LO U I S W A S H U & S T.
Table of Contents Section
Page
Title
Words
Cover
Art Leslie Liu
4 Community Agreements Pressure
3 Editors' Note
Jon Niewjik & Rohan Palacios
6 The Paradox of Self-Care [1]
Ranen Miao
8 Wash U’s Sluggish Response to International Students’ Crisis [2]
Helen Webley-Brown
12 Theme Art: Pressure Study [3]
Natalie Snyder
13 Adversity is a Matter of Mindset [4]
Blake Comeaux
Merry May Ma
15 Go with the Flow [5]
Merry May Ma
Shonali Palacios
19 The Flaw with Social Media Activism [6]
Claudia Bermudez
21 Theme Art [7] National
International
Ashley Roh
Shonali Palacios
22 The Inevitable Disappointment of Politics [8]
Elena Murray
24 Race in Public Education [9]
Hannah Richardson
27 Gentle Time [10]
Nisha Mani
29 The Courts: America's Most Conservative Institution [11]
Jaden Lanza
34 Political Expression in the NFL [12]
Christian Monzon
37 How Extremists Can Threaten, and Moderates Can Save, the Two-State Solution [13] Damiano Servidio 39 Is COVID a Game-Changer? How the Pandemic Could Result in a Greener Future. [14]Gabriel Squitieri
[1] Proper self-care, which includes a recognition that work should not cannibalize every other part of life, is essential if we want to stay healthy in an increasingly stressful world. [2] Co-writing a petition to pressure the Wash U administration has pushed me to reflect on my experiences as an international student and how Wash U has impacted it. I discuss my (negative) reaction to Wash U’s response to ICE’s directive for F-1 and M-1 students. I also touch on the financial and cultural pressures facing international students, as well as the importance of pressuring the university to acknowledge and meet your need. [3] On desktop, this piece is best viewed at 50% zoom. [4] Our mindsets and reactions when faced with pressure completely affect the outcomes of said pressure. By remaining confident and hopeful, we are able to be empowered by pressure. [5] I share my experience living and adjusting to pressure in the time of COVID. [6] Social media activism is exciting, but it doesn’t focus on the root causes that lead to a lot of the trending hashtags or posts we see on social media. Policy reform alongside justice for victims of systemic racism is really the only way to help the Black community and end racial inequality in the US. [7] On desktop, this piece is best viewed at 60% zoom. [8] This article addresses the inherent tension between bottom-up and top-down pressure in politics, where bottom-up pressure imposed by campaigns is often stifled by top-down pressure from establishment politicians. Disappointment is inevitable in this process for those backing bottom-up populist movements. [9] My article is about the racial disparities that exist in the American public school education system, and the ways in which this system erases Black history. [10] This is a free flowing piece where I celebrate the gift of living slowly that quarantine has offered me, and how that relates to my fears of growing up. [11] The NFL is transforming from a deeply conservative and exclusionary organization to one where players and people outside of the main interests can express their frustrations and try to change the dominant culture. [12] The NFL is transforming from a deeply conservative and exclusionary organization to one where players and people outside of the main interests can express their frustrations and try to change the dominant culture. [13] The article argues that peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have often failed because of “spoiling” and “outbidding” by terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. [14] The way Bolsanaro has handled the pandemic could result in him losing power. Given his antienvironment policies, this could be a positive step from a climate standpoint.
Catherine Ju
Editors' Note Dear Readers, Thank you for taking the time to give WUPR’s Pressure edition a look. The summer edition has been an opportunity for writers, editors, and artists to reconnect with the community they left behind once the spring semester ended. This summer, the publication cycle took on an altogether more poignant character. The submissions in this edition reflect the tumult and uncertainty that have roiled all of our lives throughout 2020. We don’t know if or when we will be able to physically gather as a community and enjoy the storytelling, discussions, arguments, and friendships that brought us together in the first place. Frankly, with thousands of people dying and millions facing profound financial insecurity, it feels selfish to lament our own small loss. Still, the process of putting together this online edition certainly provided our team with a welcome, if fleeting, return to normalcy. We hope that perusing the final product might do the same for you. Our writers grappled with two main forms of pressure: those the world exerts on us, and those we exert on it. Helen Webley-Brown and Merry May Ma both highlight the pressure on international students created by ICE’s short-lived policy regarding F-1 and M-1 visas. Ranen Miao and Blake Comeaux use their articles to explore the habits and mindsets that can help us thrive in the face of external stressors. Meanwhile, Elena Murray turns her focus to America’s political system, analyzing the uncomfortable balance that elected officials must strike between top-down and bottom-up pressure. Claudia Bermudez explains how social media activism alone does not provide a sufficient push for meaningful change. As always, we also had thoughtful submissions for our National and International sections. Hannah Richardson draws on her own experiences to show how America’s public schools whitewash history and rob students of color of knowledge they should be proud of. Jaden Lanza examines the Supreme Court’s institutional role in preserving inequity. Finally, Gabriel Squitieri argues that the COVID-19 crisis could positively impact Brazil’s environmental situation. Politics is a two-way dialogue that everyone should have a say in. In this spirit, we are experimenting with a Google Docs format for the issue, with a new in-text comments feature. We hope that these comments help you, our readers, to interact at a personal level with the ideas and stories that our writers have shared. You have great ideas, and we hope that you share them with the rest of the WUPR community! Please refer to the navigation tab for instructions on how to use the issue. As always, we wish you health, safety, and peace of mind. Sincerely, Jon Niewjik & Rohan Palacios Editors-in-Chief
Hello! We know what you might be thinking—this issue looks a little different! This issue, unlike previous issues, was published using Google Docs. In the age of social distancing, we wanted to be able to foster discussion in a way that is more accessible and interactive than our usual PDF issue. Please access the Google Docs/Sheets version at http://bit.ly/WUPRpressure. This issue contains an engaging comments feature along with navigation tabs to help you move around the issue. Instead of being one compiled document, you can click on links in the table of contents page that leads you straight to a Google Docs version of every individual article and artwork. If you find yourself confused, there is an entire page dedicated to navigating the issue, and before engaging with our articles, please check out our community agreements section for a few ground rules.
Community Agreements We hope that our in-text comments help you, our readers, engage with these articles. We want this engagement to be in the spirit of our WUPR community. As such, we have a few rules: 1. We do not tolerate personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity, commercial promotion, or impersonations. Comments with these features will be taken down. 2. We respect others’ identities. This means that comments that are racist, sexist, xenophobic, or hateful towards members of the LGBTQIA+ community will be taken down. 3. A feature of Google Docs is that it is possible to suggest edits in-text by underlining or deleting sections. Please do not use this feature, as we do not want to change the original meaning of the author’s words.
A guide to navigating this issue If you're on mobile:
1. Your nav is at the top where these four tabs are. a) Cover b) Navigation: where we are right now. c) Table of Contents: where all of our articles are. d) People: a list of WUPR people (what is WUPR tho?)
2. Articles are linked in the Table of Contents, and you leave comment on articles. You can't comment rn on mobile without the app, unfortunately. The comments section will be moderated; please keep it civil according to our community agreements.
3. Authors and artists are credited in People. WUPR exec is also here.
That's it! Let us know (design@wupr.org) if there's anything you're unsure of.
Desktop users:
1. Your nav is below. The Table of Contents gives you all the articles in Issue 31.1. Credits to this issue's contributors in People, as well as a list of WUPR members.
2. Hover over/click the triangles at the corner of author/ artist names to view more info.
3. All our articles are linked in the Table of Contents. We encourage you to comment/respond to articles. The comments section will be moderated; please keep it civil according to our community agreements.
This is the end! Let us know (design@wupr.org) if there's anything you're unsure of.
WU Political Review, Pressure
The Paradox of Self Care By Ranen Miao Artwork by Ashley Roh If I had a tagline, it would be “please, take care of yourself.” It’s something that everyone says to each other, but something no one seems to follow. Amidst the stressors of police brutality, immigration restrictions, and COVID-19, taking care of ourselves has become more important than ever, and something we ought to focus on in the weeks ahead. Self-care represents the ways we take care of ourselves: getting enough sleep, exercising, eating well, and setting limits on our work. Too often, however, we prioritize our work over our own health because of the hyper-capitalist, productivity-oriented spaces we find ourselves in. Emma Seppälä, the Science Director of Stanford’s Center for Compassion and Altruism, observed that elite universities and workplaces “often reward us for pushing ourselves past our limits.” As a result, we’ve created an unhealthy and unsustainable stress Olympics, culminating in Sam Fox students transforming their studios into sleeping quarters and pre-meds proudly proclaiming how they pulled their third all-nighter of the week.
6
6
This pressure cooker culture is already taking a toll on us. Between 2009 and 2014, the growth in counseling center appointments at American universities rose six times faster than institutional enrollment, with the top reported concerns being anxiety and depression. The American Psychological Association reports that the spike of mental illnesses on college campuses is a result of the pressures students are facing, amplified by every LinkedIn account we stalk and every accomplishment we aspire to gain—and trends indicate the problem is only going to get worse.
