BPR Fall 2019 Issue 1

FALL 2019

ISSUE 01 SPECIAL FEATURE

PRIVACY

Editor’s Note The U.S. Constitution references privacy only obliquely; still, the idea of the “right to privacy” is firmly entrenched in Western culture, and some even argue that the very origins of our state can be traced to the struggle for privacy. Still, our notion of privacy has changed dramatically since the 18th century. At home, we’ve traded access to everything from our birthdays to our browsing history for tchotchkes like Snapchat—granting tech companies byte-sized windows into some of the most vulnerable parts of our lives. Abroad, we’ve seen the resurrection of the surveillance state, where technology is marshalled to monitor the most intimate details of citizens’ private lives. And nearly everywhere, globalization and technological advances have changed the boundaries of what people can, and cannot, claim as private space.

But privacy isn’t an absolute good. Taken to extremes, the pursuit of privacy means isolation from family, friends, and society. And the incredible technological advances of the 21st century that have made us vulnerable have also made possible the unimaginable—from bio-printed synthetic organs to the democratization of content creation. Our challenge, then, is to reconsider what we want to preserve as private, and what we are willing to give up to do so.

In this issue, we look into some of the ways that privacy—and the lack of it— influences our lives. Ellie Papapanou explores the ethics of “Mosquito” devices that enforce privacy selectively by forcing young people, and young people only, out of parks at night. Rachel Yan argues that granting tech companies access to our healthcare data could pave the way for groundbreaking advances in medical research, as well as lead to the democratization of the healthcare industry.

Leela Berman investigates the role of privacy in the push for LGBTQ rights, focusing particularly on the significance of its status as international law.

Finally, Justin Perry makes the case for comprehensive regulation of genetic data, arguing that current legal ambiguities leave consumers susceptible to misconduct by pharmaceutical and biotech companies.

We’ve chosen to publish these articles because we feel they explore dimensions of the complex, ever-changing web that is privacy in the digital age. But the conversation hardly ends here. We hope that this issue inspires you to think more deeply about privacy—what it is, what it’s worth, and what it will look like in the future.

— Ashley & Marianna

What’s going on at

CONTENT BOARD

PODCAST BOARD Join your hosts, Morgan Awner ’21 and Rachel Lim ’21, for our third season of Podcast! Tune in to learn more about important on-campus issues, like Brown’s attempt to incorporate ethics into the computer science curriculum and its plan to promote food security by making meal plan mandatory for freshmen and sophomores. Upcoming episodes will address topics such as gentrification in college neighborhoods, the global impacts of the recent Indian elections on perceptions of democracy, the state takeover of Providence schools, and the environmental impact of the university’s aesthetic upkeep. Follow Podcast on SoundCloud and subscribe on iTunes to stay updated!

Can’t get enough of the Brown Political Review? Check out our website, where we publish political opinionpieces throughout the semester. Visit brownpoliticalreview.org to stay up-to-date on pressing issues and support some of Brown’s most talented political thinkers! Here, we preview some of our favorite articles.

CONTENT: ECON/FINANCE SECTION In “Inside the Land of Opportunity (Zones),” Noah Pirani places contemporary tax policy in a historical context of white capital accumulation and racial immiseration. Arguing that market solutions will never resolve these inequities on their own, Noah sees Opportunity Zones as just another policy meant to extract value from communities in need of authentic economic revitalization.

MEDIA BOARD

CONTENT: WORLD SECTION

Media Board is the online, visual counterpart to the print magazine. With each issue release, we publish a series of short videos to supplement the magazine’s articles, including interviews with authors and Brown professors. Media Board is also working to produce multimedia nonfiction works investigating politics on Brown’s campus and in Rhode Island. Currently, we are exploring political diversity at Brown, international perspectives on US politics, and activist groups on campus.

In “Vigilante Injustice,” Tarana Sable discusses the recent uptake in violent incidents targeting Muslims in India. She argues that these religiously motivated attacks result from an abuse of power at the local level by the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), effectively normalizing vigilante violence and dismantling structures of accountability.

DATA BOARD Data Board produces visualization-based, data-driven content. Currently, we are working on sentiment analysis for each presidential candidate participating in the 2019 Democratic debates and evaluation of the success of different bike-share programs across the country.

4

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

CONTENT: CULTURE SECTION In “Environmental Racism in Louisiana: Legislative Ambivalence Persists More Than a Decade After Katrina,” Carlie Houser argues that President Trump’s newest infrastructure plan intrenches the environmental racism that has long existed in Louisiana. She calls attention to the lack of appropriate flooding infrastructure that puts Louisiana’s Black communities in danger and points out that Louisiana politicians and President Trump seem more concerned with placating the fossil fuel industry than protecting their citizens.

