WUPR 24.3 - Wash U & St. Louis by Washington University Political Review

Washington University

POLITICAL REVIEW 24.3 | May 2016 | wupr.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS 6

WASH U & ST.LOUIS NATIONAL

Squashed by the Sumers Center

Law School Left Behind from

Social Justice

Divya Walia

Reuben Siegman

The Evolution of a Campus Abby Baka

David Flasterstein

Bisma Mufti

Wash U Students on Political Issues by the Numbers

Examining My Religious Abdication

Michael Fogarty

Preaching to the Choir: Wash U’s

Review Rachel Butler

Endowments of Schools Similar to Wash U

The Improbable Journey of Howard Mechanic Sam Klein

Authoritarianism and the “Pink Tide” Luke Voyles

More Silence about Brexit – More Trouble for the EU Tomek Cebrat

Ryan Mendelson My Approach to Academics, in

John Oliver and “Real” Journalism Max Handler

Political Diversity Problem

WTFlorida? Lauren Berger

Dan Sicorsky

Cap and Trade: A Practical Solution to a Pressing Problem

Joe Ludmir

One Vote, Many Obstacles Aryeh Mellman

A Proposal to Make Upperclassmen’s Lives Easier

Lessons From Emory Benjamin Szanton

The Rising Tide of Socialism at Wash U

INTERNATIONAL

Millennials, Social Media, and

University’s Rise

Conservative

The Case for Presumed Consent Sabrina Wang

Rachel Wortham

Debates Hosted by Wash U

EDITOR’S NOTE Editors-in-Chief Sam Klein Grace Portelance Executive Director Billie Mandelbaum Editors-in-Chief Emeritus Aryeh Mellman Billie Mandelbaum Executive Director Emeritus Hannah Waldman Staff Editors Rachel Butler Bisma Mufti Dan Sicorsky

Dear Reader, The end of any school year is bittersweet. While we lose a part of our community on graduation day, we can also reflect on our year at Wash U and look forward to exciting times ahead. As our seniors prepare for the next chapters of their lives, and while the rest of us work, travel, and get ready for our next year in college, we here at WUPR are pleased to close out the year with one of our favorite issues: the Washington University and St. Louis issue. Our final issue of the school year celebrates what makes our school great and examines how we can strengthen our community. We hope this issue gives a voice to those who wish to challenge and improve the environment in which we learn and live. This issue’s contributors sought to bring a variety of topics central to our campus to the spotlight. Sophomore Divya Walia examines challenges facing Wash U Law; Ryan Mendelson, a freshman, promotes bipartisan political dialogue on campus; and sophomore Joe Ludmir evaluates which divisive issues Wash U students care about the most.

Features Editors Max Handler Serena Lekawa Finance Director Lauren Berger Director of Design Zeke Saucedo Assistant Directors of Design Nikolai Laba Bohao Zhang Director of New Media Tomek Cebrat Digital Media Strategist Sabrina Wang

In the National section, sophomore Ben Szanton considers the delicate balance of political speech at a peer institution, while junior Lauren Berger offers her take on Florida’s reputation for offbeat news. Writing for the International section, sophomore Luke Voyles explains a rising trend of leftism in South America. We would like to thank Aryeh Mellman, Hannah Waldman, and Billie Mandelbaum for their outstanding leadership and great companionship. Aryeh and Hannah are graduating, and Billie is staying on with us as Executive Director in the 2016-17 year. We also send our thanks to outgoing features editor Serena Lekawa, outgoing design director Andrew Kay, and all other graduating seniors who have ever contributed to WUPR. Congratulations to the Class of 2016! We wish you all the best. Please enjoy our flagship issue, our final issue of the school year. If you are interested in writing, designing, or otherwise getting involved with WUPR, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at editor@wupr.org. Remember: everything is politics.

Programming Director Reuben Siegman

Sam Klein and Grace Portelance

Front Cover

Editors-in-Chief

Zeke Saucedo Theme Spread Bohao Zhang Back Cover Madeleine Gibson

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

SQUASHED BY THE SUMERS CENTER Rachel Wortham

ashington University is a school constantly under construction. Among the current projects, there is the new dorm on the South 40 that is replacing the old Rubelmann Hall, a massive undertaking that has been developing before our eyes. Future architectural plans for the campus include the renovation of Olin Library that will continue through the summer of 2017; Wash U’s website purports that this renovation will result in a “center for 21st century scholarship.” Aside from this resulting in the unfortunate temporary loss of Whispers next year, the planned changes to Ruby, Olin, and other buildings seem enthusiastic and forward-thinking.

Because of the clear inadequacies of the current courts, the lack of new squash courts in the Sumers Center has resulted in the squash team feeling unrecognized and forgotten. One of the seemingly never-ending locations of construction on campus is the Athletic Complex, known as the "AC." Construction of the AC began the summer before I arrived at Wash U, so I’ve never seen the Athletic Complex without boarded-up windows, the infamous crane, and the constant stream of workmen going to and fro in neon hardhats. In fact, I’ve gotten so used to the sight that I almost forgot that the construction was scheduled to reach completion ever—much less

soon. It was with great surprise that I realized that the soon-to-be Gary M. Sumers Recreation Center is scheduled for completion this August! Knowing the jealousy that arises from seeing my friends’ schools’ shiny new gyms with never-ending rows of ellipticals and treadmills and waxed basketball floors, I am very excited for our new Rec Center. Sumers himself communicated similar sentiments, stating that the enhancements to the AC are “muchneeded” and will “create a facility equal to or exceeding the quality of those of our peer institutions in NCAA Division III.” Some of the details planned for this new Rec Center make me even more excited: a suspended jogging track, multipurpose rooms, a spinning studio, more room for intramural and team sport practices, and a rock climbing wall. Yes, that’s right—and I won’t believe it until I see it either—a rock climbing wall! These changes represent a great move forward for Wash U athletics. A newer and betterequipped Athletic Complex is not only a way to attract student athletes, but it will also increase the quality of life for all Wash U students, and hopefully encourage students to participate in athletic activity. (After all, who doesn’t want to rock climb?) However, this new facility has not covered all the bases. Among the Athletic Complex areas that will not be renovated in these changes are the squash courts.

available for playing squash—of the other two, one is reserved for the majority of the year as a place for the varsity football team to have meetings and watch videos to improve their gameplay. Another is used simply for storage. This restricts the already-limited space available both for club team members and for recreational players, resulting in people being turned away from playing when both courts are taken. Another issue with the current courts is that none are regulation size. For the Wash U squash teams, this means playing on courts that are different dimensions at home and away at tournaments. Because of the clear inadequacies of the current courts, the lack of new squash courts in the Sumers Center, coupled with rumors of turned-down donations to improve them, has resulted in the squash team feeling unrecognized and forgotten. Wash U certainly deserves commendation for continually updating and re-updating school buildings to keep campus current, modern, and competitive, and to contribute to a higher quality of life for Wash U students. And the creation of the new Sumers Recreation Center is certainly an exciting development for the campus and all members of the Wash U community. However, though there are many positives to this new, updated building, it is a reminder that some parts of campus are remaining left behind. The old, inadequate squash courts stand as a testament to this.

These courts are not only used by both the men’s and women’s squash teams, but they are also frequently used by recreational players ranging from other students to members of the local community. As a member of the women’s squash team, a club team that is competitive, young, and growing, it’s hard to ignore the disappointment that comes with the knowledge that our team will not be getting new or renovated squash courts next year. There are currently four squash courts in the AC, all of which were converted from racquetball courts. Only two currently are

Rachel Wortham is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at rachel.wortham@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

LAW SCHOOL LEFT BEHIND FROM UNIVERSITY’S RISE Divya Walia | Illustrated by Alex Berger

quick glance around campus reveals countless impressive graduate buildings. From Hillman to Bauer, undergraduate students see newly renovated, state-of-theart structures sprinkled throughout our walks from class to class, serving to remind us of the nearly 6,000 graduate students that attend Washington University. Despite our ability to overlook them, the graduate institutions are what keep the whole Wash U machine running, and much of the national recognition of the undergraduate school is owed to the prestige built into establishments like Wash U’s medical school.

One of these graduate buildings, hidden in the corner of campus, houses the Wash U Law School. More than just a pretty place to eat fresh carvery salads and wraps, the law school as an institution has been on this campus since 1874, and was actually established before the medical school, just fourteen years after the University itself was founded. Our aptness to forget its very existence speaks to the problem of the law school’s name recognition as compared to the other institutions on campus. The school is ranked at #18 according to the U.S. News & World Report, a position it has consistently held over the last decade despite the upward movements of other Wash U programs. Over the years, the Law School's admissions department has tried various tactics to boost its ranking, such as allowing applicants with a certain GPA and LSAT score to only have to fill out one sheet in order to apply, and discussing the possibility of allowing Wash U undergrads to apply without ever taking the LSAT. These strategies have been met with very limited results. An alumnus of the law program and current professor of political science, Jeremy Caddel, shared why this might be the case. Law schools, he says, are different from other specialized institutions and provide a relatively uniform education that does not differ that greatly based

on location. Though there is some diversity in law specialization, there is nowhere near the variety of distinct areas of pursuit as in medicine or dentistry. All law schools follow an entrenched first-year curriculum that includes an overview of constitutional, criminal, contract, property, and tort law, criminal procedure, and legal writing. The next two years of a law program are less formatted but often involve a basic law specialty and career integration program. And though the legal landscape and certain practices have shifted over time, the general practice of the law itself is venerated as an ancient and immutable art form. This leaves future employers and clients with few ways to assess a young lawyer’s talent; the most important way becomes the reputation of the candidate's alma mater. The hierarchical establishment of top law schools like Harvard and Yale will perhaps never be rivaled because there is no way to combat their historical reputations. Due to the nature of the study of law, “throwing money at the issue” (as Caddel phrases it) does very little. Attracting a few big names or building new facilities can’t really change the reputation of a law school because there is very little a law school is able to quantify amongst its graduates besides bar exam passage rates and future employment statistics. And because getting things like clerkships and positions at well-known law firms is really just a product of law school reputation, Caddel explains, the recognition of a certain school over the other becomes a selfreinforcing cycle. This, amongst the many other name recognition struggles Wash U faces, puts the law school in a particularly tough position. Areas like medicine, engineering, and business can often show quantifiable employment and concrete professional outcomes based on how much funding can be funneled to hiring good professors, investing in new facilities and technology, and sponsoring groundbreaking research. A form of study as entrenched and straightforward as law cannot be frilled-up in the same way.

This is not to say, however, that what goes on within the walls of the Wash U Law School is not of top-tier caliber. The faculty is impressive and the student body still benefits from the many educational resources that come with being a part of Wash U. Caddel mentions that peers in his graduating class easily got jobs at big-name St. Louis law firms, and have spread their influence to law practices around the country, becoming federal prosecutors and judges and practicing in firms in New York and Washington. As every Wash U student knows, the quality of the education we receive is never the issue. It is always being able to effectively communicate this quality to the outside world that proves to be difficult. So next time you walk past the AnheuserBusch Hall (yes, that’s what it’s called) on your way to get Starbucks or to visit the Olin Library, remember that it houses an important element of the Wash U brand–it is worthy of our attention.

Divya Walia is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at dwalia@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

THE EVOLUTION OF A CAMPUS CONSERVATIVE Abby Baka | Illustrated by Bowie Chen

am a conservative. But I would like to clarify: I am not a racist or homophobe, I acknowledge that the planet’s temperature is rising, and I do not want to build a wall.