If we don’t seriously reflect on this crisis soon, we risk propagating the same culture of unsustainable work habits into our adult
WU Political Review, Pressure
lives. In South Korea, where workers are the most stressed in the OECD countries, young people have “given up on dating, marriage, and children,” work 240 more hours a year than American workers, and suffer the highest rates of suicide in the OECD. In Japan, the culture of overworking has led to a problem with kuroshi, meaning “death from overwork.” These workplace expectations are the extension of students who burn the candle at both ends, and who are taught their value and meaning in life comes from how many hours they work and how much money they earn. Beyond corporate productivity, the same principles apply—if not more so—to the activists who are working hard in our community to raise awareness for topics ranging from systemic racism to the war in Yemen. Shandre Delaney, a prison abolitionist, described activism as “a constant, on-call duty that is hard to separate from without feeling neglectful.”
We have the opportunity now to reflect on the culture of overworking at Wash U and committing to stop burnout. With the time freed up by COVID-19, we can meaningfully reflect on how we can find balance in life, draw boundaries, and define ourselves by more than what we produce. As somebody who spent all of high school (and a good part of my first year) working in pursuit of the next project, I know this is easier said than done. But now, I’m finding time to exercise, eating three meals a day, and spending time calling my friends. Whether your self-care is meditation, comfort food, or Animal Crossing, I implore you to indulge in those simple pleasures. In my own words: please take care of yourself. Ranen Miao ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ranenmiao@wustl.edu.
I know the feeling of guilt after taking a break, but posting, learning, and educating others constantly is a daunting and draining task, and an unfair burden to place on any one person. The work you do is deeply meaningful, but please don’t forget to allow yourself to rest and engage in self-care. In the words of Audre Lorde, “caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” Don’t stop protesting and fighting for justice, but also don’t lose sight of preserving your own happiness, sanity, and joy.
7
7
WU Political Review, Pressure
Wash U’s Sluggish Response to International Students’ Crisis By Helen Webley-Brown On 6 July, I was scrolling through LinkedIn when a Wall Street Journal article caught my eye. The headline read, “New Rules Detail How Foreign Students Can—and Can’t—Take Classes at U.S. Colleges This Fall.” Blocked by a paywall, I frantically searched around for clarity on what these mysterious new rules were. Finally, I found myself reading the news release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And so, a week full of stress, confusion, and poor communication began. In disbelief, I messaged my suitemates to process the news of ICE’s directive. The guidance stated that if a college pursued an online fall semester their F-1 and M-1 students had three options: “depart the country,” ‘take a medical leave of absence,” or “transfer to a school with in-person instruction to remain in lawful status.”
8
8
Those already outside the U.S. would be barred from entering the U.S. to take online classes. Those whose schools offered in-person classes would not be allowed to maintain their visa status while completing online classes in their home country. Given those options, we immediately started to brainstorm ways to work around ICE’s directive. After many suggestions of questionable legality, my suitemate Emily came up with the idea to start a social media campaign. Our goal was to spread awareness while pressuring Wash U to support its international students. With the understanding that around 80% of Wash U’s international students were still in the US, we set about writing a Change.org petition. The petition demanded that Wash U firmly commit to a hybrid model and prioritise its international students in all future planning, especially with the July 31 fall announcement fast approaching. Within 24 hours, the petition had been signed over 3,000 times. It currently has over 8,000 signatures. I believed that the education, health, and futures of countless international students depended on Wash U implementing a hybrid model. However, the university’s international community is not a monolith. Some international students—including myself—are currently outside of the U.S.. If ICE’s directive had not changed and the university had opted for a hybrid, these students would have been forced to navigate travel bans and expensive flights and hotels to maintain their visa status. And this
WU Political Review, Pressure
wouldn’t be the first time. After campus shut down in March, my plane ticket home cost three times the usual price. The university rejected my emails and application for financial assistance. I saw similar stories of Wash U international students unsure about how to pay for costly trips or take online classes in their home countries. As the fall semester approaches, I fear that the Chancellor’s “unwavering support” will again be slow to help students in this situation. On 7 July, the Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS) emailed F-1 international students to express their support and committed to follow up shortly with further details on ICE’s new requirements. The next day they announced a forthcoming town hall to assist students and provided a helpful, informative analysis of how ICE’s directive would impact international students inside and outside the U.S.. If only the Chancellor had been so forthcoming and clear with communications. OISS’s email factually stated that “if Washington University must switch to offering fully online courses mid-semester, then under the new guidance all F-1 students physically present and attending classes at Washington University will need to either leave the U.S. or take alternative steps to maintain their non-immigrant status.” While international students were privately told this, the Chancellor offered no accompanying mention of plans to fight the
directive. Instead, the university publicly released a short statement of “support” and rehashed “expectation” to implement a hybrid model. Now deleted from The Source, this statement fell short of any firm commitment to a hybrid fall and failed to mention action steps or even promise forthcoming plans. Searching for any small win, I welcomed the statement. However, it was disheartening to see the leaders of so many peer institutions quickly spring into action while Chancellor Martin stayed silent. The Wash U leadership was working diligently behind the scenes, but so much unnecessary stress was caused by their lack of communication. A brief statement that clarified his stance on the directive and committed to a follow-up announcement with steps to be taken would have made the world of difference. I thought a petition to advocate for particular Wash U policies might be necessary, but I never imagined needing to pressure the leadership to comment on and denounce such an exclusionary directive in a timely manner. On 9 July, Chancellor Martin finally addressed ICE’s directive. This came a day after he had sent an email regarding on-campus health and safety requirements, with no mention of ICE’s announcement. Here was the message of support and denouncement of ICE’s policy that I had been waiting for. Even better, Wash U leadership had been working on several action points to both support international students and pressure the U.S. government to retract ICE’s directive. I welcomed the
9
9
WU Political Review, Pressure
Chancellor’s announcement, but my relief was still tinged with disappointment. Why did it take so long for a clear statement from Wash U leadership? A few days feels much longer when you face potential deportation and disruption of your studies. Thankfully, the ICE directive was rescinded a week after its announcement. We live to fight another day and fight we must. The lessons learnt from the Wash U administration’s lacklustre, sluggish response must be carried forward because non-U.S. citizens will continue to be used as political bargaining chips. The university has a duty to protect and care for all of its students. International students face unique challenges that cannot be overlooked or patched over with flashy statements about the value they bring to campus. To be an international student is to have your language, accent, and traditions dissected for fun. To be an international student is to have financial pressures exacerbated by visa restrictions on where and for how many hours you can work. To be an international student is to feel the need to prove your value—be it to the U.S. government, the university, employers, or everyday U.S. citizens who question your presence. Since its inception 17 years ago, ICE has terrorized the undocumented and wider immigrant community. ICE deports people to countries where they face violence and potential death. ICE cages, dehumanises, and abuses people, including children. ICE tears families apart. ICE routinely targets and harms the most vulnerable. The latest
10
10
directive targeting international students—while abhorrent, unproductive, and dangerous—is just the tip of the iceberg. Countless articles refer to international students’ $41 billion economic contribution and the high percentage of STEM majors to justify their presence in the U.S.. Although well-meaning and accurate, such rhetoric feeds into the commodification and dehumanisation of non-U.S. citizens. An international student’s worth should not be boiled down to their wealth or their career. Worse still, countless pundits have also challenged the ICE directive for hurting those that do immigration the “right way.” Attempts to acknowledge the pressures felt by international students should not validate cruel policies against those that could not get documentation and visas. Immigrants and refugees without college degrees should not face discrimination either. While international students faced a choice between their education and their health, the Chancellor also made several choices. Behind the scenes, leadership had sprung into action, but it was a choice to poorly communicate their intentions. The Chancellor chose to maintain a Twitter break tradition rather than use this platform to communicate. The Chancellor chose to leave 20% of the Wash U community “on read” for three days while they faced potential deportation and disruption to their studies. It may seem unnecessary to condemn Wash U’s handling of the ICE directive now that it has been rescinded. However, this sluggish response is part of a
WU Political Review, Pressure
wider, ongoing issue. Much of my “emotional stress” that the Chancellor mentioned was a result of his communication problems and the continuous relegation of international students’ needs. I have served on both the Undergraduate Experience Committee to the Board of Trustees and the Student Affairs Advisory Board. I was told that there had not been a review into the international student experience for years. I rarely experienced discussion into how potential Wash U policies would or were specifically impacting international students. The impacts of this continuous oversight are clear and multifaceted. To use one example, international students who depended on income from their work-study jobs weren’t eligible for Wash U’s work-study reimbursement scheme and no parallel scheme was put in place. I am not envious of the Chancellor’s position. Within his first year in the role, he has faced immense pressure leading us through the coronavirus pandemic and now ICE’s directive. At times I felt guilty for criticising Wash U and its leadership. What right did I have to pressure the administration into action? The truth is, as students we have every right. We invest time, money, and energy into the university. It is not too big of an ask to have some input into how those contributions are spent. Without any U.S. legislative representation, who else with such financial and social power can international students turn to? Be it a petition or a sit-in, when Wash U’s
leadership has overlooked an issue, what else can we do but pressure them to put it on their agenda? The OISS team is faced with the unenviable task of analysing and communicating ICE’s ever-changing policies. I do not think they should also bear the entire burden of pressuring Wash U leadership to consider international students’ interests and overseeing their wellbeing. There is no Dean of International Students, permanent student representation on task forces, or a similar leadership position solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of international students. Without this representation, international students must continue to pressure the Wash U administration to follow through on their promise of “unwavering support.” Helen Webley-Brown ’22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at h.webley-brown@wustl.edu.