Issue 01, Fall 2019 EXECUTIVE BOARD

Masthead

COPY EDITORIAL BOARD

INTERVIEWS BOARD

CO-CHIEF COPY EDITORS

COPY EDITORS CONTINUED

INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS

EDITORS IN CHIEF Ashley Chen Marianna Scott

Eliza Namnoum Namsai Sethpornpong

Jack Doughty Glenn Yu

CHIEFS OF STAFF

COPY EDITORS

Zander Blitzer Jeremy Rhee

Caleigh Aviv Rachel Avram Josephine Bleakley Cynthia Bo Huen Ng Karina Chavarria Patrick Gilfillian Bridget Griswold Zeke Hertz Joseph Hinton Chaelin Jung

Christopher Lewis Morgan McCordick Malini Naidu Sam Parmer Julia Pew Michael Power Kelly Raymond Gina Sinclair Jason Teng Gabriela Tenorio Huayu Wang Amelia Wyckoff Claire Zeller Peter Zubiago

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Owen Colby SENIOR MANAGING WEB EDITORS Carter Woodruff Simran Nayak SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR

INTERVIEWS ASSOCIATES Tiffany Chen Alexander Fasseas Ryan Frant Rose Houglet Rachel Lu Neha Mukherjee Shilpa Sajja Neil Sehgal Amelia Spalter Zachary Stern Olivia Thorson Nicholas Whitaker

Mary Dong CHIEF COPY EDITORS Eliza Namnoum Namsai Sethpornpong INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Jack Doughty Glenn Yu DATA DIRECTOR Sarah Conlisk

CREATIVE CONTRIBUTING ILLUSTRATORS

Jeff Katz Katie Kwak

Liam Archibald Kalyani Kastor Xuan Liu Jonathan Muroya Michelle Perez Katie Quirk Connor Robinson Natalie Saenz Daimei Wu Emma Yang Jenny Yu Shyaoman Zhang

ART DIRECTORS Stephanie Wu Molly Young

MARKETING, OPERATIONS, AND BUSINESS DIRECTOR

GRAPHIC DESIGN DIRECTORS

Anne Cheng

GRAPHIC DESIGNERS

CREATIVE DIRECTORS

Madi Ko Minji Koo Daniel Navratil Vanissa Wong

Jeff Katz Katie Kwak MEDIA DIRECTOR

DATA BOARD

CREATIVE DIRECTORS

Jaewon Kim Libby Marrs

COVER ARTIST Katie Quirk

Olivia Rosenbloom PODCAST DIRECTOR Emily Skahill LEAD WEB DEVELOPER Raymond Cao

CONTENT BOARD SENIOR MANAGING WEB EDITORS Simran Nayak Carter Woodruff WORLD SENIOR EDITOR

Cartie Werthman

Sophia Petros

EDITORIAL BOARD

EDITORS

EDITORS

Matthew Bailey Roxanne Barnes

Brionne Frazier Ellie Papapanou

STAFF WRITERS

STAFF WRITERS

SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR

Elana Confino-Pinzon Rocket Drew Christina Ge Annie Gersh Carlie Houser Talia Mermin Maddy Noh Daniel Steinfeld Matthew Walsha Dorothy Windham

Annie Lehman Ludwig Leonardo Moraveg Basit Muhammadi Meghan Murphy Kavya Nayak Jack Otero Ava Rosenbaum Tarana Sable Amir Tamaddon Alexandra Wells

ECONOMY SENIOR EDITOR

CAMPUS SENIOR EDITORS

Jackson Segal

Kate Dario Allison Meakem

MANAGING EDITORS Emma Blake Uwa Ede-Osifo Peter Lees ASSOCIATE EDITORS Johanna Bandler Hyun Choi Eunice Chong Sarah Hall Anagha Lokhande Allison Meakem Henry Peebles-Capin Blaise Rebman Hannah Severyns Jason Togut Emily Yamron Rachel Yan

EDITORS Anna Corradi Lucia Winton STAFF WRITERS Luke Angellilo Molly Cook Simon Giordano Ariana Haji Matthew Lichtblau Clare Lonergan Noah Pirani Max Pushkin Andrew Steinberg

PODCAST BOARD Executive Producer: Emily Skahill Hosts: Morgan Awner & Rachel Lim Podcast Associates: Isabel Astrachan, Leela Berman, Finn Blomquist Eggerling, Casey Chan, Jack Doughty, Sierra Fang-Horvath, Deepak Gupta, Han Hguyen, Brian Kirz, Annette Lee, Geireann Lindfeld Roberts, Ali Martinez, Moses Murbur, Catherine Nelli, Henry Peebles-Capin, Michael Seoane, Annika Sigfstead, Claire Zeller & Auria Zhang

MEDIA BOARD

US SENIOR EDITOR

Mary Dong

Data Director: Sarah Conlisk Data Associates: Prakrit Baruah, Erika Bussmann, Ben Gershuny, John Graves, Henry Jacob, Pete Kelly, Augustus Kmetz, Michelle Liu, Samantha Randall, Daniel Ritter, Emilia Ruzicka & Mossis Su

STAFF WRITERS Morgan Awner Siena Capone Vance Kelley Owen Kells Michaela Kennedy-Cuomo Peter Lees Mira Ortegon Mossis Su