My home state, South Dakota, is a consistently red state. It has voted Democrat in a presidential election only four times since its founding, and not once since 1964. My Catholic high school was primarily conservative—a November 2012 survey conducted by the school newspaper found that almost 60% of students supported Mitt Romney in that year’s presidential election. While several of my close friends were somewhat liberal, both fiscally and socially, a majority of my peers agreed with me on political issues like abortion, the minimum wage, and gun control. I knew that when I left South Dakota for Washington University, I would experience quite the culture shock. While Missouri is a swing state, conservatives consider university campuses—especially those that have liberal arts colleges like Wash U—to be notoriously liberal. On these college campuses, students and faculty frequently protest Republican guest speakers, sometimes threatening the safety of the speaker and audience, and professors have been known to mock Republicans in the classroom. And while I looked forward to the chance to interact with people of opposing views, I feared that I would find few, if any, people at college who would share my political beliefs. I worried that I would have to spend the next four years biting my tongue while my peers loudly championed socialism. During the first few weeks I spent on campus, it seemed that my fears had been realized. My dorm building was plastered with countless flyers in support of Planned Parenthood, and huge murals in the underpass announced liberal causes. My roommate was liberal, my floormates were liberal, and it seemed as if all my classmates were, too. We got along well when we talked about classes and TV shows, but any time the conversation turned to welfare or Planned Parenthood, I fell silent while my new friends said things that countered my

I was worried that I would find few, if any, people at school who would share my political beliefs and that I would have to spend the next four years biting my tongue while my peers loudly championed socialism. beliefs. I felt that I lacked the energy and knowledge to defend my views; I had, after all, been surrounded by conservatives for most of my life, and so I had never had much occasion to debate policy with liberals. The few times I did discuss politics with left-wingers at my high school, I found myself powerless to sway them politically. I noticed that every time I tried to explain my conservative beliefs about immigration, welfare, reproductive rights, or other issues, I ended up sounding selfish, uninformed, and heartless, even though I had the best intentions and truly believed that conservative politics benefited all members of society. (After all, it’s easy for liberals to dismiss someone who doesn’t want to give money to the poor as bigoted and mean, while altogether ignoring the altruism and reasoning behind conservative views.) I worried that if I admitted I was a Republican, I would lose the respect and friendship of my peers. So it was with a sigh of relief that I signed up for College Republicans (CR) at the Activities Fair in September. Since then, I have attended meetings that provide a weekly refuge from the rampant liberality of college life. For the first couple weeks of meetings, I was embarrassed to tell people outside CR that I was involved with the conservative group, assuming that they were liberal and would thus judge my political affinities. If someone asked me to get dinner at 7:00 p.m. on a Wednesday, I’d vaguely say, “Sorry, I can’t. I have a club meeting.” If they prodded me for specificity, I would sheepishly admit that I was going to College Republicans. Sometimes, this

admission was met with the reply, “Oh, you’re one of those?” to which I always felt the need to defend myself, saying, “Don’t worry! I’m cool with gay marriage and don’t support Trump!” More often, though, their reply was “Oh, that’s interesting. I don’t know many conservatives,” which was, in turn, occasionally followed by a brief discussion of our differing political beliefs. On such occasions, I was surprised to find that my views were met with respect and openness (although almost never with agreement), and over time, I came to feel more comfortable admitting my allegiance to the Republican Party. Being surrounded by liberals, especially during an election year when even the most lighthearted of conversations can shift to politics without warning, has compelled me to learn to defend my views. As I grew up in a strongly conservative family—one that unironically watches Fox News and whose groupchat generally revolves around Republican primary results—I was rarely exposed to opposing political views. During the 2008 election, my family instilled in me the idea that an Obama presidency was the worst thing that could happen to America. Let me be clear: I certainly do still believe that Obama is horrible for the country. But before I began attending CR meetings, I felt as though my dislike for the president and his policies was uninformed, unjustifiable, and mostly based on things I’d heard at home and in my community. If someone asked for my opinion on Obamacare, I would find myself stumbling out an inarticulate explanation and realizing that I don’t understand the

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

on highly contested issues and, somehow, still manage to stay friends. At a recent College Republicans meeting, I received my club T-shirt, which reads: “I’m the elephant in the room.” I proudly showed it to my liberal friends, and for once we agreed on something: elephant puns are fantastic, no matter their political implications. Aside from that, we also agree that there is value in dialogue between people of opposing political views. Such dialogues, which can only exist in a community of people with diverse beliefs, are advantageous to both supporters and opponents of any given issue because they push people to learn how to effectively defend their beliefs. It took me several months to feel comfortable as a Republican at Wash U, and while I still sometimes shy away from intense political discussion with students from the opposing party, I no longer feel the need to conceal my conservative politics. Now that I have had the opportunity to reevaluate and justify my views outside the context of my conservative upbringing, I realize that my political beliefs have just as much value as those of the people who disagree with me. Affordable Care Act (ACA) at all. Fortunately, CR makes a point of educating its members on policy and explaining what Republicans believe and why they believe it; they dedicated an entire meeting to explaining the pros and cons of universal healthcare, which helped me understand why conservatives oppose the ACA. While I am still not the most politically literate person on campus, I am slowly becoming more well-versed in the current political issues, and I now feel more capable of justifying my conservative beliefs. The challenge of finding a place for myself as a conservative on a liberal college campus has taught me to take action in my political education and to come to my own conclusions rather than blindly agreeing with whatever is shouted at me by Bill O’Reilly. I have begun to make a point of forming my own opinions about politics and have found that, even

outside of my hometown's conservative bubble, I agree with a vast majority of conservative views. As my friendships have solidified and I have begun to feel more comfortable discussing and defending my political beliefs, I’ve started to enter into political conversations with my non-conservative friends. While I have failed to convert any of them to the Dark Side (i.e. the Republican Party), I have engaged in interesting, respectful political conversations with them. Before coming to Wash U, I never expected that my suitemate and I would be able to civilly discuss the merits and faults of Hillary Clinton while brushing our teeth in the morning, or that I would feel comfortable explaining to people in my French class why I would under no circumstances vote for Bernie Sanders. My liberal friends and I disagree on basically everything, but we are able to discuss our views

I have yet to experience any harsh suppression of my conservative beliefs at Wash U, and I hope that it remains that way, because dissenting opinions add color and opportunities for discourse to a community, especially a community of strong-willed, impressionable young people. I am not asking anyone to agree with my political beliefs; in fact, I encourage everyone to stand firm in their respective politics. I only ask that liberals do not write off conservative views as hateful or bigoted simply because they does not align with their own agendas. Hopefully, they, like me, realize that living among people of opposing beliefs enriches the college experiences of people at all points of the political spectrum.

Abby Baka is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at abbybaka@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

THE RISING TIDE OF SOCIALISM AT WASH U David Flasterstein | Illustrated by Nick Rogers

here is a rising tide of socialism among college students. I see it in the Bernie stickers, shirts, and posters which adorn our campus. I see it in the outrage over Republican candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump who offer only capitalist solutions to solve our nation’s economic problems. I see it in the Peabody protests and the belief that business should not harm the environment. According to youGov polling, 36 percent of people under 30 view socialism favorably, while 39 percent like capitalism. This contrasts with 26 percent of those aged 30-44 who like socialism, and 50 percent who prefer capitalism, with numbers even more skewed towards capitalism for those over 44. Our generation’s tilt toward socialism does not represent a wholescale disavowal of capitalism, but instead the belief that the problems of capitalism – environmental destruction, mass unemployment, mass poverty, and lack of opportunity – must be solved by a strong and active government.

The definition of socialism has dramatically changed in the past 25 years. Before, socialism was associated with the Soviet Union. It meant the government owned the means of production (factories and businesses) and instead of providing prosperity for all it provided poverty to most. Today’s socialism is associated with the Nordic countries like Sweden and Denmark, who encourage entrepreneurship and private ownership of businesses, but provide strong welfare benefits to make sure few live in poverty and pass strong regulations to protect the environment and workers' rights. Many students see socialism as a way to control the huge problems of capitalism. Capitalism fires workers during recessions and leaves them without jobs; socialism provides them with unemployment insurance or government jobs. Capitalism leads businesses to care about profits over the environment; socialism regulates businesses and forces them to consider their environmental impact. Capitalism causes the children of the rich to have more opportunities than children of the poor; socialism, ideally, ensures that everyone has the opportunity to go to college.

The Great Recession has exerted the strongest influence on our generation’s tilt toward socialism. In the formative years of our political ideologies, Wall Street destroyed the American economy by loaning out trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages, helping people buy houses they could not afford. When these loans went bust, the economy collapsed and 8.8 million jobs were lost in the span of 19 months. This was capitalism at its worst, as greedy bankers walked out unscathed and many Americans were hurt with job losses and wage cuts. Socialism offers cures to the worst problems of the recession. The incredible wealth of Wash U students leads me to think about why many with less means do not get to come here. According to the recent Student Life socioeconomic survey, 15 percent of students' families earn more than $500,000 a year, which corresponds to less than one percent of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, while 13 percent of Wash U households earn between 25,000 and 75,000, which corresponds to 40% of the country. To compound this disparity, Wash U employs a need aware admissions policy, meaning it rejects some students who it would otherwise accept because they can not afford the cost of tuition. The total cost of attending Wash U for a year (without aid) is $66,916, or $14,977 above the U.S. median income. Many of us know people who got into prestigious private universities and were unable to afford attendance. We have all worked hard throughout high school and our childhoods to be accepted into the best school we could, and it is profoundly unfair that some can not afford to attend, even when their parents earn relatively substantial incomes. Our desire for free, or at least cheaper, college comes not from our desire to have everything in life handed to us, but rather from our deeply-held American beliefs that college is the best gateway to a successful middle or upper class life and that everyone who is willing to put in the required work should have the opportunity to succeed. The problem extends beyond education. Many in our generation are frustrated with

capitalism for helping create and perpetuate the problem of global warming. The narrative goes something like this: capitalism encourages over-consumption and disconnects people from the natural environment so they do not see or directly suffer from their negative impact. Corporations, in their pursuit of ever greater profits, cut corners and pollute the environment. One of the defining events to our generation was the BP Oil Spill in 2010. The spill was caused by corporate cost cutting and hurt the environment and people living on the Gulf Coast. To some in our generation, the answers provided by socialism – high government spending and strong regulations – are a solution to global warming and environmental destruction. With more spending on renewables and energy conservation and stronger regulations on how much companies can pollute, global warming can at least be slowed down.

The Great Recession has exerted the strongest influence on our generation’s tilt toward socialism. Students have also grown up with anxiety about getting good paying jobs. Our conversations about choosing majors inevitably steer toward questions like “what are you going to do with that” or comments such as “you won’t get a job with that.” Many students go to business, engineering, and pre-grad school programs out of the anxiety that they will not get jobs. Even students in those programs tailored to the job market feel anxious. They worry that the intense competition with other students for internships and jobs will prevent them from achieving their dreams and getting the jobs they want. According to Forbes, 24 percent of millennials are afraid of losing their jobs,

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

compared to 9 percent of Baby Boomers. In the Great Recession, many lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and many students have moved in with their parents after college. An economic system must not only make sure the everyone has some measure of prosperity; it must make sure that everyone feels they have a safe and stable source of income. Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; anxiety that they will not get good jobs may push them to work harder, but it also causes a lot of mental anguish and pushes them away from classes and majors they like to ones that the market does. Although they hope not to need the social safety net, many believe that it is necessary to protect individuals from the swings of the economy and the whims of bosses. Capitalism leaves workers behind at

the whims of the market. Socialists believe the government should pick those workers up until they are able to find another job. Many in our generation have moved to consider socialism as a solution to the pressing problems of capitalism. The new socialism is inspired by the Nordic countries and advocates a strong democratic government to moderate the excesses of capitalism with large spending and strong regulations on businesses. This new movement, which has gained in prominence over the past few years, has a real chance to remake politics. America could be entering an age with a strong and active government that mitigates many of capitalism's worst problems. Alternatively, the students of today could

become the conservatives of tomorrow. As they settle into comfortable middle and upper class lives, they may become more concerned about high taxes and less concerned about solving Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s problems with large government spending. The future of socialism in the United States depends on our generation.

David Flasterstein is sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences.He can be reached at davidflasterstein@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

A PROPOSAL TO MAKE UPPERCLASSMEN’S LIVES EASIER Bisma Mufti

y shelf in the fridge often looks something like this: withering spinach in a filmy plastic bag and an empty egg carton. I don’t have a car, so I have to depend on friends with cars to be able to get the necessary produce to cook in my North Campus dorm. When I don’t make it to the grocery store, which is often, I’m forced to go to the Village. Of the four stations, the Stir Fry station's line is typically too long; the Old World Deli chefs work at a notoriously slow pace; and the salad bar is unfulfilling. I often turn to the least-appealing but always-open Grill station. Amongst the smell of fries and sound of oil popping, I almost always choose the “greenest” item: a black-bean burger, no bun.