11
11
Pressure Study Artwork by Natalie Snyder, staff artist
12
12
WU Political Review, Pressure
Adversity is a Matter of Mindset By Blake Comeaux Artwork by Merry May Ma, staff artist “Pressure can burst pipes or create diamonds.” This decades old saying is a testament to the power that pressure holds. But how can we ensure that adversity in any shape or form yields diamonds of progress and positivity rather than burst the pipes of resilience and hope? Our reaction to this adversity is the key to creating a positive outcome with it. Although a positive mindset will not always be enough to overcome an obstacle, it is undoubtedly an effective step in the right direction. How we respond to pressure—whether it be pressure we put on ourselves, pressure to challenge and change the world around us, or any adversity that challenges our ability to withstand pressure—is arguably more important than the direct outcome of it. There are several ways of responding to pressure by way of adversity. One response could be to let the adversity and pressure overtake us. Another response could be to become pessimistic about our ability to create change and to try to ignore the pressure. However, embracing pressure through adversity opens the opportunity to
commit ourselves to change the situation around us for the better. A common reaction to adversity and pressure is to become enveloped by it. Regardless of how mentally or physically strong any one person is, faltering in the face of pressure is always a possibility. By succumbing to pressure and adversity, we can reach a point of such damage and vulnerability that it can be nearly impossible to continue fighting for what we believe in. However, this reaction to pressure is truly dangerous because it pushes the victim towards quitting and possibly giving up on a truly meaningful cause. Picture a levy. If too many waves crash into the barrier without repair, it is only a matter of time before it breaks and a flood ensues. Very similarly, too much constant pressure can wear us down and cause an absolute flood over our lives—drowning our hopes and dreams. Alternatively, another response to pressure could come in the form of cynicism leading to ignoring the problem. Similar to the aforementioned response to pressure, the loss of hope plays a major factor in fostering cynicism. Oftentimes, adversity can cause people to lose hope, until they become cynical and begin to think that whatever goals they had cannot be fulfilled. Pressure has the ability to change the most optimistic spirits into unhopeful creatures—believing they cannot truly alter their own surroundings. Picture a wildfire. If we believed we could do nothing to stop them and let them run rampant, they could destroy countless biomes and ecosystems. Likewise,
13
13
WU Political Review, Pressure
we should never let the wildfires of pressure and adversity make our lives feel immovable or impenetrable; we must remain optimistic and hopeful to continue the fight for what we believe in.
So, how do we make the most out of pressure and adversity? The best way to approach a daunting situation is to take heed and impose our will on our surroundings to fight back the pressure we face. When we face challenges head on and decide that, no matter the outcome, we will come out stronger, we become the masters of our own lives. Whether we find the solutions to our problems and execute them, or we simply use them as an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the pressures we face, we have the ability to tame our demons. Maintaining this mentality in the face of pressure or adversity gives us control and puts us in a position to strive for our goals regardless of what may lie in our paths. By fully acknowledging that this pressure has great potential to yield positive outcomes,
14
14
we can remain confident and steadfast in pursuing whatever venture calls out to us. As Professor Joseph Campbell once said: “Opportunities to find deeper power within ourselves come when life seems most challenging.” This mindset enables us to embrace pressure and produce countless positives from it. Picture an old tree in a tornado. The winds brutally whip at and sway the tree, but the tree’s roots are too deep and secure to become uprooted. We must dig deep and hold on with all of our might to avoid being ripped away from what we hold dear. In life, we only have so much control over what will happen to us, but we always have full control of how we react to it. The philosophy that breeds the strongest characters and enables people to enact change is that which searches tirelessly for solutions to any obstacle and remains hopeful and focused in the presence of adversity. Rather than pressure controlling us, we, with the correct mindset, can wield pressure and adversity for our own purposes and improve any situation around us. Blake Comeaux ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at bccomeaux@wustl.edu.
WU Political Review, Pressure
Go with the Flow By Merry May Ma Artwork by Shonali Palacios, design lead It is my first summer in the United States, and I will spend the entire season here. This summer in St. Louis is as hot and changeable as ever before, but many things have made it a unique time in my life.
In mid June, I moved to my study-mate’s apartment, became her roommate, and we commenced our legal living-together journey. Studying for the GRE with her was one of the best choices I had ever made, because my study-mate’s efficiency and discipline motivated me. The pandemic outside was rampant, but my life studying and relaxing was so undisturbed. I was worrying about whether we would have a chance to study offline next semester, and then I was notified that school hoped to have hybrid classes beginning on September 14.
My vacation officially began after May 6, but local weather swung between late spring and early summer. Staying on campus with a suitemate in early May, I spent my days watching movies and riding my bicycle. “Our summer vacation is so long,” I told my family and friends back in China, boasting of how much time I could relish. “Four months at least. I don’t know when school will begin next semester.” I was still waiting for an email about our return in the fall. “Do carefully plan for your summer wisely.” Mom urged me on my phone, “Are you remembering to prepare for your GRE? When will you take it?” “September 5.” I groaned, “I know! Hopefully school will open later than my test day!”
“Bravo!” I smiled at my roomie. She is also from China, and both of our summer travel plans were canceled because we didn’t want to risk our lives flying for over 15 hours in a crowded capsule. With her company, I could
15
15
WU Political Review, Pressure
follow a better routine, cook more nutritious food, and do things more effectively. Concurrently, I was working on a short sci-fi novel that could free me from the messy and preposterous world outside. I set a strict rule for myself, and often, if I couldn’t write for the same amount every day, I would feel fairly frustrated. “You plan to write 5,000 words per day?” After hearing my ideal plan, my roommate nearly dropped her jaw. “It’s A LOT! But I believe you can do it. And don’t push yourself too much for that.” My roomie and I are different in personality and living styles, so we often had small misunderstandings and had to compromise with each other’s needs. But we somehow communicated constantly and managed to go through some gaps in our discrepancies. I gradually began to exercise my skill in “finding commonalities” among people, and I found it pretty useful to gain a sense of “empathy” with others. We shared similar majors, similar tastes for food, and luckily, we were both attending churches online during Sundays. We read the Bible twice a week, and I particularly enjoyed the moment when we all closed our eyes and prayed with each other. It was similar to practicing mindfulness - staying in the moment, and letting appreciation replace other disturbing feelings. Time was slipping away like a quiet stream, but something disturbed our life when we
16
16
received ICE’s new policy regarding F-1 international students on July 8. It was not my first time hearing rumors about international students being asked to leave the country when the pandemic hit us, but this time it was real. I didn’t really know how to deal with the problem, and I felt very worried about how I would continue my college life. It was around this time that I received a message from a friend concerning the policy. He graduated this year, and was about to become a physicist, but he still cared about school affairs. He listed information about the policy and links of petitions that I could sign. He encouraged me not to feel isolated because I was not the only one feeling worried and agitated as a result of the policy. He was not an international student, but he was so supportive that he gave me tons of hope to confront the capricious changes with calmness and courage in my turbulent studying abroad life. Another development also made me incandescently happy. After attending a small picnic event arranged by my church friends on July 11, I was baptized and became an authentic Christian. I wanted to follow God and fulfill his wishes and goals. I wanted to walk along with him and be one of his proud daughters. And by believing in something greater than myself, I was stronger and more confident of my ability and my life. Even though I consider myself a positive person, I still often suffer from a lot of
WU Political Review, Pressure
pressure. Pressure is so ubiquitous in my life that it comes from moving in and out, studying for the GRE, attending churches, having my life influenced by government policies, and so much more. Despite the existence of all the negative sides of these stresses, something called “eustress” is beneficial. It describes important events in life which bring more happiness than the stress that is associated with them. For me, I consider studying for the GRE, writing stories, and attending church as my “eustresses” because they fulfill my intellectual, artistic and spiritual needs, cultivate my self-control, and help me grow.
kept a strict 6-feet distance from each other, our eyes were smiling at each other above the masks, and our hearts were giving each other a hug. The first time when I finished biking and went back, I had trouble opening my apartment front door with a bike in hand. The front-desk lady saw me and helped me open the door. There was a distance between her desk and the door, but thereafter she came out every time to open the door for me. When she said “good night”, she smiled with eyes bending into two crescents. It was because of all these priceless moments that I realized that masks prevent the disease from spreading, but it won’t keep the kindness away. The pandemic can hurt people’s bodies, but it cannot deteriorate people’s souls. The tiny but strong connections I made between random people on the streets gave me faith.
