in New York and Atlantic City. Under Fiorina, HP laid off 30,000 Americans.

To be fair to Fiorina, she had to overcome considerably more obstacles in her career as an outsider in the business world who eventually became the first woman CEO of a Fortune 20 company. Trump, meanwhile, was given a foothold into the real estate business by his multimillionaire father. In fact, had Trump simply invested all of his approximately $100 million in 1978 in an index fund of the S&P 500 and reinvested the dividends over the last 37 years, he would be worth roughly twice as much as he is today. Of course, their actual records matters less in an election than the way those records are portrayed. According to Fiorina, in “difficult times… [she] doubled the size of the company … quadrupled its topline growth rate … quadrupled its cash flow… [and] tripled its rate of innovation.” Translation: HP briefly doubled its size when Fiorina oversaw a merger with the computer company Compaq, ultimately

utterly different from being the leader of The Trump Organization. A CEO is accountable to shareholders, who all have the same goal of maximizing profits. The president is accountable (at least in theory) to 319 million people, many of whom have vastly different goals, values and priorities. When a CEO screws up, people may lose their jobs. When a president screws up, people may lose their lives. Maybe most importantly, a CEO’s powers come much closer to mirroring those of a dictator, while an American president must navigate a system deliberately set up to encourage gradualism in policy. Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina’s support may dissipate well before election day as voters opt for someone with experience in the political system. But at least for a time, they are leading the pack, running on business records that don’t stand up to scrutiny and wouldn’t have much bearing on their success as president anyway.

They are leading the pack, running on business records that don’t stand up to scrutiny and wouldn’t have much bearing on their success as president anyway. an unsuccessful one for HP; the growth rate quadrupled if seen through a few cherry picked earnings quarters while declining overall from seven percent to three percent when Fiorina was CEO; and the “rate of innovation” – measured in total patents – tripled, although the growth in number of patents per day did not come close to that. As for Trump’s portrayal of his record: he is a winner. In a general sense, both he and Fiorina are indeed winners. They both have experience making lots of money as CEOs of large companies. But even if they didn’t have subpar records actually running those companies, how much would their business records actually be worth? Being the leader of the free world is

Benjamin Szanton is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at benjamin.szanton@wustl.edu.

political review | national

When Piyush Met Bobby P Bisma Mufti

iyush Jindal is every South Asian immigrant parent’s dream. After graduating from Brown University at the age of twenty, he was not only accepted to Harvard Medical School, but also to Yale Law School. He ended up studying at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and later went on to become the governor of Louisiana. His Ivy League accolades and successful career make him the perfect candidate for South Asian immigrant parents to point to and say to their children, “Why can’t you be more like Piyush?”

Bobby Jindal, on the other hand, is an embarrassment to the South Asian immigrant story. Despite his own immigrant parents, at the first Republican presidential primary debate he said, “Immigration without assimilation is invasion.” He is also quoted as saying, “I’m tired of hyphenated Americans. We’re not IndianAmericans or African-Americans or AsianAmericans. We’re all Americans.” Bobby’s denial of his heritage makes South AsianAmericans distance themselves further from him than he does from them—making him lose the one community he should receive the most support from as a presidential candidate. Jindal was not always a staunch advocate for a non-hyphenated America. In fact, he once openly donned his Piyush hat and embraced his hyphenated identity, if only to gain early political support. During hearings and media interviews, he regularly lauded the accomplishments of his Indian-American family and community. In fact, he cosponsored a resolution to recognize and honor “the contributions of Indian-Americans to economic innovation and society generally.” He is even quoted as self-identifying as an IndianAmerican. After his first bid for governor of Louisiana failed in 2003, he appeared at the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA) to accept an award, saying, “The first reason I wanted to come today was to thank you. I came to you as a 31-year-old Indian-American and said I want to be the next governor of Louisiana, and you embraced me… You truly were my family.”