During my frequent refrigerator droughts, I wistfully look back at my times on the South 40 campus. The lavish Bear’s Den is open until two or three A.M. almost every day, has seven stations, and boasts a bountiful Paws & Go market. The market holds a variety of Farmer’s Market options—including vegetables, coldcut meats, and cheeses. These options are perfect for cooking a meal, despite the fact that underclassmen, unlike upperclassmen, do not have personal kitchens in their dorms. I thus question why these options are not available at the Village when upperclassmen could put them to better use and propose adding them to the Village. Upperclassmen would undoubtedly benefit from this addition, especially those who come from lower-income families. Those without cars or extra cash would be able to use their existing meal plans to buy food to cook their own meals. Even those with cars and cash would stand to benefit from wasting less gas money and travel time. Students would not be the only ones to benefit; while students save money, Dining Services would make money. According to its General Manager, all Farmer’s Market produce at Bear’s Den is bought before its shelf life expires. If

there is already clear interest in this produce at Bear’s Den, in the housing area where students don’t even have their own kitchens, imagine how much more money Dining Services would make if they offered it at the Village, where there’s even greater demand. This demand stems from students having personal kitchens but not having staples on campus to use them.

The main question asked whether they would purchase Farmer’s Market goods if they were available at the Village… An overwhelming 87.5 percent responded affirmatively to this question. Beyond being a profit-minded entity, Dining Services also cares about providing students with healthy, varied meal options. Offering this produce would help them to better reach this end. Their mission statement reads, “The goal of Dining Services is to provide you with a wide range of options that will fuel your body and mind and an atmosphere that is friendly, welcoming and conducive to interaction with your fellow students, faculty and staff.” Dining Servies fails to meet these goals at the Village. As aforementioned, the Old World Deli and the Stir Fry stations have the longest lines and are open during limited times, especially on weekends. The Comfort Food station often offers less-than-healthy food, but has the shortest line and is open for lunch and dinner every day. The salad bar is quick and healthy,

yet unfulfilling and expensive. Providing more produce would help to diversify the Village’s food so that it is less expensive than the salads and quicker to enjoy than the food at the Stir Fry and Old Sandwich Deli stations. One might be quick to say that if this produce is already provided at Bear’s Den, why can’t upperclassmen simplcoy walk there to buy it? While this is commonsensical and calls into question students’ potential laziness, why should upperclassmen have to walk far to get the variety and the healthy food promised to them by Dining Services’ mission statement? They deserve the same access to high-quality food as underclassmen despite being older. There is, after all, an eatery less than a minute’s walk away waiting to be better utilized. According to the General Manager of Dining Services, the most prominent argument against the addition of Farmer’s Market goods to the Village is the fear of lack of interest. This fear, however, is unfounded. I posted a survey on Facebook regarding the addition and received 56 responses. The survey revealed, among other things, that 57.1 percent of respondents don’t own a car. The main question asked whether they would purchase Farmer’s Market goods if they were available at the Village. The goods were defined as, “the fresh vegetables (bell peppers, tomatoes, etc.), meats and cheeses that are available at BD’s Paws & Go.” An overwhelming 87.5 percent responded affirmatively to this question. This data suggests that the majority of students do not have a car, and, thus, getting to the grocery store is not easy for a large portion of those living on North campus. Ultimately, it shows that there is indeed great interest in this fresh produce, and that its addition is worth evaluating.

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

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

WASHU STUDENTS ON POLITICAL ISSUES BY THE NUMBERS Joe Ludmir

We polled 112 Washu students on 8 political issues to find out what mattered most to them. Here are the results:

SOCIAL EQUALITY

IMMIGRATION POLICY The political issue that was most important to the fewest number of students was Immigration policy, with 7.

TERRORISM The political issue that was most important to the greatest number students was Social Equality, with 30 students.

29 students said that terrorism was the issue that concerned them the least.

WASH U DEMOGRAPHICS Ethnicity 5.98% Hispanic or Latino 0.99% American Indian or Alaska Native 30.63% Asian 7.73% Black or African American 0.13% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 55.60% White and Not Multiracial 7.57% Unreported

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

EXAMINING MY RELIGIOUS ABDICATION Dan Sicorsky | Image courtesy of Pixabay

llow me to give the lowdown on my Jewish background. I was born in one Jew-dense city, Buenos Aires, and moved to another, Miami, at the age of five. There, my family was rather secular compared to others; my parents, I’d find out later on, were reticent agnostics. Still, we kept to basic Jewish traditions—partially because my parents saw this as a way of honoring our ancestors; partially because everyone else was doing it, too.

Then there’s the inescapable subject of Israel. Growing up, there was little talk of the country or its issues in our home. But outside our walls, the discourse was different; Israel was held as

the beacon of justice, democracy, and Jewish excellence. All around me, in community centers and schools, in neighborhood dinners and religious services, young people like myself were indoctrinated—a jarring, yet apt word— into the principles of Zionism, the name of the movement to officially establish Israel as the Jewish homeland. We were taught to love Israel unwaveringly, to not doubt, critique, or find fault with any of her actions or people. As it follows, pro-Palestinian was equated with pro-terrorism, Islamophobia was rampant, and to be anything but intensely pro-Israel was to be a dissenter. This, you will imagine, felt jailing.

By the time high school was ending, the knowledge that I would soon be escaping all of this felt just as one would expect a freeing of this sort to feel: exciting, but equally daunting. Exciting, because the prospect of being around alternative views intrigued and stimulated me. Daunting, then, because I wasn’t sure how my Jewish identity would manifest itself once I found myself ungoverned by my home community. It didn’t matter—I was getting away from it all. And even if the specific college I’d be attending was known for its large Jewish population, nothing could compare to the confinement I was feeling back home.

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

As my freshman year at Wash U comes to a close, my major and future are both unclear— but my religious withdrawal is indisputable. Back home, most weeks included a visit to temple, and every Friday had my family sitting down for Sabbath dinner; on campus, though, five is the number of religious dinners I’ve attended (most of which were clustered in the first semester), and zero represents how many times I’ve walked through a synagogue’s doors for anything other than a major holiday. It wasn’t until recently that I started thinking about this irreligiousness of mine on campus. I know, at least, that its cause is denser than the blanket “college changes people.” Yes, I recognize that, in many ways, I am the bird freed from his cage, the small-town boy in the big city, the captive who, captive no more, sees alternative lifestyles and freely defines his own. But I also know that there’s more to it. After all, when my mother calls on Friday mornings to ask if I’ll be attending services later in the day, and my response is a hesitant and disguised “no,” disinterest in religion just doesn’t cut it as a full explanation—for neither of us. No, there’s something else. There is another reason I feel such apathy and aversion to the idea of connecting to my Judaism on campus. In an earlier draft of this piece, a draft I almost submitted as my final, I progressed to explore this reason that I believed—and convinced myself—to be the cause of my irreligiousness. Had I left this piece unchanged, this paragraph would have come next: “Much thinking later, I have come to believe that the cause of my campus secularity is, of all things, social progressivism. I am not saying that I felt compelled to abandon my Judaism because the Left’s implicit social code includes a stipulation that new members desert their religions (though statistically, liberals are much less religious than conservatives). My point, rather, is that by herding all social justice groups—those representing LGBTQ+ rights, Black Lives Matter, feminism, pro-choice, socioeconomic diversity, and countless other causes—into a boat with pro-Palestinian organizations, and then insisting that this boat sail together or not at all, the Left leaves behind a passenger, the Jewish progressive, who cannot as easily ride with pro-Palestinian sentiments. (Stay tuned for why.)”

The “why” of why some Jewish progressives can’t sign on with pro-Palestinian causes is two-fold. First, some of our families (mine not included) and home communities (mine included) see taking a pro-Palestinian stance as taboo, as an unspeakable treason comparable to deserting the religion and community altogether. Second, and perhaps more symbolically, some of us do not feel at ease campaigning against a state that was founded to protect and ensure the survival of the Jewish people, the descendants of my grandparents’ siblings who just seventy years ago were murdered in a mass genocide—even if we know this state is also so blatantly violating human rights. The premise of my argument was based on several experiences I’ve had as a member of social justice groups on campus, groups that didn’t hesitate to ally themselves with “other marginalized groups” broadly, and with proPalestinian causes in particular—even if their official focuses were on other causes altogether. I was uncomfortable seeing these older students, whose social justice vigor I revered, standing by a cause that my home community had painted as sinful. Ultimately, I argued: “When I choose to join a social justice organization, I want to choose to join that organization. Maybe when polarizing social causes, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are allowed to exist independently of each other, potential activists will feel more at ease signing up for the cause or two they feel especially strongly about—rather than all at the same time.” Then, I concluded—and still believe—that the reason for my irreligiousness on campus is that I am compelled to hide my Judaism rather than risk alienating myself from several social justice causes that I feel equate—wrongly, if so—Judaism with Zionism, the ideology that led to the displacement and oppression of so many Palestinians to begin with. Despite laboriously reaching those conclusions, by the end of that earlier draft, I felt uneasy. I anticipated backlash to the key part of my argument that encouraged the exclusion of pro-Palestinian groups from the social justice wagon. And what worried me most was that, to an extent, I agree with the critics in my head.

I agree, in particular, that pro-Palestinian groups on campus are very much in need of other social justice groups’ support. Pro-Palestinian groups are, by all means, marginalized groups with views and voices that have historically been silenced on this campus. This is evidenced by the fact that it wasn’t until this past fall that Students for Justice in Palestine became the first SU-funded pro-Palestine group on campus. It's further corroborated by the detail that Jews, who by most estimates represent over a fifth of Wash U’s population, well outnumber Muslims on campus. This leads me to think that all social justice groups should ally together to amplify their collective voice and aggregate power. But as I consider how this approach inadvertently encouraged me to abdicate my religion, a part of me believes that social justice groups should not ally together. This way, students—like the Jewish progressive, for example—can keep up their social involvement while not facing the dissonance with their backgrounds and communities that I described earlier. Ultimately, I consider a piecemeal social justice approach to be the best approach, even if it carries the risk of lessening the voice of social justice causes, like pro-Palestinian ones, that undoubtedly deserve to be heard. If grouping all causes together means unintentionally but concurrently asking people to choose between their religions and their social beliefs—as I found myself having to do during much of this past year—then it is best not to sell the social justice movement as an all-in-one bundle deal, but rather as a movement that respects the nuances in the beliefs, backgrounds, and circumstances of its many activists.

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

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

PREACHING TO THE CHOIR: WASH U’S POLITICAL DIVERSITY PROBLEM Ryan Mendelson | Photo by Zeke Saucedo “

ashington University in St. Louis’ mission is to discover and disseminate knowledge, and protect the freedom of inquiry through thought, research, teaching and learning.”

Written in large red font on the University website, this claim defines Wash U as a key player in the field of higher education. It claims to not only develop new knowledge, but also to propagate it. But before we take this mission as given, we must think about what kinds of knowledge Wash U provides. It is clear that Wash U provides exceptional programs in the sciences and in business, for example, but does the school effectively educate its students on political and social issues in the same way?