Some tiny happy things cheer me up, giving me strength to think positively. One afternoon, I was biking on a narrow road. A elderly pedestrian walking a dog came by and waved “hello” at me. While we
Another thing worthwhile to mention was my accidental discovery of the best way to watch a glorious sunset. One day in mid-July, I biked to campus as usual to meet a friend who loved painting. We planned to go to the East End to watch the sunset, where she once took most of her art classes. Then I saw my favorite building on campus, Seigle Hall, and I couldn’t help but want to take a walk inside. We climbed to the third floor, and unexpectedly, nine orange patches were cast onto a white wall in front of a window with nine glass lattices. From the high and advantageous point, the view was gorgeous. It was then I realized that some
17
17
WU Political Review, Pressure
unexpectedly breathtaking views could be gained without being planned—these were serendipity gifts earned through open-mindedness.
the pandemic and felt grateful about the tough but important time and lessons I have been through and learned. There are many summers in my life, but no summer is as uneasy and unforgettable as this one.
If I apply the same mindset to my life, I guess one way to deal with stress is to set my expectations for life simple—live one day at a time and live healthily and happily. It is not an easy thing to keep oneself healthy when the world is under the pressure of COVID-19. It is an uneasy time when one’s self-assurance is challenged and when one’s academic journey is filled with some uncertainties. But I can still cherish my summer inside—in a tiny but immense space where I can study, create, and laugh. My thoughts are boundless no matter where I am and no matter what happened outside, so I can spend my summer as meaningfully as I wish. My future is not limited to where I am not and I am sure that my fear and the uncertain feelings I have are temporary. My life is delineated and designed by my own hands and perspectives, so I can make it as happy as I can. Just go with the flow and cherish every day. I am lucky to be alive, healthy, and happy, and nothing can defeat those who can still smile when confronting challenges.
Merry May Ma ’22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at liangboma@wustl.edu.
Meanwhile, I also imagine what I want to see in the near future. One day, when schools are open without worrying about taking precautions, when the economy is reviving, when everything is back to the true normal and when everyone can enjoy the breeze of life freely without worrying about the disease, I would smile at my life before
18
18
WU Political Review, Pressure
The Flaw with Social Media Activism By Claudia Bermudez, staff editor In the past few weeks, there has been a tremendous uptick in “activist” posts on social media—part of a mass awakening by the American public to the injustices inflicted upon the Black community by systemic racism. Since the release of the footage of George Floyd’s murder online, the public outcry condemning the police and the officers involved has touched every corner of the planet and completely overtaken the United States. Social media has undoubtedly played a positive role helping activists and allies obtain information related to protests or simply to educate themselves further regarding systemic racism in the United States and how to actively be anti-racist. However, the way in which information currently spreads on social media does a disservice to the Black Lives Matter movement and reduces issues to insultingly simple ten slide posts, or performative trends. For example, the #blackouttuesday tag on Instagram has over 23.5 million posts, while the “Justice for Breonna Taylor” petition on change.org has fewer
than 9.5 million signatures. While #blackouttuesday was meant to show solidarity and support with the BLM movement, many people took it as an opportunity to engage in performative activism by only doing the bare minimum while also refusing to do anything beyond this (such as signing petitions, becoming educated on BLM and racism in the United States, donating to BLM related organizations, or protesting). Performative activism is extremely detrimental to the entire movement and makes it easier for disingenuous allies to proclaim their commitment to helping the Black community, while not taking the necessary steps to do so. Aside from mere acts of performative activism, many social media users have been posting a number of educational resources and petitions related to the BLM movement. While these resources are amazing ways to educate the community and spread awareness related to systemic racism and racial inequality in the United States, too much of this content loses its effectiveness and over-saturates the platform. Race is an extremely complex issue in the United States; attempting to tackle all of its factors and consequences on social media is impossible and unrealistic. By oversaturating social media platforms with mostly aesthetic posts, most allies are forced to focus only on the main issues, while non-allies simply become desensitized towards the entire movement. For example, names like Breonna Taylor and George Floyd are spread far and wide, but there is
19
19
WU Political Review, Pressure
far less knowledge about what policies and training methods let the Minneapolis Police Department breed officers who act in such a way, or the no knock policy in Louisville that was the driving force behind Breonna Taylor’s murder, Although many of the issues related to Black communities right now are racially fueled, social media obscures the macro policy roots of the problem that permit racist incidents to take place. For example, Breonna Taylor, who absolutely deserves justice and for her killers to be incarcerated, was not only the victim of racist violence, but was more importantly a victim of a policy that made it legal for officers to enter her home without knocking and kill her. While it is extremely important for Breonna to get justice, the only way to ensure that more “Breonnas” don’t suffer the same fate and that past “Breonnas” get justice is by changing the actual policy that let this happen. Pushing for policy reform, instead of only advocating for the incarceration of the cops who killed her, is what led to real change by way of “Breonna’s Law,” which bans no-knock warrants in Louisville, KY.
police-related policies disproportionately impact Black people, leading to tragic deaths such as those of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Michael Brown, and Elijah McClain. While all of these angels deserve justice, we need to also think about every other Black person who has been a victim of systemic racism but hasn’t had a trending hashtag to bring them justice. I’m by no means saying that individual events shouldn’t be acknowledged, and justice should not be served, but it’s important that we all look beyond the aesthetic posts we see on accounts and stories and take the time to wonder why certain events happened. It is only by actively researching and educating ourselves about the policy that drives racial injustice in the United States today that we will be able to target the root causes of systemic racism and hopefully prevent the need for more hashtags that begin with #justicefor. Claudia Bermudez ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at claudia.bermudez@wustl.edu.
Unfortunately, social media distracts users from agitating for policy change, instead pushing them to focus more on individual events, rather than the causation. Often, longer posts discussing specific policies or laws don’t get as much attention because they aren’t as easy to repost as another big headline. Although these policies do impact both White and Black people, it is important to look into them because the outcomes of
20
20
Artwork by Shonali Palacios, design lead
21
WU Political Review, National
The Inevitable Disappointment of Politics By Elena Murray, staff writer When Benjamin Franklin wrote that “nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” he not only touched on the inevitability of these concepts but also addressed the universal fear and loathing directed toward them. And while nothing may be done about inescapable death, people have tried to avoid and modify taxes since their conception. Along with issues surrounding war, religion, race, culture, and more, taxes and other economic policies are a seemingly permanent area of dissatisfaction for one section or another of a population, frustration that is frequently directed toward the ruling government implementing those controversial policies. Most people, both presently and throughout history, have been or remain dissatisfied with their government in one way or another. For those permitted to voice their dissenting views, this disapproval often manifests in bottom-up collective action movements, particularly in democracies. From the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s concerning racial inequality to the average candidate campaigning for change, dissatisfaction with government historically results in broad
22
22
grassroots activity. While all candidates for political office must organize at the grassroots level if they want any hope of success, Bernie Sanders’ brand of politics is especially striking in recent years in its collectivist rhetoric, which highlights struggles related to class. In any political campaign and in Bernie’s campaign in particular, average citizens come together to apply political pressure on the higher-ups in government in their push for the changes they desire. But politicians and voters alike quickly realize that the realities of governance rarely mimic the promises made on the campaign trail. How many candidates, after all, blaze a path as steamrollers on the campaign trail, throwing promises and garnering enthusiasm left and right, only to fail at fulfilling nearly every promise once they assume office? To some extent, such is the inevitable nature of campaigning. But in another sense, this recurring disappointment is a result of governance itself. Because governance is structured, hierarchical, and cooperative, a massive portion of lawmaking and administration involves top-down pressure, requiring the approval and directives of higher-ups in order to initiate change. The President, for instance, directs the executive branch and its administrative affiliates, who must act within the bounds he or she lays out. The Supreme Court, perhaps the most top-down body in the United States government, decisively rules on issues affecting the entire nation with comparatively little motivation 1
WU Political Review, National
arising from the voices of average citizens. Across the governing process, top-down pressure is a necessary and crucial aspect of decision-making in that it organizes and prioritizes issues on the basis of hierarchical authority, and yet it conflicts with the bottom-up pressure that is also so inseparable from politics. Bottom-up political pressure elects politicians who promise change in accordance with the will of the people, while top-down pressure from government and party leaders directs politicians in accordance with long-term national and party goals. Often, these forces pull in opposing directions—one populist, one establishment—and each camp criticizes the other. If a supporter of Sanders or Trump is asked what’s wrong with politics?, their answers might be something like the establishment or the swamp, but if a party leader is asked the same question, they might respond with items like polarization, lack of cooperation, and erosion of values. Because grassroots campaigns experience success by railing against Washington insiders or business-as-usual, yet party loyalty is a critical (though perhaps not strictly necessary) part of remaining in politics, there is a clear tension between bottom-up pressure and top-down pressure. Elected candidates are caught in the middle; beholden to their constituents and the promises of the campaign trail while simultaneously striving to advance in a complex party structure by appealing to party elites, it is perhaps no wonder that elected officials inevitably err in one aspect
or another. While elections ought to hold politicians accountable when they fail, the reality of politics is often far from ideal, allowing elected officials to remain in office despite continuous failures. For us, the politically-engaged citizens, this tension means we will likely always be disappointed by politics. Especially for progressives who seek to push reforms through, who are criticized as “too idealistic,” who continue to back candidates other than those supported by the party, disappointment is common when a preferred candidate loses a primary election or, upon their election, fails to follow through on measures they claimed to support. When one wing in politics supports change while another supports the status quo, those on the side of change are frustrated more often. This disappointment is inevitable. But the reforms are not, and so the political struggle continues. Elena Murray ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at elenamurray@wustl.edu.