The Indian community also became some of his most loyal donors. During his 2004 election campaign for a seat in the House of Representatives, Jindal raised more than $2 million from Indian-American political action committees and cultural organizations. He even received support directly from India. When he was elected as governor of Louisiana in 2007, residents of his father’s village in Khanpur, India celebrated in the streets after many had spent days praying at a local temple for his success. Resident Ujagar Singh said, “Bobby’s success is our success. His story begins here. The quality of the fruit depends on the roots.”

country who want to embrace their culture, or allowing people into their country who want to destroy their culture, or establish a separate culture within.” In other words, he is saying that it is reasonable to discriminate and to do so against immigrants who do not meet his subjectively high levels of assimilation. Jindal’s misguided ideas of forced assimilation and identity are not the only issues. The most egregious issue is his tapping into mainstream America’s xenophobia and fear of terrorism to win their votes. In this process, he has pinned his old allies as enemies in order to cast a wider net of support. In a speech in which he

Having exploited his Indian-American identity and his parents’ immigrant story to successfully climb the political ladder, Jindal did a 180-degree turn away once he reached the top. Having exploited his Indian-American identity and his parents’ immigrant story to successfully climb the political ladder, Jindal did a 180-degree turn away once he reached the top. And so Piyush became Bobby. With a presidential ticket in mind, he cut his allegiances to his Indian-American supporters and instead tried to buy others, and himself, into the idea that we are all Americans first. To South Asian-Americans watching this process, they saw late-bloomer Jindal suffering from a classic pubescent case of American Born Confused Desi-ism. This debilitating affliction occurs when second generation South Asian children living in a white community are in denial about the fact that they are indeed not white. Symptoms include calling one’s mother “mom” instead of “mama” on the phone in front of white friends. At a speech for a conservative foreign policy think tank, he was quick to defend his disguised ABCD-ism: “To be clear—I am not suggesting for one second that people should be shy or embarrassed about their ethnic heritage. But, I am explicitly saying that it is completely reasonable for nations to discriminate between allowing people into their

frames his robust response to the Democrat’s weak-kneed foreign policy, he quickly equates immigration without full assimilation to threats of terrorism. He maintains, “The fact is that radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere... in the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of Sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.” The sadness here is that we finally have a South Asian-American in office and instead of promoting our interests, Jindal is attacking us like almost every other white Republican politician—and, arguably, attacking us even more harshly than they do. It seems that in order to compensate for his South Asian background, he believes he must prove himself to the white Republican party by being extra critical of South Asian immigrants. Instead of refusing to live in a discriminatory post-9/11 world, he promotes generalizations and profiling of innocent South Asian-American immigrants.

political review | national

Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons

Instead of understanding that part of being a proud immigrant is the ability to combine the best part of both cultures, he insists on completely abandoning his heritage. If we South Asian-Americans cannot depend on one of our own, whom can we depend on? If we cannot even trust a Piyush, how are we supposed to trust a Donald, a Jeb, or a Marco? Then, it is no surprise that South AsianAmericans have expressed a deep, public disapproval of the uber-hypocritical Jindal. Why would we want someone who refuses to admit that he is one of us and who actively speaks against us to represent us? After he announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in June, the South Asian-American Twittersphere exploded with indignation. Led by outspoken Indian-American comic Hari Kondabolu and comedian Aasif Mandvi, #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite and #Jindian quickly became trending hashtags. Mandvi wrote, “u might be a #Jindian if u r the son of immigrants who is anti-immigrant. #bobbyjindalissowhite.” Another poignantly

wrote, “#bobbyjindalissowhite that if he were President, he would get off Airforce 1 and detain himself.” According to the Center for American Progress and AAPI Data, 84 percent of IndianAmericans and 68 percent of Asian-Americans voted for Obama in the last election. Also, Jindal’s approval rating as Louisiana governor has plummeted over time. In 2011 he was at 64 percent; in 2012, 51 percent; in 2013, 38 percent; in 2014, e rebounded with 48 percent; and, in 2015, back down to a measly 31 percent. However, it is important to note that the South Asian community’s disdain for Jindal does not come from differing political views or impressions of his leadership ability, but rather from the denial of his identity. One must not forget the South Asian-Americans who willingly supported Piyush early in his political career. Suresh Gupta, a doctor who held a fundraiser for Jindal’s first run at governor said, “So what if he’s Republican? So what if he’s Christian? I don’t care about those things. But you can’t forget about your heritage. You can’t forget about your roots.” The quality of the fruit depends on the roots.

It is confusing to understand why Jindal strays so far from his Indian heritage when he could use it to his advantage. Perhaps he views his darker skin as a political liability in a majority white Republican stage, or maybe he truly wants to pretend that race does not exist. The latter reason might then explain why the first painting visitors see at his office in the Louisiana State Capital is a self-portrait of himself, with his skin painted, in an unsettling shade of white. Whatever his reasoning is, Jindal is missing out on a key political asset. In a post-Obama political world, it has become clear that one’s diverse experiences and unique identity can be used to stand out in an otherwise monotone crowd. If he were to reclaim his hyphenated identity, he would come across as a much more confident, honest candidate to both South Asian-Americans and non-South AsianAmericans. Until then, the obviously confused brown elephant will continue to be in the room.