Perhaps Wash U feels overwhelmingly liberal because it is so. But this absence of political diversity is only part of the problem. Before I arrived at Wash U, I went to a very liberal high school that was founded on the principle of social justice. From the time I entered ninth grade, I was taught that in order to make a difference in the world, conversations about social issues need to happen. My school facilitated this process. There was a mandatory freshman seminar that focused on social issues affecting both the United States and the world. Every year, in honor of Martin Luther King Day, the school would schedule a full day of workshops and assemblies concerning prevalent social issues. After events like the unrest in Ferguson, staff members would facilitate class-wide discussions on the questions prompted by these events. As shown

in these examples, the faculty and staff took it upon themselves to educate the students on sociopolitical issues. Yet despite these efforts, the political and social conversations at my high school were extremely one-sided. Because the student body was so overwhelmingly liberal, conservative viewpoints were effectively silenced. While the school sought to educate its students about social and political issues, it failed to foster a dialogue that both discussed and embraced opinions on both sides of the political spectrum. I have noticed a similar pattern at Wash U. However, Wash U’s student body is far more geographically and ethnically diverse than that of my high school. In its undergraduate schools, Wash U enrolls students from all 50 states and numerous countries, and 45 percent of its students are nonwhite. Moreover, its five academic divisions attract students with diverse skillsets and interests. Compared to my high school, which was close to half Jewish and had less racial diversity, Wash U is innumerably more diverse. Even so, the political climate on campus still feels overwhelmingly liberal. Why is this? Perhaps Wash U feels overwhelmingly liberal because it is so. But this absence of political diversity is only part of the problem. One could argue that another source of the problem is that Wash U does not provide curricular spaces for social and political conversations. However, even though Wash U does not specifically mandate sociopolitical education to all of its students, there is no shortage of opportunities for such conversations in the classroom. The programs in African and African-American Studies, American Culture Studies, Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and Latin American Studies represent a mere sprinkling of humanities programs that prompt insightful political and social discussions. Furthermore, there is a Social Differentiation requirement in the Arts and Sciences curriculum that states

that all students in the division must take at least one course that covers social issues. The issue in question, then, is not whether Wash U has classes that foster sociopolitical conversations, but whether they are effective in contributing to the discovery and dissemination of knowledge as written in its mission statement. That is to say, when these conversations do happen, do they draw new conclusions or take different directions? In order for conversations on social and political issues to be effective, participants in these conversations must not only hold different points of view, but must also be willing to express them. However, in my experience at Wash U, most of the students who speak in such courses tend to agree with each other on the core issues of these discussions. Although we have insightful, intellectual discussions on social and political issues, in most classes, the classroom seems to become an echo chamber, much like my high school. Evidently, a key shortcoming in the sociopolitical education Wash U provides is the lack of political diversity in classroom discussions. But why are such conversations in classes so one-sided? One possibility for this phenomenon is that students with minority opinions may fear being silenced by the majority. However, Prof. Linda Lindsey of the American Culture Studies department believes that at Wash U “there is a spirit of openness and constructive criticism and dialogue where people respect others’ opinions.” Another possibility for the lack of disagreement is that many students who take classes on social engagement identify with the group(s) of people that are studied in the classes they take. For example, in my class on Asian and Pacific Island America, I am one of two students out of 15 that do not have any Asian or Pacific ancestry. I am also taking a class in Mexican Studies, and many of the students in that class are of Mexican descent. In addition, Anna Kleydman, a freshman in Introduction

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

to Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, says that well over half of the students in her class are women. Thus, even though Wash U provides opportunities for education of social issues in the classroom, not everyone takes advantage of them.

In order for conversations on social and political issues to be effective, participants in these conversations must not only hold different points of view, but also be willing and open to express them. This lack of expressed political diversity exists outside the classroom as well. In my own experience, I have observed that liberal students tend to be more vocal about their political and social beliefs than conservative students are. “I think there are some conservatives on campus but many that I know are afraid to admit their conservative views,” says Ben Epstein, a freshman in the School of Engineering and Applied Science. “I, for one, am not afraid, but many are.” When asked why, he speculated that many students with conservative viewpoints feel that they would “probably [be] judged [or] silenced.” Epstein thinks that the fact that opposing viewpoints remain mostly unexpressed is an even greater problem than the lack of political diversity as a whole. “I don’t know if there are or aren’t opposing viewpoints because I don’t think there is enough conversation about it,” he says. “Opposing viewpoints are the whole point of an interesting conversation.” Thus, while many insightful, intellectual political conversations take place on campus, they often remain one-

Hillman Hall, Brown School of Social Work

sided because students with opposing points of view feel drowned. Only so much progress can be made when only one major viewpoint is vocal. Ultimately, the problem that Wash U has with political diversity is twofold. For one, the undergraduate student body is primarily liberal, representing a low level of political diversity. But more importantly, even though there is some level of political diversity on campus, opposing viewpoints are seldom verbally articulated, and conversations on sociopolitical issues still remain one-sided. While Wash U students are motivated academics that seek to excel in their fields of study, many do not stray far from their perceived academic paths. So, the many classes that promote reflection and discussion on sociopolitical issues tend to be most popular among liberal students. And how can we have diverse political discussions without diverse political opinions? The next step for the Wash U community in the political sphere is to engage not merely in discussion, but in dialogue. In order to have valuable dialogue, there must be multiple points of view articulated in a tolerant and intellectual way. Although, as Epstein postulates, some conservative students may resist speaking

their minds for fear of being silenced by the liberal majority, they are effectively silencing themselves already before any valuable dialogue is established. By that same token, it is necessary for liberal students to listen to the opinions of their conservative counterparts and to learn from the healthy disagreements that will ensue. Although many students graduate from Wash U without taking many (or any) courses focused on social and political topics, everyone can, and should, benefit from the types of multi-faceted dialogue these courses are designed to foster. While learning about sociopolitical issues is important, having dialogue between parties that express different points of view is more powerful; dialogue and disagreement not only help to facilitate learning, but more importantly, they teach students to think. As Wash U describes in its mission statement, it gives students the freedom of inquiry. Ultimately, it is up to the students to embrace this freedom in the political sphere.

Ryan Mendelson is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ryanmendelson@wustl.edu

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

MY APPROACH TO ACADEMICS, IN REVIEW Rachel Butler | Image courtesy of Pixabay The following are two pieces I’ve written over the past few years that, when put together, provide a chronicle of how the pursuit of multidisciplinarity has shaped my college experience so far. The first is an editorial that I wrote for my high school newspaper during the spring of my senior year. The second article, which I wrote as part of an application to my major program, shows how Wash U has, so far, helped me keep as many doors as are practical open, perhaps even more than are practical: it remains to be seen, over the next few years, how my approach to college will impact the rest of my life.

n 1959, two psychologists, Leon Festinger and Merill Carlsmith, performed an experiment intended to prove the theory of cognitive dissonance – the idea that humans strive for internal consistency between their ideas, beliefs, values and realities. In the experiment, they had students spend an hour on boring and tedious tasks. (Sound familiar?) Some were then asked to talk to another subject and persuade him or her that the tasks were interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 (about $162 today) to do this, while others were paid $1 (about $8 today). Then all the subjects rated the task. Those who had been paid $1 to lie and say the task was interesting rated the tasks much more positively than those who had been paid $20 to do the same. The participants who had been paid $20 were comfortable lying, as they had a sufficient reward to go against their values without feeling much dissonance. Those who had been paid only $1 were uncomfortable lying for such little justification; they subconsciously changed their perception of the tasks in order to keep their value system intact. I found this study extremely interesting, yet at first it seemed removed from my actual experience in life. Sure, it was groundbreaking research in the ‘50s that sparked many more psychological studies, but how often do we actually notice these complex theories in action in our day-to-day lives? True, one aspect of cognitive dissonance is that it operates mostly subconsciously, thus making it hard to observe when it influences us or those we interact with.

Yet recently, I’ve been noticing this rewardjustification theory in my life quite often. As we prepare to move on to college and the next chapters of our lives, the subject of the future has become quite a hot topic—sometimes overly so. We’ve all been asked countless times what we want to be when we grow up, but as the prospect of growing up looms closer and closer, I’ve seen my own answer and the answers of those around me called into question, wavering and changing as the future draws nearer. Students who used to answer with titles like “artist,” “author,” “musician,” “ballerina,” and “ice-cream taster” now say things like “stockbroker,” “hedge fund manager” and the vague term “consultant.” I’m not totally naïve; I know that not everyone has a lucrative future in tasting ice cream. But I don’t think that the prospect of making a whole lot of money should totally outweigh our true aspirations and make us forget about where our passions really lie. In Festinger and Carlsmith’s experiment, they showed that just $20 was enough of a justification for people to internally override the value of honesty. It’s natural to want to do as well for ourselves financially as we possibly can. But I believe that pursuing intellectual and creative passions is as much of a value as honesty, and that we lose a great deal if we let wealth supersede everything else we value and care about. In college, what I really want to do is major in ancient history, comparative literature, or philosophy, all synonymous with “unemployed.” However, I also want to make money. Those two conflicting desires create cognitive dissonance. One can negate dissonance in a few different ways. I could major in one of the “unemployed” fields, and become a writer who may be creatively fulfilled but also living in my parent’s basement. Alternatively, I could wholeheartedly pursue wealth, majoring in economics or stock brokering or consulting or whatever the majors are called that lead to Wall Street, thereby acting like Festinger and Carlsmith’s subjects and letting wealth be enough justification to put my passions in the back seat (of a luxury sedan). Yet there is a

third way to resolve dissonance: by reconciling the two ideas in conflict. I can major in economics and ancient history, though there will be more coursework. I can go to medical school and get a doctorate in philosophy, though I may be very busy and very tired. I think that oftentimes people, especially my peers, forget that they may not have to choose between prosperity and passion – it just requires creative planning, open-mindedness and a willingness to put in a good deal of extra effort. By combining the pursuit of affluence with the pursuit of our passions, we might make a little less money than we would solely focusing on wealth, but we’d keep our values intact and, in the end, have much less dissonance clouding our minds.

“

he Laws of Physics are FrameIndependent” was the title of my textbook on relativity. During the final few weeks of my first semester in college, I learned about the ways that space, time, and light interweave to form this curved thing that allows for existence. There were equations for the way that an object changed size when it moved near the speed of light, and formulas explaining how two events could be simultaneous to a person moving at one speed, and separate for a person at another speed. Sketches of the earth, entangled in my various ideas of what space-time might graphically look like, peppered the margins of my physics notebook. Meanwhile, the framework of a mythological universe became illuminated in my classical literature class. I followed Aeneas on his journey to the underworld and back in Virgil’s Aeneid and the transformations of women into trees, cows, and rivers at divine whims in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. I met Virgil’s version of the Cumaean Sybil, a fearsome divine being, one day, and Ovid’s humanized, tragic version the next. Both told the same story of the Sybil guiding Aeneas, but each painted a radically different picture in my mind. What I learned in both classes was highly conceptual, difficult to absorb and even more

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

difficult to fully comprehend. Whether it was working through a special relativity problem that required stretching my mind beyond currently extant technologies or deciphering the underlying ideological implications of one of Ovid’s myths, my coursework took a lot of time and brainpower. The results were more rewarding than anything I had ever experienced. As my brain synthesized these theories, equations, and stories, I felt something that I had never felt so viscerally before: a tangible expansion of the universe. Of course, it was only my own perception that was expanding, but looking up into the sky or through the pages of a book felt palpably deeper, more full of possibility. Ideas and images and words that had previously seemed contained within themselves opened up to a newfound relativity in my mind, sparked

by the relativity of two Sibyls, of two flashes of light moving along the space-time continuum. The awareness of relativity, in this broader sense, is the most profound impact that my studies have had on me so far, and taking challenging courses at school has continued to strengthen it. My coursework is often immensely challenging, and if I was only motivated by a grade or the brief blip of accomplishment that comes with completing an assignment, I do not think I would have stuck it out on the pre-medical track. The thing that keeps me going in these classes, and deeply enjoying them, is the feeling I get when I can take what I learn and form new connections with it, especially beyond the classroom. That sense of accomplishment is rooted deeper than a single grade, test or paper, and continues to motivate me even as I sit here writing

this article, far from class or any pressure to compete. The idea of frame-independence— that the things I learn, whether they are mathematical relationships or sonnets—can be related to each other in constructive ways that can expand my own mind will, hopefully, help me add something, some new combination of ideas and formulas and myths, to the world.

Rachel Butler is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at rachelkbutler@wustl.edu

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

ENDOWMENTS OF SCHOOLS SIMILAR TO WASHU Data from Wikipedia.org and Wash U Annual Report

Endownment Comparison in Billions

Revenues Breakdown

Net Tuitions & Fees

Endorsement Spending

Unendowed Gifts

Grants and Contracts

Hospital Revenue

Auxiliary Enterprises

Hospital Revenue 5

Expense Breakdown 4

U SL

n ow Br

o ag ic

r te es w

as W

Instruction

Research

Academic Support

Student Services

Institutional Support

Auxiliary Enterprises

Other Deductions

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

THE IMPROBABLE JOURNEY OF HOWARD MECHANIC Sam Klein

he temperature was in the low 50s in St. Louis on the night of May 4, 1970, but the thousand-plus Washington University students marching towards the rally site were anything but chilly.