2
23
23
WU Political Review, National
Race in Public Education By Hannah Richardson As I drove to work this morning, an episode of NPR’s Planet Money titled “Reparations for Police Brutality” struck me as interesting. This episode covered the story of Darrell Cannon, a Black man from Chicago who was maliciously tortured into a false confession of murder. A militia of twenty Chicago police officers, known as the “Midnight Riders,” busted into Cannon’s home, then kidnapped and abused him with a shotgun and cattle prod until he falsely confessed. He then served over 20 years in prison, along with 118 other Black men who were tortured into false confessions, until this story was uncovered by a Chicago journalist who had received letters from Cannon and a few of the other imprisoned men. Even today, reparations have not been fully made. While this is wildly unjust, there is one thing all of the men unanimously requested: for their story to be taught in Chicago Public Schools, so that others can learn about this cruelty and violence, and educate themselves on American racial inequality. In our nation’s public schools today there are evident racial imbalances, racial gaps in gifted and talented programs, a serious lack of education, and an endemic school-to-prison pipeline.
24
24
The whitewashed, religious nationalism that is preached in nearly every public school across the country contributes to the spread of ignorance about America’s true history. In most American public schools today, Black history, by which I mean history of the origins, traditions, and cultures of Black and indigenous people of color, is taught for a few weeks or a month at most if a school is fortunate enough to have that diverse of a curriculum. It is not repeatedly touched on in every unit the way white American and European history is. In my “world history” class in primary school, I learned about countries that were not predominantly white only for a few weeks of the entire school year. The rest was dominated by the history of white Europeans and American WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). It was only in my AP history classes did I learn in depth about other races’ histories, both nationally and globally. It was still nothing compared to the years I spent learning white history. Many schools across the nation do not offer AP courses, or if they do, they may not be as thorough as my school’s had been. AP courses also systematically favor white history, as they do not adequately balance the amount of white history taught with the amount of history focused on people of color. This educational bias makes Americans ignorant about the role people of color had in shaping and building our country. Take Juneteenth as an example. I had never heard of the holiday until last year, at
WU Political Review, National
eighteen years of age, in a college course. Never was it taught or mentioned or even thought about in my American public school, and that seems to be the consensus among my peers. I learned about things like the Mayflower and the French Revolution every single year, but never was something so pertinent to Black history ever taught to me. This is unacceptable! It is disgusting and unjust that an American holiday so monumental and significant to the Black community is overlooked and ignored, not taught in schools, and excluded from American history. And this is just one example. There are many other days, events, and stories that I do not know and may never know because of my American racist education. White washing history for children has been a great skill of white people for a long time, always turning the story and placing blame on others, when there is lots to be ashamed of. If younger generations are to learn and lead from past mistakes, we need not only teach the atrocities and crimes committed against the entirety of the Black race, but we need to recognize and lift up people of color. These people who history has forgotten deserve to be given their due diligence when it comes to the things that they have done and are continually doing for our society. The stories and the facts surrounding Black history, racism, and civil rights have been buried. There is no way to justify this, it is blatant and deliberate racism and prejudice. By suppressing the history and legacy of people of color in this country, white people
and the public school system have been single-handedly suppressing the entire Black race. In my home state of Alabama, every fourth grader spends the year learning “Alabama History,” 75% of which commemorates the grand confederacy, while the remaining 25% covered the revolution for racial justice, where violent and savage Black people aggressively rioted and stormed cities. I have grown up in Montgomery, the Capital and the heart of the Civil Rights Movement, and I remember so vividly going on my school's “tour of Montgomery” field trip and visiting and learning about the First White House of the Confederacy. We never went to the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached every Sunday. I remember reading a book about the church bombings in Birmingham, but that was my extent of public school-given knowledge when it came to the civil rights history in my state, its birthplace. Too often, on the rare occasions when Black history is taught in schools, it is made to portray Black and brown people as barbaric, and typically the first exposure any student has to Black and African history is the topic of slavery. This narrow focus is absurd. There is so much more to Black history than slavery, the civil war, and the civil rights movement. As W.E.B DuBois argued, the best way to liberate and celebrate Black people is to teach their history. This clearly has not been a widely held belief, as one can see from the
25
25
WU Political Review, National
current state of our national public curriculum. Black History Month is just not cutting it anymore. Black History Month was founded by Carter G. Woodson, who thought “if a race has no history, if it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated.” While Black History Month is responsible for much of the Black and brown history that public school children learn in schools, it is nowhere near enough. This issue with inadequate Black history education in schools is not the only issue I have with America’s public school system. I have a problem with the fact that even if we were to make public school curriculum more racially equal and inclusive, so many people of color who do not have access to adequate public education due to their socioeconomic status or geographic location will not benefit from this change. Here are a few things that should simultaneously shock and simultaneously enrage you. Across America, only 57% of Black students have access to college preparatory and readiness courses. The limited amount of times when students of color have access to honors and AP courses, they are widely underrepresented. More often than not, Black and brown students are gerrymandered into districts with schools that have underfunded, undertrained, and inexperienced teachers. In 2015, 61% of Black students who took the ACT did not meet the four benchmarks for college readiness. Not to mention the fact that in 26
26
many places, like my home state of Alabama, public high schools are a direct feeder into federal prisons for many young Black men and boys. There is a clear racial disparity in America’s public school curriculum and education, and it can no longer be ignored by the majority of white America. With this new resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, I hope that education will be on many people’s minds, because it is a key step towards righting the many, many, many wrongs that have occurred in this country, and it is a vital reparation that must be made to America’s Black communities. I truly hope that as we move forward with this revolution for racial equality, states like mine, filled with people with a prominent “us vs them” mentality, who place confederate flags and 1-800-MY-SOUTH billboards up and down our highways, will begin to learn and listen. I hope that they will grow from their ignorance and understand that to be an accepting and equitable society, we must first educate ourselves and our children and generations to come. We must accept our racial biases and tendencies and purposefully correct and change them, and we must work together to make Black lives matter! Hannah Richardson ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at hrichardson@wustl.edu.
WU Political Review, National
Gentle Time By Nisha Mani Artwork by Catherine Ju, design director I wake up each morning and bask in my feelings. Some days they anchor me to my bed and make me despair; other days they caress me softly as I float just above my sheets. I bathe in time, brushing each individual tooth, spending extra seconds on the ones in the back. A hug for my mother, another for my grandpa, and then fresh oats from the InstaPot garnished with banana and sunflower seeds. I’ll barge into my sister’s room for her daily dose of amiable irritation, maybe learn a TikTok dance or two. Oil pastels, sewing machine, or laptop in hand, I sit at my desk, making last night’s insomniatic mental ramblings a reality. As the day comes to a close, I can stay up until tomorrow morning finishing a project or let it fail without repercussions. Like today, tomorrow is gentle. It is sympathetic to my fatigue, irritability, and self-doubt. The days have no names, and none are my enemies. They give me space to create and time to reflect. As fall looms closer I want to hold on to these gentle moments and keep them
close, but with each progressive minute, they seem to slip away. Before quarantine, time was mean. Dragging me forward willing or otherwise, it taunted and provoked, chastised and rebuked. The days had names; each one a different insult, each morning a false promise, and each evening false respite. I have felt the love of a still moment that makes no demands and I’m not ready to give it up. These gentle moments have held my hand as I adjusted to the isolation and ongoing social upheaval. They helped me find a balance between advocating for others and myself. They taught me that we shouldn’t have to live such fast lives, constantly learning and producing like sentient machines. I shouldn’t have to live in a state of exhaustion to maintain acceptable levels of productivity. In these nameless days, I’ve been asking myself: What is ultimately achieved by productivity? Something we don’t need but are taught to expect like two-day free shipping with Prime? What we truly need is drastically different from the things we’ve been told we need. I challenge you to make these same critical evaluations of yourself. Rather than consume blindly, take full advantage of this moment to slow down. Travel into your mind, brew some mental tea, and sit down for a conversation with yourself. In fast times I was too busy putting out external fires to get to know myself in a vacuum. This gentle time gives me the chance to start exploring the network of dark tunnels constructed over the years by what can only be characterized as a vengeful beaver on amphetamines.