Media Director: Olivia Rosenbloom Content Creators: Corinne Bai, Alessandra Bianco, Jane Bradley, Ciara Carlyle, Jaden Chew, Aila Kassandra Rodriguez, John Liu, Griffin McLaughlin, Anson Shyu, Annika Sigfstead & Irene Sung

TECH DEVELOPMENT BOARD Lead Web Developer: Raymond Cao Web Developers: Samuel Wilkins, Nick Young & Melissa Zhang

MARKETING, OPERATIONS & BUSINESS BOARD MOB Director: Anne Cheng MOB Associates: Regina Caggiano, Mali Dandridge, Auden Elliott, Patrick Gilfillan, Ethan Kuhl, Karolyn Lee, William Pate, Zahra Thiam & Floria Tsi

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

5

Brown Political Review

8 Selling Smoke Under Fire

by Emily Yamron

Table of Contents

United States

11 Not Exactly Model Activism

by Osayuwamen “Uwa” Ede-Osifo

14 interview Bernardine Rae Dohrn

by Alex Fasseas & George Davis

16 We Don’t Know Squat

by Rocket Drew

18 interview Anita Häusermann Fábos

by Rose Houglet

19 Moved In, Locked Out

by Johanna Bandler

22 interview Gary Noesner

by Amelia Spatler

Special Feature

PRIVACY 26 23andUs

by Justin Perry

29 Google Wants To Know Your Health Data. You Should Give it to Them

by Rachel Yan

28 interview Ellen Malcolm

by Rose Houglet

6

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

Issue 01, Fall 2019

The Privacy Issue

World 40 Money Money Money [in a Local World]

by Emma Blake

43 Don’t Kiss & Tell [King Abdullah]

by Allison Meakem

46 A Buzzing Industry Stings

by Andrew Steinberg

50 Willfull Ignorance

by Alexandra Wells

33 The Right to Privacy

by Leela Berman

36 Public Spaces Bite Back

by Ellie Papapanou

35 interview Julie K. Brown

by Neha Mukherjee

39 interview David Cole

by Zachary Stern

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

7

UNITED STATES

Selling Smoke Under Fire

Examining the state of e-cigarette advertising in the U.S.

by emily yamron ’20, a Biology and Public Health concentrator and an Associate Editor at BPR infographics madi ko ’21 data by prakrit baruah ’20

8

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

SELLING SMOKE UNDER FIRE About five decades ago, back in the days when restaurants, parks, and even schools were shrouded in clouds of cigarette smoke, U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry was trying to see through the haze and find a meaningful way to convey the dangers of smoking.

He created the Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health, whose 1964 report concluded that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer and chronic illness. Congress decisively responded to the report the following year by passing the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, which was ultimately replaced in 1970 when Richard Nixon signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (PHCSA) into law.

Nearly 50 years after Nixon’s stamp of approval banned tobacco companies from running advertisements in television and radio media, it seems as though it is time for an addendum to this ban that would include e-cigarettes. These devices are becoming increasingly popular, especially among young people. Between 2017 and 2018, the percentage of U.S. high school students who reported using an e-cigarette in the prior thirty days nearly doubled. Vapes have made headlines due to a recent study that linked vaping to over 500 cases of illness and at least six deaths in the US. However, despite calls to ban flavored e-cigarette pods from President Trump himself, the question of whether or not e-cigarette makers should be allowed to advertise on air has been curiously absent from discussions. An examination of the fallout of the PHCSA helps to elucidate this gap in the debate.

In the aftermath of the PHCSA being signed into law, two concurrent phenomena turned the tide against the political conditions that made its passage possible. For one, in May 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that purely commercial speech was protected under the First Amendment. Though Justice Harry Blackmun argued in his majority opinion that misleading, false, or illegal speech could still be regulated, the case dealt a severe blow to the constitutional underpinnings that allowed the PHCSA to be passed. If that were not enough, the F.C.C. revoked its Fairness Doctrine rule, the 1949 regulation requiring that broadcasting licensees discuss issues pertaining to the public interest in a balanced way, in 1987. With the rage of 1980s deregulation, enforcement of the rule fell by the wayside and was officially axed from F.C.C. regulations in 2011.

Surprisingly, despite these fundamental shifts in how commercial speech is viewed and regulated in the country, tobacco companies haven’t successfully challenged the PHCSA, and it remains in the books.

However, these same companies have found a new frontier in e-cigarettes. With Marlboro’s parent company gobbling up a 35 percent stake in Juul, one of the country’s most popular e-cigarettes, and competitor

Philip Morris designing their own product, it seems clear that Big Tobacco is simply trying to find another route to get people hooked on their addictive and dangerous substances.

Indeed, research has shown that e-cigarette use is associated with cigarette smoking initiation. By marketing e-cigarettes on television, especially to teens, major players in the tobacco industry are indirectly promoting the uptake of cigarettes. And as the world can see from the hundreds of illnesses linked to vaping, the absence of regulation of e-cigarettes’ contents can have immediate and dire consequences.