Earlier that day, the Ohio National Guard shot and killed four unarmed student protesters at Kent State University. They were peacefully demonstrating against the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, and more specifically against Nixon’s recent decision to enter neighboring Cambodia. Night fell, and three states away an enormous crowd of students stormed the Hilltop (now known as the Danforth) campus of Washington University in a continuation of their ongoing resistance to the Vietnam War. They headed for the campus Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) building, located in what is now the North Side housing area. A stage had been erected in advance—the rally was planned ahead of time—but because of the events of the day, the press and police correctly anticipated that this time would be different. Campus energy was at an all-time high. Flags were burned. Cries of "smash ROTC" came from all directions. Police sentineled the surrounding buildings in numbers. One event dominated the news and the future narrative—from somewhere within the crowd, a cherry bomb firecracker was lobbed at the ROTC building, sparking a fire. By the early hours of May 5, the building was reduced to charred rubble. In the greater scheme of things, the events on the Washington University campus that night were just one case of a national trend. Protests erupted on campuses across the country, and many schools ended their academic years early. Scores of campus ROTC buildings were torched in the height of the war protests, including the Army ROTC unit at Washington University a few months prior. In that case, there was no protest—one day it was there, the next morning

Buttons from 2000. Courtesy of Washington University Library Special Collections, Image by Sam Klein

it wasn’t, and the arsonist’s identity remains unknown to this day. But campus and local police would not be fooled twice. Among the crowd of students protesting on May 4 was Howard Mechanic, an undergraduate from a Cleveland suburb just a short drive away from Kent State. Mechanic was already on campus, local, and national authorities’ radars as a student activist of interest. “The FBI had incorrect information about me being involved in the Weathermen organization,” Mechanic, now in his late 60s, tells me in a phone interview. The Weathermen, also known as the Weather Underground, were the violent— many would say terrorist—arm of Students for a Democratic Society. The FBI concluded that Mechanic had attended the destructive Days of Rage protests in Chicago the prior October, which Mechanic tells me he did not attend. (He says that he corroborated his alibi with a 2000 Freedom of Information Act request.) In Mechanic’s view, the FBI was not alone in targeting him. According to University records, the chairman of the Washington University Board of Trustees at the time was Charles A. Thomas, the former president of Monsanto who

had substantial involvement in the Manhattan Project. Among his fellow board members sat George Capps, who had formerly worked at the FBI, multiple executives at the Olin Corporation, which produced ammunition for the military during the Vietnam War, and Kendall Perkins, an executive at then-active defense contractor McDonnell Douglas. Clark Clifford, who served as Secretary of Defense under President Lyndon Johnson and who was a prominent opponent of troop escalation in the Vietnam War, was also on the Board at the time. Mechanic believes that administrators may have felt pressured by members of the Board of Trustees to oppose his efforts. I could not obtain comment from surviving administrators or trustees of the time for this article. Unsurprisingly, Mechanic was accused of starting the May 4 fire. He was quite literally read the Riot Act—under a provision bundled in with the recent Civil Rights Act, to even “participate in…a riot” was grounds for years in prison and a hefty fine. Mechanic was already party to a restraining order aimed at student activists, and he was thus easily singled out in the crowd at the rally. According to University library records, the

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

Courtesy of Hatchet, 1970. WUPR has edited this image for clarity

FBI had extensive profiles of the students on the order. With the help of one eyewitness, Mechanic was convicted and sentenced to five years in federal prison. While the FBI and Washington University may not have been justified in targeting Mechanic on grounds of affiliation with the Weathermen, the college senior did help coordinate the campus resistance. He recalls meeting in a lounge in Brookings Hall, the iconic building on the Washington University campus which now houses admissions and executive offices. “There would probably be a couple hundred people there who were working to organize the discussions and events, and there were even more people who showed up at the events.” Maintaining his innocence throughout the proceedings, Mechanic appealed his guilty verdict. His future was in jeopardy—instead of spending the next five years of his life in grad school or working, he very well could be spending them behind bars. And prison had not treated him kindly the first time around—he

had previously served six months in the county jail on similar grounds. “I had threats when I was in there, from the guards,” Mechanic remembers. “A lot of them were ex-military; they considered me a traitor. One of them told me, ‘If I get a chance I’m going to put a bullet in your head.’ They isolated me. So I didn’t think I wanted to serve five years under those types of conditions.” To Mechanic, there were other options. In search of a haven where he could go unrecognized, he skipped town.

Mechanic rode into Albuquerque on a bus, a trip that Google Maps today indicates takes at least fifteen hours. “I thought I’d want to move there, and I got off the bus and it was freezing,” Mechanic recalls. “So I bought another ticket and got back on the bus and ended up in Phoenix.” More specifically, Mechanic discovered the Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale, Arizona, where he reestablished his identity under the alias “Gary Tredway.”

This new destination would serve him well. As the war died down and Howard Mechanic faded from the public consciousness, Gary Tredway rose to a degree of prominence in Scottsdale. The 24-year-old began a new life selling health foods. He later created a business, still alive today, that sells medicinal capsule filling machines and other healthcare products. He was a figure of some repute in the local community, never losing his passion for activism. Tredway settled down with a family, never letting on to the public his true identity. “Gary Tredway” would survive a remarkable 28 years before the façade inevitably shattered. The year was 2000. Still in Scottsdale, Mechanic had attempted to run for public office under his fake identity. A viable candidate for city council, Tredway ran on a platform that campaign flyers indicate emphasized “experience,” “public interests,” and “integrity.” And while Mechanic could not claim local roots, Tredway could. “I was living under an assumed name in Phoenix for 28 years, and the whole time I was in about 4 miles of that bus station.”

POLITICAL REVIEW | WASH U & ST. LOUIS

With great publicity came great scrutiny. In an interview before the election, a local reporter confronted Tredway about the gaping hole she had found in a background check she conducted before the interview. After that, it was only a matter of time—Tredway was no more. The New York Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and, yes, Student Life all picked up the story. Mechanic, now in the brightest spotlight of his life, was headed to the federal penitentiary.

Not everyone saw Mechanic’s imprisonment as an act of justice. Among those who advocated on his behalf, both to the outgoing Clinton administration and in the public realm, were members of Congress from across the country (including William Clay and Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, the latter of whom was also a member of the Washington University faculty); emerging documentarian Michael Moore; Washington University alumnus and actor Harold Ramis; and other public figures, some whose identities were not revealed to Mechanic until a Freedom of Information Act request provided answers. They argued Mechanic never confessed to the crime. The evidence, many suggested, was inconclusive, the law was unjust, and Mechanic’s imprisonment was political in nature. To them, this controversy was a relic of the past from which the government should move on. Amidst the heavy lobbying, the first Christmas of the new millennium approached. ‘Twas the season—rumor and tradition had it that Bill Clinton would be issuing a slew of pardons for the last Christmas of his tenure. Mechanic was ready for his. December 25th passed. No pardon for Howard Mechanic. “I was disappointed that I didn’t get a pardon right before Christmas, because President Clinton issued a bunch of pardons at that time,” Mechanic recalls in a rather understated tone. But he would not have to wait much longer. On the night of January 20th, 2001, the last night of his presidency, Clinton stayed up late signing pardons in what would be some of his final actions as President. “It was probably two hours before he left the office” when Mechanic’s pardon was signed.

The official text of the pardon is granted to Howard Lawrence Mechanic also known as Gary Robert Tredway.

“I don’t think you have to show up at demonstrations to be involved in social change and making the world a better place to be.” Mechanic reminisces about the 1970s without bitterness, but from the cool distance that 46 years provide. “You don’t have to compare yourself with the ‘70s. Things have changed— there are other issues, and there are other ways to deal with the issues.” Indeed, there are alternative methods to leave a mark and advocate for a cause. Fleeing the state on a riot charge and living under a contrived identity for 28 years may not be the recommended path, but its impact was undeniable. Mechanic made national news at multiple points in his life, and his story is inseparable from local folklore. Washington University has produced many influential alumni, and the St. Louis region has a rich history of activism. Howard Mechanic can join the ranks of Arch climber and Veiled Prophet unveiler Percy Green and be counted among the most subversive and legendary advocates for a progressive cause that the school and greater St. Louis region have ever seen. This is not to say that campus activism is not alive today—quite the opposite is true. There are routine student protests in support of adjunct faculty, and images of protests and “die-ins” on our campus frequently grace the webpages of The Atlantic. The semester before I arrived as a freshman, a cohort of environmentally conscious students lived in tents around Brookings Hall— the icon building of the school and the starting point of the campus tour—for sixteen days to protest the University’s close ties to coal giant Peabody Energy. Four decades from now, what will people think of the student activism of today? There is something to be said about the indelibility of disruptions in the ordinary routines of life. Lunch counter sit-ins, human blockades across I-70, disrupting ROTC training—whether you

Mechanic's freshman yearbook photo. Courtesy of Washington University Library

agree or disagree with the means or the ends, those acts of civil disobedience that temporarily affect our lives are the ones we are apt to remember. Unlike petition or conventional protest, they compel a response from the powers that be. The resistance of the Vietnam War era, particularly on our campus, certainly earned a response—and new undergraduates today still regularly hear through the grapevine the story that our campus ROTC was burned down in the early ‘70s. As for Howard Mechanic? You probably will not see him protesting in the streets of Scottsdale anymore. But he is not done setting the record straight—he still maintains that he never threw that firecracker, that he was one of many students strongly but nonviolently taking a stand. And still, according to the man himself, the story is not yet over. “There are a lot of twists and turns,” he assures me. “We’re not finished with it yet.”

Sam Klein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at klein.s@wustl.edu.

NATIONAL

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

THE CASE FOR PRESUMED CONSENT Sabrina Wang

f you can remember back to when you first got your drivers’ license, you may recall being asked if you wanted to be an organ donor. You may not have thought much of it—I know that I, at 16, certainly didn’t—but with an average of 18 people dying every day waiting for an organ transplant in the United States, it is undeniable that organ shortage is a problem with far-reaching effects. To solve this problem, I believe the United States should adopt a system of presumed consent. In its purest form, presumed consent, also called the opt-out system, means that the country assumes that you agree to having your organs donated. The “default setting,” so to speak, is that you are an organ donor, unless you have explicitly stated otherwise. By contrast, the system currently put in place in the United States is the opt-in system, meaning that one is assumed to not want to be an organ donor unless he or she has explicitly stated otherwise. Many presumed consent laws contain built-in safeguards like allowing family members to decide, after death, whether to honor the deceased’s wishes or not, and the maintenance of choice within the system preserves individuals’ autonomy and freedom. Most importantly, the system works: countries that have adopted systems of presumed consent have seen drastic improvements in their rates of organ donation. Emily Jackson describes the effects of the system in the 2006 Medical Law, where she references an organ-transplant center in each of two Belgian cities located only 45 minutes away from each other. In the first city, Antwerp, the alreadyestablished opt-in policy was continued, accompanied by enhanced public and professional education about the importance of organ donation. In the second, Leuven, the system of presumed consent was adopted. Organ donation rates remained unchanged in Antwerp despite other efforts, but in Leuven, they rose from 15 to 40 donors per year. The effectiveness of this case study is echoed by

The system works: countries that have adopted systems of presumed consent have seen drastic improvements in their rates of organ donation. a multitude of wide-range studies: in a 2009 systematic review of the impact of presumed consent published in the British Medical Journal, Amber Rithalia found that general organ donation rates in Austria increased from 4.6 donors per million people per year to 10.1 per million in the four years after introducing presumed consent, while rates of kidney donation in Singapore rose from 4.7 per million to 31.3 per million in three years. To summarize all this country data, a 2006 paper in the Journal of Health Economics by researchers Alberto Abadie and Sebastien Gay found that, once other factors affecting donation were accounted for, donation rates were on average 25 to 30 percent higher in presumed consent countries.

consent can lead to even further benefits by allowing for the elimination of the organ black market. Commercial organ donation negatively impacts the poorest and most vulnerable populations of society; paid kidney donation is often driven by poverty, but economic benefits from donation are limited at best. In fact, many patients who sell their kidneys are perceived to have deteriorated health and, thus, are seen as less employable, leading to negative economic impacts. Ultimately, by adopting a system of presumed consent, the United States will eliminate the need for transplant tourism, saving lives and decreasing inequality in the long run.