27
27
WU Political Review, National
Some breadcrumbs my beaver left me: 1. Lay on the floor, it’s a grounding experience. 2. Eat copious amounts of Ben & Jerry’s and allow the sugar rush to fuel your fight to dismantle racist institutions. 3. Go outside, summer nights are worth the bug bites.
I saw a beaver in my backyard; staring out the window has become one of my favorite hobbies. The classic scene is rain, the constant movement is simultaneously engaging and hypnotizing. People are endless fun, sometimes you get lucky and yell a quick “hello!” to a friend on a run. Still, scenes are an acquired taste, but any real window watcher knows that nothing is ever completely still. Cars are alright, their headlights morph into eyes glaring stoically ahead. In fast times I stared out windows numbly, desperately grasping for a pause button. Now, windows play out as movies, with narrative, plot twists, and an occasional villain. I’m already growing nostalgic for this time when I have surplus energy to spin into adventure and story. To be able to sit for minutes, maybe hours, to find the perfect colors. For hours to lose their names and to live by the sun, the grumbling of my 28
28
stomach to be the only sound splitting up my days. I sit. I talk. I watch. I read. It’s not just the end of quarantine I’m dreading, it’s the end of childhood. The end of gliding through life as someone works behind the scenes to ease your way. I can’t tell if I’ve just gotten a taste of the good life and now everything is paling in comparison or I’m simply scared of adulthood. I can chalk it up to a hatred of authority or rejection of capitalist machinations, but the real pressure, constant and foreboding, is the pressure to grow up. A phenomenon I reject out of fear—fear of true independence—fear of becoming an adult. This gentle time has allowed me to feel like a child again, free to simply exist and explore, and I never want to give it up. Nisha Mani ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at nmani@wustl.edu.
WU Political Review, National
The Courts: America’s Most Conservative Institution By Jaden Lanza, staff editor
The Supreme Court of the United States is one of the most established and respected legal institutions in the world. As the top court in the American judiciary, it is widely considered a pillar of republican rule of law that draws on a deep reserve of institutional legitimacy. The Supreme Court doesn’t deserve this reputation. In an effective and just legal system, ideally, the rights of 130 million women in the United States would not hinge upon the good health of one 87-year-old with cancer. Such a court system would also not regularly rule in favor of spending billions to buy elections by way of Super PACs, limitless government and corporate surveillance, permitted discrimination under the guise of personal liberties, and more. All of this, mind you, by way of an ancient system of appointing justices that has never faced democratic oversight. In over two hundred years of American history, one justice has been impeached (Samuel Chase, in 1804). Now in 2020, four justices
currently on the court who were appointed by presidents that lost the democratic popular vote. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we should all just be fine with a patently undemocratic legal state that consistently upholds structures of extreme class stratification and racial inequality. Though the Supreme Court is commonly envisioned as some bastion of civil rights and cultural progress, the American judiciary is more easily identified as the most potent force for conservatism in America, especially since the end of the civil rights era as it became dominated by big money ideological think tanks. This past June, President Donald Trump officially appointed his 200th federal judge, completing more judicial appointments than any other President in their first term since Jimmy Carter. If Trump wins the next election, it’s likely he’ll also get to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg and perhaps even another justice, locking in another half a century of conservative judicial control. Anyone that opposes ultra-capitalist rightwing politics in America should be terrified about the ramifications of this kind of judicial domination. Even if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the presidency this year (which is certainly quite possible at the moment), nothing can be done about the five stalwart conservatives already sitting on the court. And his administration would struggle to even appoint new justices if the GOP maintains the Senate.
29
29
WU Political Review, National
But the American judiciary isn’t a malevolent polity just because it's controlled by Republicans. The bad news is that judges of all political affiliations still often make decisions that are disastrous for working-class and marginalized people. In one of 2020’s major rulings, liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg (along with like-minded Justice Stephen Breyer) joined the court’s conservatives in a 7-2 decision to allow the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to be constructed along the Appalachian Trail. Fortunately enough, the project has been canceled by the large Dominion utility corporation for financial reasons, but the precedent of this decision nonetheless leaves a cynical future for the opposition to big oil. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced a landmark decision regarding religious liberty where a 7-2 majority decided that discrimination laws do not cover religious school teachers. Conservatives, such as staunch believer Justice Samuel Alito, believe the decision is just because religious institutions have protected autonomy with “respect to internal management decisions.” In other words, what this means is that civil rights legislation does not apply if you work for a church. This ruling, in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, builds on one the Court made seven years ago that invoked “ministerial exception” concerning the employment decisions that religious organizations make.
30
30
The Supreme Court does sometimes make a ruling that promotes equality, of course, such as Obergefell v. Hodges which struck down laws prohibiting gay marriage, and their decision last month in Bostock v. Clayton County that was even more groundbreaking in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. A 6-3 majority, including the Court’s liberals, joined by John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, decided that protections against sex discrimination do apply to discrimination by sexual orientation as well. Yet for every good ruling, they’ve made two destructive ones—and the disappointing contemporary effect of their “good” decisions is not normally analyzed all that much. One of the Supreme Court’s most famous decisions in Brown v. Board of Education overturned the doctrine of legal segregation. Though it is frequently the subject of praise for its expansion of civil equality between white and Black Americans, it had very little immediate effect on segregation (particularly in the South). It took immense social pressure and activism on local and federal levels to get equality actually enacted in daily life. The Supreme Court has had endless opportunities to be a force for progressivism and equality in America but has frequently passed on these chances. To name a few, in 1973, the Court had a chance to radically equalize public education in the United States, but instead opted to rule that the grotesquely unequal funding of public schools is not unconstitutional in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez. In
WU Political Review, National
2013, a controversial decision gutted a key tenet of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and has since paved the way for massive disenfranchisement of voters in Shelby County v. Holder. In 2018, they ruled that companies cannot make “agency fees” to unions mandatory for employment, fueling the destruction of labor organization in Janus v. AFSCME. The Supreme Court has been reticent in restricting presidential authority in foreign policy or the military, allowing extreme flexibility in American behavior towards foreigners. This makes the Court an active agent in sanctioning the reach of American empire abroad along with its bloody interventions and wars. The drone strikes program alone had, by just 2011, killed at least 390 civilians—and this is almost certainly understated. Yet executive authority has consistently been determined to be vast in power; the Court declined to even hear a lawsuit concerning a drone strike that killed five innocent civilians in Yemen, arguing that they themselves have “no say over the president’s drone strike program.” The drone program is only the tip of the iceberg; the Court has in recent years declined to review presidential authority concerning war powers as much as possible. The gravity of this is impossible to overstate; it announces the Supreme Court’s approval of America’s bloodstained foreign policy and unlimited military hegemony. Though not directly involved in the president’s decisions, the Court’s
interpretation of war powers for the last 50 years tacitly permits civilians to be murdered as “collateral targets” by the US military every day via drone attacks. It has allowed unadulterated protracted military intervention by the United States in countries around the globe: our involvement (historical and present) has directly caused or exacerbated deaths and atrocities in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and many more. There are so many more egregious and destructive decisions by the Court that cannot all be mentioned. Unfortunately, in all these cases, whether the judge is famously important or your local county judge, an astonishing amount of leeway can be found in judicial interpretation that conveniently supports the ideological beliefs of the judge in question. According to Current Affairs, former United States Circuit Judge Richard Posner admits that the typical method of making decisions simply rests upon looking if there’s any precedent that directly prohibits what you personally believe” a “sensible” resolution of the case would be.” If there is not, then you rule based on what your personal preference is. The idea that there is a single interpretation under which you decide “the rule of law” is a myth—conveniently, there are usually multiple lines of legitimate reasoning for a judge to choose from. Now, many people at this point may deny this understanding of legal jurisprudence, pointing out the various cases where
31
31
WU Political Review, National
conservatives such as Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch made decisions in contradiction with their conservative values. The answer is that it’s a complex question, but these cases are remarkable exceptions to the rule—many justices are very susceptible to wide shifts in public opinion on social issues. Though we had the exact same constitution, it’s unimaginable that the Supreme Court of the 1970s would have interpreted Obergefell or Bostock in the same way that they did in the 2010s. Conversely, outside of certain social issues, the Court tends to stick with what might be considered outdated lines of jurisprudence. It is painfully obvious that the law is interpreted in what can only be called an arbitrary or partisan manner. Current Affairs continues: “Immigration judges in New York grant 88 percent of asylum cases. Immigration judges in Atlanta grant 2 percent. Both courts are nominally employing the exact same legal standard. The difference is that most judges in New York are looking for reasons to grant cases, and most judges in Atlanta are looking for reasons to deny them. Usually, the judge will find whatever they are looking for.” At the end of the day, there is nothing particularly honorable or reputable about the Supreme Court; the immense approbation with which it is regarded by some borders
32
32
on fetishism. Especially with higher-profile state and federal courts, their status as nonpartisan, apolitical adjudicators is a fantasy. It’s glaringly obvious that the foundation of the system is not strictly on legalism or the letter of the law, but primarily upon the preservation of the status quo and the interests of those in power. Moreover, this is a purposeful feature of the legal system itself. Michael McConnell, another former United States Circuit Judge, writes reverently in defense of the Supreme Court after their July religious liberty decision in Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru. McConnell argues that the court’s behavior is actually some sort of much needed, salvific reprieve from the hyperpolarized political nature of the country’s executive and legislative branches. With conservatives often joining liberals in 6-3 or 7-2 decisions and vice versa, in his eyes they are demonstrating their “apolitical” nature and dedication to the rule of law: “Neither those on the right who are screeching that Chief Justice John Roberts has become a liberal nor those on the left who bewail a lock-step conservative majority are paying enough attention. The court may be political, but its politics is of the middle, and of a particular kind of middle, one that is committed to pluralism and difference rather than to the advancement of particular moral stances.”