Despite the challenge of regulating e-cigarette marketing, perhaps a solution lies in the PHCSA itself. The bill outlaws the sale of cigarettes that do not explicitly identify their nicotine content. Interestingly, smoking cessation products, such as nicotine-containing gum, must list their nicotine contents, too.

In other words, they are also subject to regulation in a manner similar to that of tobacco products. It seems reasonable to claim that e-cigarettes, which must also disclose their nicotine contents, are subject to other control under the PHCSA. Of course, trying to expand the reach of the PHCSA itself is a risky move. Encroaching on a mostly-untouched corner of Big Tobac-

“It seems clear that Big Tobacco is simply trying to find another route to get people hooked on its addictive and dangerous substances.”

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

9

UNITED STATES

co’s reach could certainly cause pushback, and given the precarious legal standing the PHCSA is in now, this could be the final straw on the road to a court challenge to end the regulation.

However, the logic used to argue for commercial speech in 1976 does not entirely hold for an argument about e-cigarettes, so an extension of the PHCSA could be possible. One of the major points of the majority decision in the case, Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council, was that “both the individual consumer and society in general may have strong interests in the free flow of commercial information.” However, given Big Tobacco’s inclination toward misinforming consumers for their own benefit, this point is less applicable. Because the advertising of vapes currently disregards the epidemic of respiratory illness they’re causing, it seems easy to argue that consumers would not benefit from a “free flow of commercial information” about the wonders of e-cigarettes.

Moreover, despite traditional Republican opposition to government regulation of markets, President Trump is, at least for the moment, squarely on the anti-vape side of the debate. This makes an expansion in enforcement of the PHCSA more plausible as

10

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

“Whether e-cigarette advertising is halted by regulation on the part of the government or self-regulated by networks hesitant to promote dangerous substances to their viewers, it is evident that change is needed.” well, given that the idea could face minimal resistance from the White House.

Nonetheless, there is some evidence to suggest that trying to push the limits of the PHCSA would be superfluous: In early September, CNN announced that it would no longer allow Juul and other e-cigarette makers to run ads on the network. Though the announcement came with the caveat that they would reconsider the move as new health information becomes available, it does provide a glimmer of hope that television networks will take it upon themselves to exercise the Fairness Doctrine and stop allowing e-cigarette manufacturers to mislead consumers about their products’ safety.

Whether e-cigarette advertising is halted by regulation on the part of the government or self-regulated by networks hesitant to pro-

mote dangerous substances to their viewers, it is evident that change is needed. While e-cigarette manufacturers need to market their product to make it commercially viable, the right to restrict deceptive e-cigarette advertising ought to take precedence. Allowing these advertisements to continue without a balanced warning is an obvious threat to public safety. By doing nothing, the American people allow Big Tobacco to perpetuate its smoke-and-mirrors campaign at the expense of consumers’ health.

Not Exactly Model Activism On fashion and political movements

by osayuwamen “uwa” ede-osifo ’22, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and a Managing Editor at BPR illustrator kalyani kastor ’20

Beyoncé’s “Flawless” played in the background as the model walked out onto the runway.

The shirt she was showcasing was plain—a standard white tee—but the slogan on the front of it caught people’s attention: “We Should All Be Feminists.” The T-shirt was the brainchild of designer Maria Grazia Chiuri, the first female artistic director of Dior in its 70-year history. Drawing inspiration from author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TEDx talk of the same name, Chiuri wanted to make a bold promise that this new chapter of Dior would be unlike any other. The problem with the T-shirt? Its whopping retail price of $860.

This episode reflects a shocking discrepancy between the core values of the intersectional feminist movement and fashion’s interpretation of it. Such a divide is not new. While fashion is often regarded as trivial, clothing choices can serve as an extension of one’s internal cultural and political beliefs. But to dissect Chiuri’s intentions is reductionist and misses the larger discussion of fashion’s role in political movements. Instead, the dialogue should revolve around the purpose and political implications of clothing. From this perspective, the fashion industry’s commodification of political movements not only dilutes the message of the issues but also reinforces the inequitable sociopolitical conditions that inspire their products.

In an interview with Elle magazine, Adichie explained that lending her slogan to Chiuri gave young women “a language to talk about things they have already experienced.” How-

ever, the unintended message Dior’s shirt sends is that one can only be a feminist if they can afford the shirt. The top exemplifies historical amnesia: It forgets the shoulders upon which modern feminism stands. From Sojourner Truth’s rousing “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech in 1851 to Audre Lorde’s 1979 essay, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” intersectional feminism has paved the path to include women of all colors, sexual orientations, and backgrounds.

Given that women of color often already bear disproportionate financial burdens, the shirt’s cost contradicts its purpose.