These increased organ donation rates will not only save lives by allowing for greater rates of transplantation, however. Some organs donated, which, due to concerns of age and health, may not qualify for transplantation, can go toward medical research instead. Groundbreaking treatment options for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hepatitis, among many other diseases, have been developed through the use of donor organs. Says Roni Lawrence of the University of Wisconsin Health Organ Procurement Organization, “When people donate organs, they're helping both the patient who receives their live-saving transplant right away, and the next generation of recipients who will recover sooner and live longer because of the research happening today.” Presumed consent thus saves lives not only in the short term, but in the long term as well. Beyond saving lives, the increase in donation rates caused by the system of presumed

Sabrina Wang is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at s.d.wang@wustl.edu

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

MILLENNIALS, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND SOCIAL JUSTICE Reuben Siegman

oming of age during a time of rapid and dramatic technological advances, millennials make up a unique generation. They regularly use social media—88 percent report getting their news from Facebook—and are savvy users of the Internet, one of the most important and powerful tools of their time. Checking their phones an average of 43 times a day, millennials seem to be perpetually connected to the world around them, and interact with each other on social media on an almost continuous basis. This connectedness is an essential mechanism with which members of our generation communicate with each other not only just to socialize, but also to advance our ideas of social justice for the world we live in. There are many Facebook pages and Twitter profiles dedicated to social movements, including Social Justice Solutions and Social Justice Warriors, which have a combined 221,000 followers. To millennials, social media is a valuable organizing tool for the causes they champion. And since social media is a relatively recent and constantly evolving phenomenon—Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat are continually tweaking how they work—the strategies activists use to promote change are evolving along with it. This trend can be seen by examining the evolving methods of two major social movements that much of our generation is currently engaged with: Black Lives Matter, and the push for equality among people regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. One of the most well-known social justice movements today is the Black Lives Matter movement, as evidenced by its nearly 130,000 likes on Facebook. This movement is quite different from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, and is a clear reflection of the differences between the baby boomer generation of back then and the millennial generation of today. For starters, Black Lives Matter is a decentralized organization; it has no

formal hierarchy, and no MLK or Malcolm X to serve as its members’ leader by acclamation. The movement has many different chapters, each with varying policies, tactics, and events, yet all united under the same guiding principle— affirming that black lives matter in the face of systems of oppression. Another difference is that this movement was, in fact, founded via social media; the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter proliferated online, and many of the movement’s organizers use social media to mobilize people. This goes to show that many millennials see social media as an incredibly powerful tool with which to organize people in an effort to spread social justice. Many of these people tend to believe that the privacy of their lives should sometimes take a back seat to the values they believe in; for this reason, they actively choose to share social justice causes on their Facebook profiles and retweet words of support on Twitter. Furthermore, there is a great deal of pressure on these movements to be as inclusive as possible to fight for the rights of individuals who are queer, female, or who otherwise have intersecting or marginalized identities. This, again, is quite different from the Civil Rights Movement, which was not as inclusive. In fact, within the groups of the 60s, participants often did not live up to their ideals of equality when dealing with women and people with different sexual preferences. Dr. King, with his alleged infidelity and poor treatment of the women he worked with, is a clear example. This leads us to another cause that many millennials are very passionate about: equality for those who do not identify with a “traditional” sex, sexuality, or gender identity. This movement for LGBTQ rights is decentralized as well. In fact, there is no single organization that people uniformly agree is leading this cause, though the Human Rights Campaign is a big name in the movement. Millennials, for the most part, realize that these identities are fluid, and how one identifies in this regard is a deeply

personal matter. Supporters of LGBTQ rights are often especially avid users of social media. One example of these activists making use of online platforms takes the form of Facebook profile photo changes to support the movement at strategic times, like whenever a piece of legislation relating to LGBTQ rights is being debated. Another example is when Facebook gave users the option to put a rainbow filter over their profile pictures following the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. This legal decision was a major milestone for the movement; now, however, it is unclear what the next goal is. Since there is no single organization leading the cause, it can be difficult to agree on the next goal, and then create an effective and unified effort such as the one put in place to push for same-sex marriage. As the millennial generation matures, it remains to be seen how its members will continue their advocacy through social media. So far, the intersection of social justice and social media is still in its infancy, with no clearly defined method of how to best leverage it. While organizations have experimented with creating groups, pages, and hashtags, there is no universal conclusion on which technique is the best. Millennial activists have, however, attempted to make the organizations and movements that they support reflect the values of much of the generation, namely those relating to equality and inclusiveness. The result is that some of the movements that advance millennials’ favored causes look quite different from the social movements of previous generations. This will be a great challenge for the millennial generation: how to keep the social justice movements in line with the values they cherish, while still making sure they are effective at advancing the causes that millennials hold dear.

Reuben Siegman is a Sophmore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at reuben.siegman@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

LESSONS FROM EMORY Benjamin Szanton

ears of debate surrounding the merits of safe spaces versus freedom of expression came to a head a few weeks ago at Emory University. After someone wrote “Vote for Trump,” “Accept the Inevitable: Trump 2016,” and a number of related messages in chalk on the sidewalk of the Atlanta campus, a few dozen students protested vigorously, claiming that the sentiment constituted a violent threat against their safety. “I legitimately feared for my life,” one student said. Eager to avoid a public relations disaster like those experienced by institutions that have come across as insensitive towards similar protests, Emory initially bent over backwards to accommodate the concerned students. The chalk messages conveyed “values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory’s own,” University President James Wagner wrote in a campus-wide email. He pledged to use surveillance footage to identify the perpetrators and to respond with disciplinary action or trespassing charges. Likely sensing that policing speech as simple as “Vote for Trump” would appear absurd, the Emory administration seemed to rush to find some deeper justification. At the very least, it made the vague assertion that there was one. “If we look at the [demands of the students] just at face value, we're missing something,” Emory’s dean of campus life said. Perhaps. But those demands, to punish a student or individual in the surrounding community who did little more than reproduce a generic bumper sticker slogan, would be tremendously inappropriate. After all, whoever was responsible agreed politically with nearly forty percent of Georgia’s Republican primary voters. More importantly, a university should be equipping students to make their own decisions, not endorsing or condemning a candidate. Besides, students opposing Trump would do well to realize that attempts to silence his support only bolster his supporters’ narrative that they are fighting an establishment uninterested in hearing Trump’s truth. Similarly, the notion of college students claiming to

perceive something as banal as “Vote for Trump” as a death threat supports the idea that these students use their own supposed fragility as a weapon—taking advantage of a liberal echo chamber to silence any ideas that challenge their own. Emory’s administration gradually backtracked from its original position. President Wagner wrote his own message in chalk: “Emory stands for free expression.” Of course, in the context of campus speech, the conventionally and legally understood concepts of free speech are not always what is meant when a college promises them. Washington University, for instance, has freshman and sophomore floors agree on a set of prewritten guidelines. One of these is “freedom of expression”, a category that effectively serves as a reminder to students not to say things that might offend others in order to provide a safe space for everyone to feel comfortable communicating. Avoiding blatantly offensive speech is a thoroughly decent and considerate thing to do. There is nothing wrong with a university reminding its students that their peers might experience and react to certain speech differently than others. At the same time, universities should be mindful not to coddle their students or trample on fundamentally American rights. As nice as Washington University’s official dorm definition of “freedom of expression” – essentially allowing others to be comfortable so that they can express themselves freely – may be, freedom of expression means the opposite. It is of course about free expression, not restricting expression. To be fair to universities, they toe a fine line of including students of different backgrounds, educating students, and preserving their institutional reputations. To be fair to social justice protesters, they fight against centuries of oppressive power structures, which they feel Trump reinforces. To be fair to the students at Emory alarmed by a simple declaration of support for a political candidate, support for Trump, while obviously and rightfully protected, is not support for a normal candidate. Trump,

through his own actions, has transcended the normal definitions of political discourse. Through his rambling style and revelry in bullying his opponents, Trump has profoundly blurred the lines of what constitutes political speech. No other candidate has been so determined to harass his or her opponents – Trump publicly reported Lindsey Graham’s personal phone number and purchased the rights to jebbush.com, for example. Nobody else has spent as much time boasting and answering questions with insults. Trump’s foes have done their best not to stoop to his level, but after seeing their failure to stop his momentum, even the conventional Marco Rubio resorted to insinuating that his opponent had a small penis. With Trump, there really is no line between his political speech of the 2016 election and anything else he has ever said or done. We have simply seen a continuation of bragging, bullying and egomania. More than with any other candidate, the protesters against Trump have been forgiven for conflating the severity of “Vote for Trump” with the horrible things he has said. “Vote for Trump” is not equal to “Vote Against Islam Because American Muslims Celebrated 9/11” or “Vote for Torture and Killing the Innocent Families of ISIS Members,” but it might seem that way. Ultimately, the Emory protesters were in the wrong more than others on the campus. They were seeking to stifle some of the most foundational speech rights. They were asking their university to condemn possible supporters of a man who might in fact be the next President of the United States. If anything, the protesters' methods only added fuel to Trump’s fire. However, they also stumbled upon what will be either a lasting legacy or a disturbing memory of the 2016 election: a dramatic expansion in the boundaries of political speech.

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

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

ONE VOTE, MANY OBSTACLES Aryeh Mellman

y quest to submit an absentee ballot began easily enough. Since I had realized early on that the Missouri presidential primary was taking place over spring break, I had ample time to send in a request for an absentee ballot, and simply had to check a box stating that I needed one because I would be out of town during the primary. But the fact that I even had to check that box indicates that Missouri has somewhat strict voting laws.

Twenty-seven states (plus D.C.) allow citizens to either vote early or vote absentee without any sort of excuse. Another seven states provide for early voting, but require an excuse for absentee voting. Three more conduct their elections solely by mail. Missouri is among the unlucky 13 that require all voters to cast their ballots on a specific day, or provide an excuse if they must do so beforehand. “Provide an excuse” does not seem like too onerous of a commitment; all I had to do was check a box. Yet the difficulties involved in casting my ballot only increased from there. Once I received my ballot (which only happened in time because I’m a political junkie who checked the primary schedule far enough in advance to mail out an absentee request, receive my ballot, and mail it back in time for the primary), I came across another wrinkle. After proudly filling out my little bubble, I realized that I would have to get my ballot notarized. A few inquiries at Olin Library led me to a (suddenly very busy) notary who had an office on the second floor of the building. I made an appointment with her for the next day and returned then to have my ballot notarized. Afterward, I dropped it in the mailbox. This micro-ordeal led me to wonder why Missouri required me to jump through so many hoops in order to exercise a foundational right. Ostensibly, voter ID laws exist to prevent voter fraud (a claim that is dubious enough on its own, given the minute amount of voter fraud in the US). However, requiring a notarized ballot adds an extra layer of difficulty to the voting process without even effectively protecting against fraud.

State government officials can either choose to make voting as painless as possible, or they can choose to throw up arbitrary barriers that will disproportionately harm their most vulnerable constituents. Illustrating the inability of the notary requirement to protect against fraud, the absentee ballot lists several options the voter can choose from when selecting the reason he or she requires such a ballot. One of the options is “incapacity or confinement due to illness or physical disability, including a person who is primarily responsible for the physical care of a person who is incapacitated or confined due to illness or disability.” An asterisk on this option notes that those selecting this choice do not require a notary. So had I wanted to commit voter fraud in some way, I could have simply selected the non-notary option and mailed in my ballot, and it still would have counted. Thus, through this loophole, one could easily circumvent the burdensome mechanism put in place to inhibit voter fraud. To take a step back for a moment: why am I so distraught over having to find a notary? In truth, it wasn’t too difficult for me; it took a few minutes to find a notary on Google, then two separate 10-minute trips that were hardly out of my way. The problem is that submitting this ballot was easy for me: a college student with plenty of time on his hands at one of the wealthiest institutions in the country. It is not as simple for so many other Missourians. Consider all of the obstacles that could easily trip up someone without such easy access to information and resources. Voters have to know the date of the election several weeks in advance, so that they have time to mail in an absentee request, receive their ballots, and send them back in before election day. Already, anyone who doesn’t follow the

primary races particularly closely has lost their chance to exercise their most fundamental democratic right. But assume that a voter does keep relatively up-to-date with politics. That citizen still has to find a notary, go out of his or her way to make an appointment, and then physically visit an office that could be well out-of-the-way. And since notaries are likely only available during business hours, voters have to leave work early, skip their lunch hour, lose some sleep, or be late picking up their kids from school in order to get a simple piece of paper signed. Yes, this only affects absentee voters, but the state of Missouri should not be making it more difficult for any of her citizens to vote. And this is not just a Missouri problem: many states across the US suffer from long lines, dysfunctional machines, and poorlycommunicated ID laws, which serve to depress voter turnout. State government officials can either choose to make voting as painless as possible, or they can choose to throw up arbitrary barriers that will disproportionately harm their most vulnerable constituents. We will all be worse off so long as they continue to choose the latter.