WU Political Review, National
Though “judicial centrism” is no doubt a delight to moderates such as McConnell, this description only betrays the court’s true nature—that it is not committed to any particular moral (or even legal) paradigm. What is so laudable about compromise in and of itself, without a robust evaluation of what it is we’re compromising? Like other centrists, McConnell romanticizes the idea of political factions “coming to an understanding” with one another, a notion that abdicates responsibility for the content of the political consensus that ensues. The result is the Supreme Court we have now: the one that upholds our cruel domestic laws in everything ranging from labor to civil rights to energy to our elections and our savage, imperial foreign policy. All of this is not to say that there is nothing redeemable about our judicial system, or about judicial systems in the abstract. I only intend to deliver harsh criticism that the American judiciary doubtlessly deserves, for which reforms must be brought to bear. The American judiciary, like any other institution, sometimes brings great decisions that affect millions of lives for the better. However, like most age-old institutions, its everyday existence is designed to preserve existing structures of inequality, specifically the preeminence of neoliberalism in the United States and the world. Jaden Lanza ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jadenlanza@wustl.edu.
33
33
WU Political Review, National
Political Expression in the NFL By Christian Monzón, executive director When NFL commissioner Roger Goodell spoke following the murder of George Floyd, nobody would realistically have thought he would acknowledge systemic racism, racialized policing, or even say the words “race” or “Black.” In fact, he confirmed what most probably expected, releasing a forced statement on May 30 offering condolences to the families of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor while vaguely committing to addressing systemic issues with no clear details of what that could possibly mean. But just a few days later, after furious discussion among NFL athletes about racism and police brutality, Goodell released another statement. “Without black players there would be no National Football League,” he said, “and the protests around the country are emblematic of the centuries of silence, inequality and oppression of black players, coaches, fans and staff.” Later, Goodell even encouraged NFL teams to sign the formerly rejected Colin Kaepernick. Beyond just Goodell, NFL teams and players are using this summer to embrace 34
34
and popularize progressive values. NFL darling Drew Brees met criticism from his own teammates for shunning players like Kaepernick who kneeled during the national anthem. And to cap a stunning summer in the NFL, the franchise from Washington formerly known as the Redskins finally cut ties from its disgusting name. To call the NFL’s dramatic turnaround surprising grossly understates the profound cultural change taking place in the league. For years, conservative owners like Dallas’s Jerry Jones and Washington’s Dan Snyder have dominated the NFL landscape and collectively undermined progressive players and coaches. Football revolves around a hyper-masculine culture that—until very recently—would actively suppress female coaches and referees from participating in the sport. And while the league often excludes Black players from expressing themselves, White players and coaches can easily express their conservative political beliefs without worrying about a petulant owner decrying them as emotional or illogical. Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen’s pre-professional tweets notoriously used the N-word repeatedly and unashamedly. He only had to delete his tweets as punishment. Meanwhile, he still plays while Kaepernick remains without a team. Yet at the same time, the NFL’s rampant conservativism no longer lines up with its changing clientele. Polling analysts at 538 studied trends and football enthusiasm
WU Political Review, National
among people of different political leanings and found the NFL’s fanbase among the most bipartisan sports fans in the country—an even split of the left and the right. The politics of the NFL’s fanbase differ from the politics of the NFL itself. Over the years, the league never hesitated to showcase this hypocrisy. When several players including Kaepernick kneeled to protest police brutality in 2016, conservative owners attacked them for using their platform for political purposes. These same owners and the league have their own political action committees and obsessively lobby politicians to grant the NFL tax-exempt status and even diverted money away from NIH and Boston University studies into head trauma. Even when owners publicly declare that Black lives matter, their private convictions tell a different story. For example, even though Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross committed $13 million to fighting racial inequality, he hosted fundraisers for Donald Trump that raised $12 million, emboldening a president unafraid to fan the flames of racial tensions. Against such a dominant, hypocritical, and exclusionary conservative political culture, progress within the National Football League seemed impossible. The right-wing ideology dominating the NFL—despite its fanbase and its player’s contrary opinions—makes the statements on Black Lives Matter and Washington’s name change seem like lip service, like words
merely meant to quiet the disturbances in the NFL’s conservative status quo. Nonetheless, the mere act of pressuring the league to admit its errors on race represents a huge victory for not only Black players and coaches but for any player seeking to change a broken league culture. At the same time, it should not excuse the NFL from upholding a culture rooted in masculinity, violence, racism, militarism, and unquestioning loyalty. From what happens on the field (from regular concussions to violent fights) to what happens off of it (regular accusations of domestic violence, DUIs, and sexual abuse), the NFL’s culture remains exclusionary and problematic, even amidst impressive progress. Resistance and activism by NFL players should continue if they want to continue changing the NFL’s backwards culture. Beyond just the NFL, however, player activism can result in tangible, visible change in American discourse surrounding issues of not only race, but toxic masculinity, domestic violence, and unflinching patriotism as well. Kids (and even some adults) look up to famous athletes as role models, admire them for their attitude, and even wear jerseys to model them. Famous athletes have a massive platform, and until recently, that platform took the form of white quarterbacks touting conservative causes and failing to acknowledge their privilege. Now, as Black players gain increasing power and authority to discuss their issues,
35
35
WU Political Review, National
they can inspire others who are disillusioned with the dominant culture to speak out for themselves, too. Christian Monzón ’22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at christian.monzon@wustl.edu.
36
36
WU Political Review, National
How Extremists Can Threaten, and Moderates Can Save, the Two-State Solution By Damiano Servidio During the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, Israel and Fatah both accepted the two-state solution as the basis for a peace settlement between the two nations. But Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) prevented both parties from implementing the two-state solution by launching a campaign of terrorism that incited violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel and Fatah have continued to endorse the two-state solution, but by playing into the strategies of Palestinian extremist groups, they have failed to bring about a viable peace settlement. For Israel and Fatah to implement a viable peace settlement, both must act with restraint and avoid antagonizing each other into renewing hostilities.