Of course, fashion isn’t alone in stripping meaningful movements into bite-sized popular culture. Marxist culture theorists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer argued that the economic forces of capitalism strip cultural experiences of their meaning and authenticity. High fashion operates in a similar man-

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

11

UNITED STATES

12

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

NOT EXACTLY MODEL ACTIVISM

“While fashion is often disregarded as trivial, clothing choices can serve as an extension of one’s internal cultural and political beliefs.” ner: The distance between designers and the problems they attempt to highlight results in trendy but confusing political aesthetics. In this context, trendsetters opt for performative activism that reduces advocacy to putting a slogan on a T-shirt. As such statements conveniently diminish the exhaustive labor of explaining one’s opinions, they inadvertently replace meaningful dialogue.

It is also worth noting that aesthetics come with an expiration date. One season, cargo pants are in; next season, they are out. On the other hand, political issues cannot be quickly solved in the time between fall and spring fashion weeks. These drastically different timelines present serious consequences: Once a fashion season ends, the momentum that these cultural products lend to important political movement dissipates before the issue has been rectified. When a shirt with the words “We Should All Be Feminists” inevitably goes out of style, it may give the illusion that feminism and women’s rights are an oversaturated topic of the past.

Even when high fashion tries to aim for the most controversial and current issues, it often misses the mark. Take, for example, actress Priyanka Chopra’s appearance in the sixth anniversary cover of Condé Nast Traveller India’s edition. She is dressed in a shirt with the words “Refugee,” “Immigrant,” and “Outsider” crossed out in red, suggesting instead that the final label of “Traveller” is the most accurate. Beyond fetishizing forced transnational migration, the shirt attempts to strip meaning from labels which are all too relevant; as of May 2019, nearly 71 million people have been forcibly displaced worldwide. The crossed-out labels should not be seen as derogatory insults. They are simply reflective of life for a growing percentage of the global population. “Traveller” implies vacations and economic capital, luxuries that are far from reality for the many refugees and immigrants who instead seek political and socioeconomic stability.

From a cynical perspective, fashion houses are, in many ways, making money from people’s genuine struggles. Without the hardships of refugees and disenfranchised women, there would be no flashy slogans on “statement” T-shirts from which high fashion can turn a profit. But even if they aren’t profiting from co-opting social issues, political aesthetics can be inappropriate and fraught with controversy. For example, in Bstroy’s Spring 2020 menswear collection, models donned hoodies riddled with bullet-like holes and the names of American high schools and universities that were sites of infamous mass shootings. Amid the backlash, Bstroy founder Brick Owens noted, “Sometimes life can be painfully ironic. Like the irony of dying violently in a place you considered to be a safe, controlled environment.” However, Owens seemed to have missed how his ill-conceived designs trivialized the pain and suffering of the hundreds of students who lived through these events.

The brand’s attempts to spark dialogue about the pervasiveness of gun violence represent another instance of fashion’s attempts to wade blindly into politics.

Bstroy, Dior, and Conde Nast have all tried and failed to meet the same goal—to associate their respective political messages with the lives of people who first voiced them.

Indeed, Adorno and Horkheimer were distressed by the fact that mass culture removes “the layer of experience which made words human like those who spoke them.” Does fashion not do the same thing by taking the narrative away from those to whom it ought to belong? The very words “refugee” and “feminist” lose their meaning when they are separated from their embodied, messy histories.

enacted to end the problem. Similarly, gender-based discrimination and xenophobia are longstanding global issues. This begs the question: Can fashion adopt political mantras and beliefs without reducing the power and authenticity of the movements? Perhaps it can—if those with visibility can lend their voice to the people who own the narratives of social change. Only by serving as allies who promote the original voices of political movements can the fashion industry work toward resolving this divide.

There is a model for this form of allyship: At the 2018 Golden Globes, many performers wore black to support the #TimesUp movement for gender equality. These same performers also invited local grassroots activists from various organizations. By using their platform to amplify marginalized voices, the actresses were able to transcend a political aesthetic and, above all, foster solidarity with the movement.

Imperative to the success of fashion’s political discourse is a commitment to highlighting the anxieties and tensions of the human condition. Although this strategy has the potential to spark social change, high fashion designers are currently taking an insensitive, ignorant approach. What is certain, however, is that the show must go on—hopefully with fewer political mishaps along the way.

To an extent, any altruistic intention of these designers can be seen as an attempt to sensationalize and dramatize important dialogue.

Gun violence has plagued the American people for decades, with little political change

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

13

Bernardine Rae Dohrn INTERVIEW WITH

interviewer alex fasseas ’23, & george davis ’23 (University of Wisconsin—Madison) illustrator michelle perez ’20

Bernardine Rae Dohrn is a retired Northwestern University law professor and former leader of the Weather Underground Organization, a radical left militant group active during the Vietnam War Era. The Weather Underground was responsible for the bombings of various government buildings, including the Pentagon, the United States Capitol Building, and a number of police stations—as well as the accidental townhouse bombing in Greenwich Village that took the lives of three of its own members. Dohrn was placed on the F.B.I.’s 10 Most Wanted list in 1970, where she remained for three years. In 1980, she turned herself in; however, most federal charges against her were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct. She now resides in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, where she continues her advocacy for social reform.