Aryeh Mellman is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at aryeh.mellman@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

CAP AND TRADE: A PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO A PRESSING PROBLEM Michael Fogarty | Illustrated by Chris Reisenbichler

ast fall, the United States and 194 other countries inked a historic climate accord. The Paris Agreement, as it is called, aims to prevent global temperatures from rising two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Signatories can ratify the agreement starting this month, and the provisions take effect in 2020. Climate scientists generally agree that keeping the global rise in temperatures below the two degree threshold will mitigate permanent damage to the global ecosystem and minimize the effects of climate change on the sea level, sparing some of the world’s most populous cities from rising oceans. There is consensus among climate scientists that the world will change significantly and rapidly if we do not act now to alter the course of climate change.

The potential costs of climate change are staggering, and immediate action is needed to minimize these future costs to society. Climate change is making weather more erratic and extreme. More frequent and potent storms such as hurricanes, tornadoes and typhoons will cause billions of dollars in damage. Additionally, rising sea levels increase the risk of coastal flooding, threatening major coastal cities around the world such as New York, Calcutta, Amsterdam, and Tokyo. Climate change also poses a serious threat to agriculture; changing weather patters can create severe droughts, threating regional food supplies. Furthermore, the more erratic weather patterns will make year-to-year harvests inconsistent, putting additional stress on the world food supply. This will be especially burdensome for poor and developing nations that do not have the resources to support their populations in the event of agricultural crises. Although the Paris Agreement lacks a binding enforcement mechanism, it is an important step forward in the fight against climate change. It is an opportunity for the world to work together to stop the common threat that climate change poses to all of the inhabitants of planet Earth, especially those in the developing

world who are feeling the effects of the rapidly changing climate but lack the resources to protect themselves from its effects. The United States needs to set an example for the rest of the world and take leadership on the climate issue. The United States has the most advanced economy in the world and is the world’s second largest greenhouse gas producer, behind China—it has a responsibility to reduce its emissions to ensure the future prospects of both its citizens and the citizens of the rest of the world. The Paris Agreement is not the first treaty countries have created with the purpose of combating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997, recognized that climate change was caused by man-made pollution, and set forward targets to reduce GHG emissions. Although 192 countries were parties to the treaty, only 52 nations (the bulk of which are in the European Union) adopted binding emissionsreduction targets. Some of the worlds largest polluters, including the United Sates, China, and India declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol, greatly reducing its efficacy. The Paris Agreement is a second chance for the world community to work together to save our planet. The Paris Agreement presents a great opportunity for the U.S. to show the world that it is willing to lead by example on this issue. This requires that the United States take bold action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and give the rest of the world a model to follow. Due to the upcoming election, it is unlikely that any major legislation on this issue will make it through Congress this year, so this task will fall to our next President. Whoever we elect this November should make major climate policy reform a top priority for his or her first year in office. Fortunately, solutions exist that will allow the United States to achieve these goals. The most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions

is to put a price on pollution. Pollution, in this case GHG emissions, is an example of what economists call a negative externality, the unintended consequence of producing and using goods and services. Greenhouse gases increase the Earth’s temperature by trapping more solar radiation in the atmosphere, which is detrimental to society. Producers do not take these societal costs into account, so they produce more pollution than is socially optimal. The way to solve the negative externality problem is to force producers to internalize these costs when they decide to make goods and services, in this case with some form of a tax or price on greenhouse gas emissions. Although a simple tax on carbon dioxide emissions would be one possible way for the United States to reduce its GHG emissions, it is not the only way to achieve this objective. A “cap and trade” system is a more dynamic and flexible mechanism to achieve the same results. Cap and trade uses a market mechanism to allow greenhouse gas emitters to effectively trade the rights to pollute. The government sets a hard cap on the total level of emissions, then allocates the right to pollute to different producers in sectors such as energy and manufacturing. This is usually done proportionally to the amount of GHG emitted by each producer that participates in the system. Producers can then trade their right to pollute, and market forces set the price of pollution. This incentivizes producers with lower costs of controlling emissions to cut the amount they pollute and sell the excess rights to pollute to those producers with higher costs of controlling emissions. The ability to profit by selling the right to pollute incentivizes the private sector to invest in the development of low-carbon technologies and alternative energy sources. A cap and trade system allows the government greater control over the size and timing of reducing GHG emissions. This is compared to a carbon tax system, where the level of emissions

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This amounts to a greater than 15 percent reduction in emissions from 2015 levels in a five-year period. Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cap and trade system is one component in a progressive energy policy that also includes energy efficiency regulations, fuel efficiency standards, and the promotion of renewable energy sources. Although the United States uses a system similar to this to regulate nitrogen oxide, it should expand the program to other pollutants such as carbon dioxide and methane. The federal government should seek to emulate the other elements of Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s climate policy as well as its cap and trade system to create a comprehensive, nationwide strategy for reducing emissions. The main argument against cap and trade, and taxing emissions in general, is the economic cost of these policies. Many opponents of climate regulation claim that the harm done to the economy by regulating the emission of greenhouse gases outweighs the benefits to the environment, but the emissions trading scheme provides a resounding refutation of this claim. Substantial reductions in GHG emissions can be achieved at small cost to todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy, leaving future generations with a more habitable earth. The benefits of a cap and trade system for the environment, both now and into the future, far outweigh the costs they impose on producers.

is indirectly controlled by changing the tax rate. In a cap and trade system, government regulators can gradually lower the cap on emissions over the entire country, ensuring that the United States would meet its goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, strict monitoring coupled with heavy fines for exceeding the cap are necessary to ensure that businesses comply with the requirements.

Emissions Trading System (ETS) to meet its GHG reduction requirements from the Kyoto Protocol. By 2020, emissions from industries regulated by the ETS will be 21 percent lower compared to 2005 levels. These impressive reductions in GHG emissions are achieved at minimal cost, with some estimates pegging the cost of the ETS to the European Union at 0.01 percent of GDP.

Cap and trade systems have already been successfully implemented around the world. The European Union introduced the

Closer to home, California has implemented a cap and trade system to meet its legislative requirement to reduce greenhouse gas

A cap and trade system is the best way for the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and do its part to comply with the provisions of the Paris Agreement.. Cap and trade systems are dynamic; they encourage the lowest cost solution to reducing GHG emissions. Cap and trade systems are also flexible, allowing regulators t0 easily target the exact level of emissions they want to limit. The combination of these two attractive features makes cap and trade the best system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the effects of climate change on our shared planet.

Michael Fogarty is a freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at michael.fogarty@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

WTFLORIDA? Lauren Bergerr | Image courtesy of Flickr

lorida: the great land of sunshine, beaches, palm trees, retirement communities, fresh-squeezed orange juice, a LeBron James-less Miami Heat, and, of course, bath salt-crazed zombies who eat the flesh off the faces of innocent, unsuspecting bystanders. Sounds like paradise, right?

• Florida Man Pocket-Dials 911 While Cooking Meth With Mom

Why is it that every story about degenerates, loons, and psychopaths-on-the-run seems to take place in the Sunshine State? I’ve lived in South Florida all my life, and I can assure you that aside from when I'm driving in Miami, I have yet to personally observe any incident that exemplifies this growing trend of mass havoc affecting Florida from coast to coast.

• Florida Man Says He Ran Through Airport in Underwear Waiving Nunchakus Because He "Kinda Always Wanted to be Tased"

In fact, the most out-of-the-ordinary thing that I ever witnessed during my time living in Florida occurred just after Hurricane Ivan hit my suburb and flooded the streets to such an extreme level that people used boats and water skis as a mode of transportation around town. And that wasn’t insanity—that was just awesome.

“Florida is basically America’s giant beach umbrella, duh,” said sophomore Andres Fernandez, a Miami Beach resident. “It allows people to be shady while enjoying the sun.”

However, it is hard to deny that there is something fishy happening in my home state when both a parody Twitter account called “Florida Man” (@_FloridaMan) and a Subreddit called “WTF Florida” exist. I can’t help but wonder, what exactly is in the water surrounding America’s favorite peninsula? To get a better idea of what exactly Florida has done to earn its notoriety, I will include some of the most enticing “Florida Man” tweets I found upon scrolling down "his" Twitter feed. All of the following tweets reference actual news stories: • Florida Man Slips While Riding Hoverboard, Accidentally Shoots Cousin • Florida Man Seen Firing Musket at Cars While Dressed as Pirate • Florida Man Orders Pizza to Illegal Cock Fight • Florida Man charged with assault with a deadly weapon after throwing alligator through Wendy’s drive-thru window • Vomit-covered Florida Man Hands Police Ruby Tuesday’s Coupon Instead of Driver’s License

• Florida Man Arrested For Beating Drag Queen With Tiki Torch While Dressed as Member of KKK, Now Running For Mayor • Florida Man Says He Danced on Patrol Car in Order to Escape Vampires

To uncover the root cause of the widespread insanity sweeping the State of Florida, I took to the streets of Wash U to uncover what insight my fellow Floridian Wash U Bears had to offer.

“It’s all about the gulfstream,” explains junior Austin Settle, a resident of St. Pete Beach. “Hot wind comes up from the Atlantic and causes all that humidity.” As it turns out, there’s actually a much more logical explanation behind the plethora of manic stories that seem to have accumulated throughout the state. For one thing, Florida is the third most populous state, topping over 20 million residents as of December 2015, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Furthermore, Florida receives upwards of 80 million tourists every year, many of whom are also inclined to participate in newsworthy activities when they’re not riding Space Mountain at Walt Disney World or enjoying the beach with their college buddies. Additionally, Florida is well-known for having a rather disjointed population. Florida is one of the most ethnically, racially, and culturally diverse states. As the Miami New Times depicted in its piece, “The Ten Distinct States That Make Up Florida,” counties can range drastically in their demographic distinctiveness. However, one of the main reasons that Florida appears to “breed” all the bizarre “WTF” stories

boils down to the fact that it is the only state with open-records laws. In 1909, Florida passed Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, known as its Public Record Law. According to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, this law “provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted by the Florida Legislature.” In other words, this law is what enables reporters to access most police reports and disclosed incidents, and allows people like you and me to ogle at every bizarre anecdote about Florida-induced crazy. This gets to another point entirely. While Florida may have earned a bit of a reputation for its news stories and ridiculousness, why is it the only state that mandates this access? Every state has a freaky side, and maybe it’s time for the other 49 of them to let loose and show off what they've got. As the semester unravels, and as I look forward to putting final exams and essays behind me and going home to lay out on the beach, I remember all of the great things Florida has to offer. I also can’t help but make a little wish that I’m not the next victim of a little too much heat and a lot of Florida Madness.

Lauren Berger is a junior in the Olin Business School. She can be reached at LaurenBerger@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | NATIONAL

JOHN OLIVER AND “REAL” JOURNALISM Max Handler | Illustrated by Cathy O'Malley

ith each passing primary, Donald Trump moves closer to the Republican nomination, and thus to the presidency. While polls seem to indicate that a general election against presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would be a bloodbath for the GOP with Trump as its nominee, many Republican voters continue to voice fullthroated support for Trump. The Republican establishment has tried in vain to turn the base against Trump, but their efforts have failed so far. Substantive attacks on Trump’s lack of policy knowledge and conservative credentials, as well as on his questionable business dealings, have given way to Trump-like attacks on his person— ranging from his hair to his hand size. The media is beginning to change its tune as well. They have mostly gone easy on Trump so far, giving him wildly disproportionate amounts of airtime. But some parts of the media have started to go negative on Trump. The liberal media have been pleased to do whatever they can to make him the Republican nominee—since he makes Republicans look dumb and is likely to lose a general election— and they will put in a similar effort to ensure he is not elected president. At the center of the media's efforts to stop Trump is John Oliver. A segment on Trump from Oliver's HBO program Last Week Tonight has been viewed over 20 million times on YouTube in under a month. The segment has led to a wave of people referring to Trump by his family’s ancestral last name – Drumpf. The movement to “Make Trump Drumpf Again” has gained much support from online media. Immediately after the segment aired, multiple outlets ran articles about how Oliver had “destroyed” Trump. In the eyes of the media, the Drumpf joke was a winner; it simultaneously hurt Trump and showcased the brilliance of John Oliver. But in reality, the segment had the opposite effect. It utterly failed to have any impact on the race, and perhaps more importantly, it highlighted serious issues with John Oliver and journalism as a whole. The idea that the segment had any effect on the electorate’s thoughts on the election is