With the Oslo Accords, Israel and Fatah took productive steps toward a two-state solution. Israel agreed to limit its military operations and entrusted Fatah with enforcing the peace in much of the West Bank and Gaza through the newly established Palestinian Authority. But as Israel and Fatah took the first steps toward a lasting peace settlement, Palestinian extremists attempted to derail the peace process. Hamas and PIJ engaged in terrorism to weaken support for moderate agreements in Israel and Palestine. By escalating violence against Israel, Hamas and PIJ used two of what Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walter describe as the “principal strategic logics” of terrorism: “spoiling” and “outbidding.” The terrorist campaigns “spoiled” the peace process by provoking Israel into taking military action. As terrorist attacks increased, the Israeli government doubted whether Fatah was capable or even willing to enforce peace in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel responded by conducting military operations against Hamas and PIJ within both areas, leading to massive destruction and civilian casualties that angered the Palestinian public. Moreover, Israel did not respond to these individual acts of terrorism with immediate retaliation, but instead conducted military operations against Hamas and PIJ when opportunities presented themselves—whether in times of relative calm or open violence. This “mowing the 1
37
37
WU Political Review, National
grass” strategy generally benefited Israel in the short term by forcing Hamas and PIJ to reconsolidate their forces. However, it had negative long-term consequences for Israeli security. These operations might have appeared justified to Israeli leadership—uniquely privy to intelligence on planned terrorist attacks—but their opportunistic strikes often appeared to the Palestinian public to be unprovoked attacks. Palestinians began to rally against peace talks with Israel and pressured Fatah to retaliate. The Palestinian public’s shift against cooperation with Israel allowed Hamas and PIJ to “outbid” their more moderate rivals in Fatah and to present themselves as the true protectors of Palestinian rights. As the Palestinian people demanded immediate action against Israel, Fatah, whether it wanted to or not, felt compelled to engage in violence against Israel to retain public support. Before the resurgence in violence, Fatah held popular recognition as the leading advocate for the Palestinian cause. This reputation allowed them to win public support for their more moderate policies, including the Oslo Accords with Israel. But as the Palestinian people were now demanding retaliation against Israel, Fatah faced competition for its base of support. If Fatah continued with peace talks, Hamas and PIJ might have replaced the party as the leaders of the Palestinian independence movement. If Fatah instead chose to engage in violence, it might have been more capable of retaining public support. Faced with the two options, the 38
38
leaders of Fatah chose to abandon peace talks and launch their own campaign of violence against Israel. Israel and Fatah have failed to agree to a viable peace accord not due to the actions of Hamas and PIJ alone, but because of their own confrontational responses to extremist efforts to derail the peace process. Israeli military operations in the region continue to alienate Palestinians, and Israel’s recent plans to annex parts of the West Bank have only further fueled Palestinian resentment towards the peace process. Fatah has responded by suspending cooperation with Israel on vital matters of security as well as economic and social development. Israel and Fatah should recognize that their confrontational reactions to the terrorist campaigns of Hamas and PIJ have prevented them from implementing a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel should not rely excessively on military operations in Palestine but should instead adopt a more restrained approach that relies on increasing security precautions within Israel such as improving their anti-missile defenses. This reduction in invasive military operations in the West Bank and Gaza would allow Fatah to retain popular support within Palestine while simultaneously maintaining their more moderate stance. If implemented with genuine effort on both sides, such a course would bring the conflict to a more peaceful resolution. Damiano Servidio ’22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at servidiod@wustl.edu.
2
WU Political Review, International
Is COVID a Game-Changer? How the Pandemic Could Result in a Greener Future. By Gabriel Squitieri As the world continues to fight a global pandemic, leaders around the world are scrambling to find ways to mitigate its worst effects. They are simultaneously being pressured to cope with the virus’ impact on public health and bringing life back to normal in a safe and timely fashion. Additionally, as carbon emissions fell drastically in the first weeks of the pandemic, there is pressure to take long-term action to ensure that this trend is permanent by encouraging a revolutionary shift away from fossil fuels towards renewable sources of energy. As the COVID-19 outbreak has disrupted daily life for millions, many are seeing the virus as an opportunity to change people’s habits. One of these individuals, Wendy Wood, a professor at the University of Southern California, says there is a chance to permanently change our society by taking
better care of the environment. In a poll of 16 countries, respondents were asked whether environmental protection should be a priority as their governments attempt to recover from COVID-19. In 15 of those countries, including here in the United States, over 60% said yes. Already we are seeing a response to this push for a greener, more sustainable globe. Recently, the European Union (EU) unveiled a plan to become carbon-free by 2050. While this target date is still past 2030, the year many experts say is the deadline to avoid a climate catastrophe, the EU’s financial commitment backing up their plan is still somewhat impressive, as €750 billion is being proposed with the aim of eliminating the EU’s dependency on fossil fuels. In addition to serving as a call to action for the EU, COVID is also proving to be a thorn in the side of one particular leader in South America—Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. This could have massive implications for climate change and the political situation in Brazil. A friend of agribusiness, he has weakened laws regarding deforestation in the Amazon, a crucial absorber of carbon dioxide. Long known for inviting controversy, Bolsonaro has drawn criticism from home and abroad for his poor response to the coronavirus, the result being a precipitous rise in disapproval ratings for both himself and his administration. The number of total cases in the country has skyrocketed in recent weeks, passing one million on June 20 and now totaling close to two million. Despite this, Bolsonaro is yet to treat the virus as the threat to health and public safety that it is
39
39
WU Political Review, International
and has opposed a bill making the wearing of masks mandatory in public spaces. Such actions have caused disagreements with two health ministers, both of whom have resigned from their posts as a result of Bolsonaro’s lack of response to the virus.
2018. Carlos Nobre, a climate scientist working for the University of São Paolo, has commented on the gravity of the situation. “Law enforcement has reached its minimum effectiveness in a decade. It is a worrying warning for the future.”
As he continued to disregard the advice of the scientific community, the approval ratings of both him and his government have experienced a significant decline. In January, 31% of respondents polled said that the Brazilian government was “bad” or “awful.” In May that number had risen to 43.4%, while the approval rating for Bolsonaro himself dropped by over eight points in the same time period, from 47.8% to 39.2%. The public was shown to disagree with the government’s handling of the coronavirus, particularly its lax social distancing measures, with 67.3% of respondents saying social distancing was necessary. If these low numbers persist into 2022 when Brazilians will decide who they want as president, this pandemic could end up having profound implications for future generations.
While it is indeed worrying, such warnings have been brushed aside by Brazil’s current administration. Bolsonaro has positioned himself as an ally to agribusiness, which represents a quarter of the country’s GDP and whose millionaires see the potential to add millions more to their profits. Fires and deforestation in the Amazon released between 115 and 150 million tons of carbon dioxide to be released in 2019. If Bolsonaro is to win reelection, the Amazon could reach a tipping point from which there is no coming back.
Whether Bolsonaro wins or loses come the next election is about more than the coronavirus. During Bolsonaro’s presidency, there has been practically no action on climate change on the part of the government, as Bolsonaro instead cut budgets, reduced staff, and allowed loggers to venture into the Amazon largely unchecked. In 2019, loggers cut down a portion of the rainforest the size of Lebanon as deforestation increased by 30% since
40
40
However, his reelection is not a certainty. With the coronavirus currently wrecking both the Brazilian economy and Bolsonaro’s approval ratings, it is quite possible that unless there is a change in the country’s situation by 2022, that he is to lose if he decides to seek reelection. If he is to be replaced by a more left-wing successor, one who cares about the environment and takes serious action to halt the damage being done to the Amazon, then preventing a climate catastrophe will become much more possible. However, keeping this planet inhabitable for future generations is not something that can be achieved by Brazil alone. Every country must take action and end its dependence on fossil fuels. For years countries have ignored the problem and
WU Political Review, International
allowed it to get worse. With COVID now ravaging the planet, things may finally change. World leaders are finally doing something to prevent the impending catastrophe and those who don’t may soon be voted out. Gabriel Squitieri ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at gabriel.s@wustl.edu.
41
41
This issue
WUPR is
42
42
Claudia Bermudez
’23
ArtSci
claudia.bermudez@wustl.edu
Blake Comeaux
’23
ArtSci
bccomeaux@wustl.edu
Catherine Ju
’22
ArtSci
catherineju@wustl.edu
Jaden Lanza
’23
ArtSci
jadenlanza@wustl.edu
Leslie Liu
’22
SamFox
liuleslie@wustl.edu
Merry May Ma
’22
ArtSci, Staff Artist
liangboma@wustl.edu
Nisha Mani
’23
ArtSci
nmani@wustl.edu
Ranen Miao
’23
ArtSci
ranenmiao@wustl.edu
Christian Monzón
’22
ArtSci
christian.monzon@wustl.edu
Elena Murray
’22
ArtSci, Staff Writer
elenamurray@wustl.edu
Shonali Palacios
’23
ArtSci
shonalip@wustl.edu
Hannah Richardson
’23
ArtSci
hrichardson@wustl.edu
Ashely Roh
’22
SamFox
ashley.roh@wustl.edu
Damiano Servidio
’22
ArtSci
servidiod@wustl.edu
Natalie Snyder
’21
SamFox, Staff Artist
snydernr@wustl.edu
Gabriel Squitieri
’23
ArtSci
gabriel.s@wustl.edu
Helen Webley-Brown
’22
ArtSci
h.webley-brown@wustl.edu
Jon Niewjik
Editor-in-Chief
Rohan Palacios
Editor-in-Chief
Christian Monzón
Executive Director
Megan Orlanski
Executive Director
Claudia Bermudez
Staff Editor
Sophie Conroy
Staff Editor
Jaden Lanza
Staff Editor
Rachel Olick-Gibson
Staff Editor
Nicholas Massenburg-Abraham
Features Editor
Gabriela Senno
Features Editor
Malar Muthukumar
Treasurer
Natalia Rodriguez
Treasurer
Mina Sarcevic
Programming Director
Alaina Baumohl
Social Media Editor
Adler Bowman
Web Editor
Alex Brown
Web Editor
Yanny Liang
Web Editor
Catherine Ju
Design Director
Haejin An
Design Lead
Leslie Liu
Design Lead
Shonali Palacios
Design Lead
Jinny Park
Design Lead
editor@wupr.org
design@wupr.org
Social distancing doesn't mean we're not connected. WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue. To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute
43
43