alex & george Did your revolutionary ideology start to develop as early as your high school years? bernardine rae dohrn No, as a high schooler I didn’t even know what that meant, to be “revolutionary.” I mean, I was so unworldly and so naive compared to you guys. It was red-white-and-blue all the way—hard to see a bigger world. a&g What did your life look like before you became involved in radical activism? What allowed you to see “a bigger world?” brd Weirdly enough, at UChicago, I was in the same class as Bernie Sanders, who led a sit-in my freshman year against the University’s ownership of segregated housing on the South Side. I wasn’t involved in the sit-in since I wasn’t brave enough, so I watched from afar and slowly became more involved as time went by. It was a step-by-step process. It wasn’t until law school before I really became politically involved. I became the head of the Law Students Civil Rights Research Counsel, so I was part of a national network. It was right at the moment when black and white organizations separated, but we were still deeply involved with both sides. Meanwhile, the Vietnam War loomed over

14

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

my entire law school experience, and everyone except for the seven women in my class were going to be draft-eligible the day they graduated from grad school.

The week law school ended, June of 1967, I went to work for the National Lawyers Guild in New York, and all hell was breaking loose. We worked for months, organizing legal support for the demonstration at the Pentagon that fall, with bonfires and National Guard troops of 18 and 19 years of age scared to death, and us astonished. People were refusing to enter the military, police were refusing to occupy cities in response to the African American uprisings across the U.S., and people were coming home from Vietnam and throwing their medals at the government and denouncing them on a daily basis.

It was a tumultuous time of upheaval, and an incredible time to mobilize lawyers and law students to do work in that area. So I had one foot in insurrection and the other in legal representation. a&g What caused you to abandon a career in civil rights law and turn to a life of radical activism with the formation of the Weather Underground?

INTERVIEW: BERNARDINE RAE DOHRN

“But at the end of the day, stand up, fight back, ask questions—ask hard questions—and push the margins wherever you can. And ask each other how you’re going to make meaning in your life, not money—you’ll be fine with the money.”

brd After I went to a national meeting of Students for a Democratic Society, as I did once a year, I ended up being elected as one of three national officers. I spent the next year traveling for SDS during the real escalation of the war in Vietnam and the Black freedom movement in the U.S. I reveled in those years; I led delegations in meetings with the Vietnamese in Europe; I found myself meeting European leftists from Germany, Spain, and Italy—people rooted in the history of the communist and socialist parties of Europe. Nobody held together during that time. I began to believe that the United States shouldn’t consider itself immune from everything else that the world was going through, and I wondered: Why couldn’t we have revolution, and why couldn’t we overthrow the government, and why couldn’t there be a government that actually served the people? Still good questions… Then what happened was three of our friends, our comrades, accidentally blew themselves up in Greenwich Village. Instead of going along and having a small clandestine organization that nobody knew about, we all disappeared the day after March 6th, 1970. I called my parents and told them that I loved them, dyed my hair, and I disappeared. a&g What was the thought process behind the transition from nonviolent advocacy to a more violent form of radicalism? brd We thought of it more as an armed struggle. I think that “violence” is a tricky word. Yes, we were labeled as violent after the townhouse bombing incident in the Village because our comrades were intending to do violence to civilians. But we had spent our first year underground having endless discussions and meetings across the country with friends and others on how to proceed, and we came to believe that violence against property was different from violence against people. We were not going to go down the road of hurting people. In fact, we would go out of our way to prevent anybody from being harmed. Our actions would instead be symbolically understandable, self-explanatory— you know, with the Capitol building and the Pentagon. So yes, it was a step beyond breaking windows, but it was a careful step.

a&g Some people feel that the Weather Underground should be punished for what they did—that they essentially got away with their crimes… brd I would say the government got away with their crimes. You know, I always say, let’s have a truth and reconciliation process, and we’ll stand up on stage and so can the torturers, the people who thought up Guantanamo and the people who committed war crimes in Vietnam. Again, there are many things I wish we hadn’t said—less so what we hadn’t done. Our rhetoric was relatively high. But I don’t regret throwing myself into that moment. I wish I had been nicer, but I stand by what I had stood by in the past and am happy to stand on a tribunal if those government officials are up there also. a&g How should the young, progressive people of today approach activism and political discourse in general? brd The job is in front of you. The job is to name your historical moment. We named ours, and I think we named ours correctly—about U.S. imperialism and the dangers of racism and sexism. For us, those were breakthrough concepts that we tried to fit together, and even though we didn’t do a great job of handling them, we were onto them, and they were part of our politics. But at the end of the day, stand up, fight back, ask questions—ask hard questions—and push the margins wherever you can. And ask each other how you’re going to make meaning in your life, not money—you’ll be fine with the money.

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

15

UNITED STATES

We Don’t Know Squat

The Housing Crisis & Squatters’ Rights by rocket drew ’22, a Linguistics and Economics concentrator and a Staff Writer at BPR illustrator natalie saenz ’20

At the dawn of the foreclosure crisis in 2009, Mary Kaptur, a Democratic House representative from Ohio, shocked the nation from the House floor by exclaiming, “Be squatters in your own homes. Don’t you leave.”