Bisma Mufti is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at bisma.mufti@wustl.edu.

political review | INTERnational

A Lack of Healthcare Mobility in the Gaza Strip Anika Kabani

baby born in Israel will live, on average, ten years longer than one born in Palestine. The mother of the baby birthed in Israel is four times less likely to pass away during childbirth than the Palestinian mother, and the Israeli-born baby is five times less likely to die before he turns one. The baby born in Israel will most likely get all the necessary vaccines, administered by a regularly paid healthcare worker. An Israeli baby is a lucky one, because according to Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, this is not the case just a few miles away in the Palestinian Territories. Although more than a year has passed since the 50-day war in Gaza, Doctors Without Borders, an international medical humanitarian organization, notes that the more than 12,070 houses and hospitals damaged last summer seemed as if they’d been destroyed more recently. There has been little to no progress in rebuilding infrastructure due to the Israeli blockade on Gaza. The Israeli government justifies the blockade, in place since 2007, as necessary to limit rocket attacks from Gaza and prevent Hamas from building or importing weapons. “Dual-use” materials, meaning anything that might be used to create weapons, are restricted, including cement, wheelchairs, and batteries for hearing aids. As a result, many Gazans are forced to live in damaged homes they are unable to repair, which according to Doctors Without Borders, leads to their clinics treating many children with severe burns from home heating and cooking accidents. This situation, combined with Palestinians being treated for war-related injuries, creates a medical crisis that is worsened by the Israeli blockade, preventing Palestinians from obtaining the resources they need to heal. A 2015 report published Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) entitled “Divide & Conquer: Inequality in Health” addressed the Israeli influence over the health of the Palestinian population in Palestinian territories

and the resultant health disparities between Israelis and Palestinians. According to PHR-I, the Israeli control mechanisms that prevent the Palestinian Ministry of Health from providing adequate health services include the imposed limitations on the movement of patients, medical personnel, and medications, as well as control of social health determinants like nutrition. The importation of medical supplies into Palestinian Territories provides a particularly interesting case. The Israeli Ministry of Health controls the pharmaceutical market in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a few ways. For one, importation of medicines is limited to medications that are registered in Israel. This means that Palestinians cannot purchase pharmaceuticals from nearby Arab markets, although these medications would be far cheaper than the Israeli medications that are priced for “first world” consumers. Secondly, the blockade limits Gazans from importing the raw materials that might be used to manufacture their own medications and thus avoid the high costs of Israeli pharmaceuticals. The effects of limited amounts of medical supplies circulating the Palestinian Territories are further exacerbated by Hamas’s decision to ban many prescription painkillers due to high rates of addiction in Gaza, leaving many Palestinians who desperately need medication without any means of accessing it. The Israeli blockade also heavily influences social determinants of health, especially through the food supplies permitted or banned from entering Gaza. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, at various points during the now 8 year-long blockade, up to 61 percent of the Gazan population has lacked reliable access to affordable and nutritious food. Some of the food items that have been banned in the past, according to NGOs such as Gisha and Human Rights Watch, include tea, jam, lentils, and coriander.

In 2010, after the release of government research that counted the amount of calories that Palestinians in Gaza needed to consume to avoid malnutrition, an internal Israeli government study revealed that the restrictions on food were intended to put pressure on Hamas by limiting food supplies. The World Health Organization reported various health issues from the restricted access of not only imported food supplies, but also the suppression of the agriculture sector in Gaza, including malnutrition, underweight children, and high rates of anemia among children and pregnant women. Many would agree that healthcare is a human right; every person should have the right to access the highest possible standard of health, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or income. To argue against the right to health would essentially be arguing that some people have more of a right to live than others—that some lives are worth more than others. Whether or not you support the Israeli blockade and occupation of Palestinian Territories, there are facts that cannot be ignored. The infant mortality rate in the Palestinian Territories is 18.8 per 1000 live births, but 3.7 in Israel. There are far fewer medical professionals serving Palestinians than there are in Israel. The incidence of infectious diseases is higher in the Occupied Territories, and there are necessary inoculations that are unavailable to Palestinians. These are issues related, directly and indirectly, to the inability of necessary medical equipment, food supplies, and building materials to move through the Israeli blockade. Does the Israeli government think that Palestinian lives are worth less than Israeli ones? The Israeli government’s continuation of the blockade and occupation in Palestine is akin to taking the position that some lives, namely Palestinian ones, are inherently worth less. Anika Kabani is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at akabani@wustl.edu.