preposterous. Nor was the piece particularly great at showcasing Trump’s flaws. Trump is a deeply flawed candidate and an easy target. Just about anyone can put together a solid Trump hit piece. Oliver was mildly amusing, but it failed to stand out from the pack. The real difference between Oliver’s anti-Trump rant and those of other media figures was simply the degree to which the media hyped it. However, the real issue with the segment was not that it was ineffective, but rather that it was offensive. The humor behind the Drumpf “joke” is that Trump’s ancestral name is foreign and funny-sounding. The humor of this joke, ironically, is derived from the exact same xenophobia that Trump espouses. Oliver justifies the joke on the basis that it’s fair game. Trump criticized Jon Stewart for changing his name from Jon Leibowitz and thus hiding his heritage. But there is a fundamental difference between what Stewart did and what Trump did. Stewart made an active choice to change his name – he chose to hide his heritage. Donald Trump did no such thing. Drumpf was never his name. It was the name of his family many generations ago, and it was changed long before Trump was ever born. So how on Earth is this a valid criticism? The joke is nothing short of offensive, but Oliver gets a pass because he’s liberal and because he’s a comedian. It should be noted that John Oliver isn’t really a comedian – or at least, he doesn’t want to be treated as one. I don’t say this because his show isn’t funny, although it really isn’t-ridiculous similes and consistently repeating “It’s 2016!” should not qualify as humor. Oliver, like Stewart before him, is a political pundit. He may be a particularly funny pundit, but he is a pundit nonetheless. Oliver wants to have it both ways: he wants his opinions to be taken

seriously, as if he were a pundit, but he doesn’t want his actual opinions and reasoning to be held to the same standard. While arguing for his preferred politics, he wants to mock those on the other side. But when someone points out weaknesses in his argument, he wants to fall back on the “I’m just a comedian” defense. Oliver answered “no” when NPR asked if his show was journalism. Stewart did the same thing. He claimed he was a comedian who also tried to engage in serious policy debate. This is not to say that comedians can’t engage in policy debates; they simply can’t do so purely as comedians. They must be held to the same standard as everyone else. It won’t be long before the Drumpf meme dies. Trump supporters love to quote the catchphrase “Can’t Stump the Trump.” It seems that saying applies here, as Donald Trump will continue to be unstumpable. John Oliver will make more segments, and his fans will keep convincing themselves that watching a twenty-minute clip is the equivalent of reading a serious discussion of policy. Max Handler is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at handlermax@gmail.com.

INTERNATIONAL

POLITICAL REVIEW | INTERNATIONAL

Nicolas Maduro, President of Venezuela

AUTHORITARIANISM AND THE “PINK TIDE” Luke Voyles | Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

uring the 21st century, popular elections brought many left-wing governments into power in Latin America in a movement known popularly as the “Pink Tide.” The movement rose up in 1999 in response to the demise of decades-long, right-wing governments that were supported by the United States, and gained ground because of popular disillusionment with the structural adjustment and austerity measures imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Countries that have experienced Pink Tide administrations include Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Argentina. But now, many critics call attention to the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of Presidents Evo Morales of Bolivia, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. For instance, Venezuelan model Genesis Carmona was killed in protests against the Maduro

government in 2014. Shortly after, one of her family members asked, "How long are we going to live like this? How long do we have to tolerate this pressure, with them killing us?" While some Pink Tide governments, such as the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, have recently fallen to more conservative politicians, most others have stayed in power despite a recent spike in opposition towards them. The political situation in Brazil offers an emblematic example of a Pink Tide government experiencing backlash due to its authoritarianism. Though President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, the original Pink Tide leader of the country, has left office, he has been replaced by his ideologically and politically similar successor, President Dilma Rousseff. Lula’s and Rousseff’s ascent to power are perfect examples of how “Pink Tide” leaders were swept into office after 1999. Lula

was elected president in 2003 after serving as a union leader during the Brazilian military junta that governed Brazil from 1964 to 1985. Rousseff is a former Marxist guerrilla who was tortured during the junta’s rule. But now, Dilma Rousseff’s government, one of the most democratic of the Pink Tide, is falling apart. In late 2015, the Chamber of Deputies authorized impeachment proceedings against Rousseff after she was accused of being involved with the Petrobras scandal by illicitly paying kickbacks to government officials involved with the Petrobras petroleum company. Additionally, she raised eyebrows when she named her predecessor, Lula, as her chief of staff. Protesters numbering in the millions are calling for Rousseff’s resignation. Furthermore, the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, the biggest party coalition in the legislature, broke off relations with Rousseff’s coalition. Rousseff will attempt to form a new coalition, but she

POLITICAL REVIEW | INTERNATIONAL

is in massive political trouble. The Petrobras scandal infuriated Brazilians who were already outraged by the costs associated with the 2014 FIFA World Cup, and the upcoming cost of this year’s Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

The nations of Latin America certainly merit more widespread coverage in the United States. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, another Pink Tide leader, has also struggled recently Correa was elected in 2007 after running on a platform of ending structural adjustment policies and austerity measures that harmed the poor. But Correa’s authoritarianism quickly came through when he criticized U.S.-based comedian John Oliver after the latter made fun of when Correa greeted a popular clown on stage during one of his addresses to the nation, and later when Correa explicitly singled out Tweeters who denounced his administration. The skit itself, however, was not the end of the story. Correa bluntly suggested that Oliver was not funny and that the comedian expressed oversensitivity in regard to the Tweeters. Oliver then used this series of events to play a game with his audience, asking them to point to the locations of Latin American countries on a map. When much of his audience failed to locate several key countries, Oliver exposed the widespread ignorance Americans have about Latin American countries and their governments. The very scope of "Latin America" lacks universal clarity. Thomas Skidmore and Peter H. Smith, authors of Modern Latin America, define the region as consisting of 20 nations and the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. These nations stretch throughout most of South America and some of North America. As one would expect, the region is far from homogeneous. For example, while most Latin Americans speak Spanish, Brazilians speak Portuguese and Haitians speak French. Enmity has historically existed between some of the countries, such as between El Salvador and Honduras, as immigration issues between

those two countries long predated what became the Soccer War of 1969 (which was actually largely unrelated to soccer). In short, there are obvious divisions and distinctions between Latin American nations because of their differing histories and lived experiences. But despite their longstanding differences, Latin American nations occasionally follow similar political currents and ideas. Positivism, for instance, was the predominant philosophy at the turn of the 20th century, and military juntas (often funded by the United States) overthrew civilian governments in the 1950s and in every decade until the 1990s. The Pink Tide is just another example of a current spreading throughout much of the continent. There are even similarities in how the Pink Tide governments came to be. For example, several of these leaders included former rebels that were against military governments, including the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional in Nicaragua and the Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional in El Salvador. In short, it is no surprise that the “Pink Tide” contains common themes and origins throughout numerous Latin American nations.

while Rousseff may continue to lose power in the coming weeks, the other authoritarian Pink Tide governments will remain. Hopefully, the Pink Tide governments will become more lenient and democratic as time passes. Even adherents to right-wing ideologies sometimes prefer a democratic leftist government to an authoritarian rightwing regime. Fortunately, much of the support for the Pink Tide is collapsing; some pundits are writing about how the Pink Tide is “turning.” Also fortunate is the fact that supporters of more democratic left-wing governments, such as the government of President Tabare Vazquez of Uruguay, are starting to make their voices known. Even democratic right-wing politicians, such as Mauricio Macri of Argentina, are gaining power. Perhaps the moderates will finally prevail over the radical right and the far left for the first time since the mid-1990s.

Hopefully, the “Pink Tide” governments will become more lenient and democratic as time passes. The nations of Latin America certainly merit more widespread coverage in the United States. The “Pink Tide” produced many leaders who bypass term limits and abrogate human rights. This is evident across the board in Latin America. Nicolas Maduro’s government in Venezuela, for example, cracks down harshly on dissidents, as we saw with the killing of a model who was protesting. Or Evo Morales’ government in Bolivia, which changed the nation’s constitution so that Morales could serve a third term. Then there is Correa, whose anger at his critics could eventually lead to reprisals and violence against them by his followers. And

Luke Voyles is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at lrvoyles@wustl.edu.

POLITICAL REVIEW | INTERNATIONAL

MORE SILENCE ABOUT BREXIT – MORE TROUBLE FOR THE EU Tomek Cebrat

hough the British referendum on leaving the European Union is just two months ahead, the British people likely do not feel as though something truly historical is going to happen. This is not because leaving the EU, a proposal known as the “Brexit,” is unlikely—in fact, polls show voters evenly distributed between the Leave and Remain camps—but because the intensity of public debate remains low. The old and well-known threats of the United Kingdom of leaving the European community, from a greater push by Scottish people to gain independence to businesses leaving the country, do not evoke emotions at the same scale that they did in the past. The public opinion thus remains hugely unaffected by the campaign. At least since November, the support for both options has stagnated between 40 and 45 percent, with over 10 percent undecided. The apathetic electorate A glance at young people’s preferences will tell us that the weakness of the whole referendum campaign is rooted in the weakness of the Remain camp. Its failure to mobilize its electorate is best epitomized in the attitudes of voters aged 18-24. According to a poll conducted for the Observer magazine, 53 percent of them, more than in any other age group, back EU membership, with only 29 percent of them opposing it; however, just over half of this group is determined to actually vote on June 23, an expected turnout less than that of any other age group. Ironically, the pro-EU education secretary recently said that the young people would be most affected by Brexit. Leaders of the Remain camp know that in the event of Brexit, students would have limited access to foreign education and job markets. Pro-EU politicians are also concerned that 29 percent of businesses, discouraged by limits on trade and movement of capital, are ready to reduce operations in the UK or completely relocate if Brexit occurs, thus reducing opportunities for employment.

However, the Remain campaign does not succeed in communicating these (real) threats in order to mobilize young voters. Scotland and lost emotions A substantial difficulty for the Remain camp is its inability to stir voters’ emotions, which the Eurosceptics once stirred with their opposition to immigration. In fact, Boris Johnson, the mayor of London and a prominent supporter of Brexit, claims that mass immigration would be essential for economic growth independent of the EU. This takes away from EU enthusiasts the unique opportunity to stand up against right-wing xenophobia. The issue of Scottish independence, central during past campaigns, is also losing its rhetoric value. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister and leader of the separatist and pro-EU Scottish National Party, warned that if Britain votes to leave, there “almost certainly” will be a second vote on the Scottish independence. (The first one, held in 2014, failed 45-55 percent.) Such a move would be in line with SNP’s old rhetoric that Brexit would “force” pro-European Scotland out of the UK. Yet the number of Scots expected to vote for independence in case of Brexit—54%—is too reminiscent of the polls before the first failed referendum for Sturgeon to take a huge political risk by calling another one. Voters in other parts of the UK have likely lost interest in the issue, and that keeps public attention away from the Remain campaign.

believe that he actually wants UK to stay in the EU. On the other hand, 74% say the same about PM Cameron, who is on the pro-EU side of generally Eurosceptic Conservative Party. European Union officials have recently been unhelpful in convincing Corbyn to campaign for the EU’s cause. In January, German weekly Der Spiegel argued that EU leaders are so determined to prevent the Brexit “at all costs” that they would give Cameron an easy win in negotiations over Britain’s status in the EU if it votes to stay. The publication rightly anticipated the concessions over providing welfare benefits to immigrants that the EU member countries granted to the UK on February 19. Given this evidence of the EU’s opportunism and lack of vision, campaigning for it may just not be worthwhile for Corbyn, who would seek a fundamental social-democratic reform in the organization. And without a campaign effort by the Labour Party and Corbyn, who proved his outstanding charisma during the party’s leadership race, the boredom with Scotland, young people’s indifference, and a strong Leave campaign are likely to lead Britain out of the EU.

Unbalanced negotiations One could blame the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, for this situation. As I argued in an earlier article about British EU membership (re: Is it Really about Economics? WUPR 23.2), Corbyn’s landslide victory in his party’s leadership election last fall was a success for the traditional, social democratic, internationalist, and pro-EU Labour Party. Yet Corbyn has not engaged in the Remain campaign; in fact, only 47% of British people

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

POLITICAL REVIEW | PARTING WORDS

DEBATES HOSTED BY WASH U 2016, Upcoming Presdential Debate TBD

2008 Vice Presdential Debate Sen. Joe Biden (D) Gov. Sarah Palin (R) 2004 Presdential Debate Sen. John Kerry (D) Pres. George W. Bush (R) 2000 Presdential Debate Cancelled

1992 Presdential Debate Gov. Bill Clinton (D) Pres. George Bush (R) Ross Perot (I)