The gravity of Kaptur’s words reflects the anxiety of that period, which many Americans still feel even a decade later as the fallout from the foreclosure crisis persists.

Seventy-two percent of households making less than $15,000 a year qualify as severely cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 50 percent of their income on housing. Hundreds of thousands of people experiencing

16

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

homelessness remain unsheltered, and this unsheltered population increased in 2018.

Despite the overwhelming need for affordable housing, 1.3 percent of homes and 6.8 percent of rental units sit vacant. In the midst of this resource disparity, squatting has the potential to ameliorate the U.S.’s housing crisis.

Technically known as “adverse possession,” squatters’ rights in the U.S. are a holdover from English common law. To claim title to a property, a squatter must meet some general criteria. They must squat continuously, though multiple people can take turns occupying the property in a practice known as “tacking.” Possession must be exclusive, meaning the squatter excludes the public from the property, and hostile, meaning the possession infringes on the owner’s rights.

Another condition is that the possession be open and notorious. If the landlord bothered to inspect the property, they should discover the squatter. Finally, and most obviously, trespassing charges, like those for many other crimes, are subject to a statute of limitations, which stipulates the length of time since the offense after which the victim can no longer prosecute. To claim title, the squatting must have occurred for long enough

that the statute of limitations on trespassing actions has expired.

To Americans today, squatters’ rights may seem obsolete. However, housing shortages across the country could restore squatting to the national consciousness. Oregon and California, for instance, have some of the highest homelessness rates in the country, and many members of these populations are unsheltered. Even so, over one in 20 households in Portland, Oregon and over one in ten households in Riverside, California are vacant. That amounts to a lot of unoccupied housing, so how hard would it be to squat in these cities? In Oregon, the statute of limitations is ten years, and in California it’s only five. Although this seems like a long time, it is still possible for committed squatters in either state to secure a permanent residence, particularly when coordinating with other squatters or housing groups. Additionally, squatters can find household vacancy rates of around ten percent in New Orleans, Detroit, and Baltimore. In New York City, the quantity of unoccupied rental units has increased over the past few years to six percent for private, non-regulated units. Despite this abundance, New York City has the largest homeless population of any city in the U.S. For these reasons,

WE DON’T KNOW SQUAT

“To Americans today, squatters’ rights may seem obsolete.

However, housing shortages across the country could restore squatting to the national consciousness.”

New York City is ripe for a mass movement of squatters.

opportunity to realize significant gains in the struggle for housing rights.

There is a historical precedent for such a response; only a few decades ago, squatting was a prominent element of the urban landscape, particularly in New York City. In the 1980s, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) championed squatting efforts in major cities across the U.S. In 1987, ACORN’s work with squatters in New York City pressured the city to yield 58 buildings to the squatters, along with a $2.7 million dollar loan fund. Another victory came 15 years later, when the city government bowed to squatters by selling 11 buildings in the Lower East Side for a dollar each to a housing nonprofit.

Housing shortages in major cities have garnered attention in recent years, but effective, tangible remedies have been difficult to identify. Reintroducing the legal framework of squatters’ rights could provide a temporary solution to individuals and families who struggle to find shelter.

Smaller contemporary groups show that squatting is still a feasible housing strategy.

During the foreclosure crisis, the Miami nonprofit Take Back the Land reported that it cost just $200 to move a family into an empty residence. Compared with other much more expensive options, such as emergency motel stays, squatting is an attractive alternative.

By promoting squatting in conjunction with efforts like know-your-rights trainings and furniture drives, housing advocates have the

“By promoting squatting in conjunction with efforts like know-your-rights trainings and furniture drives, housing advocates have the opportunity to realize significant gains in the struggle for housing rights.”

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

17

Anita Häusermann Fábos INTERVIEW WITH

interviewer rose houglet ’22 illustrator michelle perez ’20

Anita Häusermann Fábos is a Professor of International Development and Social Change at Clark University. She is also the former Director of Forced Migration and Refugee Studies at the American University in Cairo as well as the former Programme Coordinator for the graduate program in Refugee Studies at the University of East London. She has conducted anthropological work alongside Muslim Arab-Sudanese refugees in the Middle East, Europe, and North America, and is currently working on a book titled Constellations of Home that examines how people in long-term displacement engage with home and home-making.

rose houglet Could you tell me about your lecture at Brown yesterday and your book? What is the thesis? What inspired it? anita häusermann fábos The lecture was an investigation of the current state of people in long-term situations of displacement in the world. I am writing this book with my colleague Cathrine Brun, who is a feminist geographer at Oxford Brooks University and the Director of the Center for Development and Environmental Practice. She’s also a forced migration specialist and theorist.

We’ve both worked with groups of people who have themselves been living with displacement for a really long time.

We argue that…the logic of the system itself creates problems that can only be solved by sending people to some kind of home…In the refugee protection system, the unspoken assumption is that home means, preferably, becoming part of the citizenry of a place.