political review | INTERnational

Who Can Change FIFA? Min Heo

IFA has finally begun to wake up after a nightmare over the summer, and it looks like change is just around the corner. Following multiple scandals over the summer in which nine current and former members of FIFA were accused and indicted on bribery charges, and Swiss authorities conducted a separate investigation into more than 50 accounts of suspicious activity that finally ended with Sepp Blatter’s announcement to resign as president of FIFA, the governing board of world soccer finally looks like it is committed to reforming it’s policies in order to become a more transparent body. With the end of Blatter’s long reign as president, FIFA will need a new, face to push through the reforms that are desperately needed to reshape FIFA’s image, and whoever is elected will have a massive job on their hands. A few candidates have already stepped forward and announced their decision to run for the presidency. The two biggest challengers as of now are Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) president Michel Platini and Prince Ali Bin Al-Hussein of Jordan. Platini stands in a strong position, with his robust body of work as president of UEFA, from diversifying the Champions League to include smaller clubs to instituting Financial Fair Play (FFP), and is also backed by four of the “six global footballing federations,” according to BBC Radio 5 correspondent Richard Conway. He is also one of the few members of FIFA who has actually played at the highest level of soccer, and can claim to be a genuine star. Meanwhile, Prince Ali is a fresh face, and was the only person to challenge Blatter’s rule back in the May 2015 election. The Jordanian prince has strong appeal because of his focus on reforming FIFA’s many dubious policies, including the lack of transparency about financial activities. Former FIFA vice president Chung Mong-Joon also recently announced his intention to run, and there is much speculation on who else may enter the race as well as who has the most support. But who actually has what it takes to reverse decades of shady dealings and practices? While Platini seems to have the most popular

support at the moment, he also seems to be the biggest target of other factions in FIFA, and that negativity is about more than just his popularity. Only hours after Platini announced his decision to run, Prince Ali stated that FIFA needed “new, independent leadership, untainted by the practices of the past.” President of the Liberian Football Association Musa Bility also stated that Platini would bring more “chaos,” “more division,” and “more problems.” Chung Mong-Joon made a similar statement, saying, “Mr. Platini enjoys institutional support from the current structure of FIFA. Mr. Platini is very much a product of the current system.” While these sentiments may simply be political tactics by the other candidates to attack and weaken Platini’s strong popular base, the statements bring up valid points about Platini and what his potential presidency could mean about FIFA’s future.

With the end of Blatter’s long reign as president, FIFA will need a fresh, new face to push through the reforms that are desperately needed to reshape the organization’s image. As a member of FIFA’s executive committee since 2002, Platini has been a part of all that has been wrong with FIFA since Sepp Blatter’s election in 1998. BBC sports editor Dan Roan summed up a lot of the issues Platini faces as a candidate, stating, “Most damagingly, he has admitted to having ‘no regrets’ for voting for Qatar to host the World Cup in 2022, a decision which, for many, is symbolic of FIFA’s malaise.” What FIFA needs right now is someone who has the vision to restore FIFA’s broken reputation, and Platini may not be the solution. With his youth (Prince Ali is 39 years old) and his courage in taking on Blatter, Prince

Ali may represent a better bet to push through reform, while Chung Mong-Joon has been a staunch critic of Blatter over the years and will have the necessary experience to take on the challenge. While they are not an outright indictment of Platini, certainly these questions will continue even if Platini gets elected president. Regardless of who wins the election, reforms are necessary. Some proposals already suggested include term limits for senior officials, publishing of payments, and stricter vetting of integrity. Unfortunately, it seems that the first panel meeting to discuss reforms ended without much progress. Concrete proposals have yet to be made, so it remains to be seen whether this reform movement will gain much traction. Certainly things could move forward more quickly should FIFA elect a president who will not be afraid to take action, which is why electing the right person is so crucial. Elections are set for February 26, 2016, so the footballing community will just have to continue waiting and hope that the next president is one who can bring about the change FIFA needs.

Min Heo is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at minheo@wustl.edu.

JE R E M Y