I would say also that anybody who is caught up in bureaucratic systems of helpers is bound to come up against people needing to know things to help them that make it very hard to be private. A lot of people will want to take some of their income and send it back to family members, and [caseworkers tell them] they can’t do that. Those are the types of issues to do with the invasion of your personal way of doing things that happen when you are having to integrate. rh How do you reconcile your radical demands with the fact that there are immediate needs that require utilizing the current system?

ahf Even though the overall logic [around refugee issues] remains kind of unmoving…we’re seeing more and more humanitarian agencies recognizing that emergencies are not the right mindset to use to work with people who are in these long-term displaced situations…The big corrector that I see here is in 2014, the UNHCR, United Nations We…realized that the nation-state is important for a lot Development Programme, World Bank and International of people: a lot of people yearn for being back in Sudan Rescue Committee came out with a brand new policy called or for a Palestine or some other national homeland. But, “alternatives to camps” that [states that] camps are a last at the same time, people are doing daily practices, and… resort, and acknowledges that people will be where they organizing their space in a way that reminds them of the are and that those places might be very mixed in terms of place that they used to live. It’s not just housework…they’re neighborhoods. yearning for their life that they lost. They have very strong ideals and nostalgic feelings about what their home looks rh Has the climate for your kind of work changed under like. So we call these sets of ideas “home.” this past presidential administration? How so? rh How do state-specific notions of privacy inform your work? ahf Whenever my colleague and I were considering ideas of home as a universal concept, we recognized that for shelter, even though there might be some basic, minimum standards that people consider to be important, the experience of super important cultural and maybe gendered values like privacy could be really different from one group of people to another…That’s been a slow lesson for the humanitarian community to learn because there has been this kind of one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to a lot of housing, in particular.

18

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

ahr I taught in Egypt for nearly 15 years, England for 7 years, and then after that I’ve only been back here for 10 years. So, what I can tell Americans is that this is exactly what I saw in Cairo. It’s what I saw in England 15 years ago, and nobody paid attention. All of this, [cracking down on travel, blocking people from getting on airplanes if they didn’t have a visa] was absolutely part of the British response. That has been happening for 15-20 years. This is built into the logic of “people do not fit into our idea of homogenization-building.” It’s just ramped up now. The current administration is doing this wagon-circling and invention of what America looks like when you try to put every type of person who has been able to emerge from under that oppression back into a box.

by johanna bandler ’22, a Public Policy concentrator and an Associate Editor at BPR illustrator connor robinson ’20

Prison gerrymandering’s consequences to justice, democracy, and equality

MOVED OUT, LOCKED IN In 2008, Danny Young was elected to represent the Second Ward of Anamosa, Iowa. The catch? He only received two votes: one from his wife and one from his neighbor.

How did Anamosa’s democracy become so distorted? While each of the city’s four wards had a population of roughly 1,400 people, Young’s ward housed the Anamosa State Penitentiary. These prisoners were counted in Anamosa’s census, but the inmates could not vote. When asked whether he considered the inmates his constituents, Young replied, “They don’t vote, so, I guess, not really.”

Only 58 people were eligible to cast a ballot in Ward Two’s 2008 election. And because three people ended up at the polls, Young only needed two votes to win. Even more con-

cerning than Young’s vote count, however, was the fact that each individual in Ward Two ended up with far more influence over the city’s politics than the people of Wards One, Three, and Four. This is because Young represented the interests of just 58 voters, while his fellow council members represented over 1,000 each. But Young’s story is only one example of a much larger phenomenon plaguing communities across America: prison gerrymandering.

Prison gerrymandering begins at the census.

When conducting its decennial count of Americans, the Census Bureau defines residencies as “the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time.” Consequently, the census counts incarcerated people as residents of the towns where they are imprisoned. Prison gerrymandering occurs when this data is used by states to manipulate election districts. This practice threatens the integrity of our democracy and inflates the representation of some districts while diminishing the influence of others. Moreover, it disproportionately hurts communities of color and contributes to the already pervasive systemic racism in our criminal justice system.

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

19

UNITED STATES

“Redistricting will take place over the next two years. When this happens, our democracy and commitment to racial justice will be tested.”

At its most basic level, prison gerrymandering merits attention because it violates the “one person, one vote” doctrine touted by the United States. In 1964, the Supreme Court affirmed this principle and invoked the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution to rule that states must guarantee residents “the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of state legislatures.”

Prison gerrymandering works counter to this ruling. When states create districts, they theoretically distribute populations equally so that constituents in each district have roughly the same level of representation (and

20

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

thus power). Incarcerated Americans are often placed in prisons outside of their home districts and, in all but two states, barred from voting. As a result, when prison gerrymandering occurs, the influence of non-prisoners in prison-containing districts grows.

Meanwhile, communities with high crime rates see their representation diluted as their residents are shipped off to other districts.

Furthermore, prison gerrymandering often unfairly magnifies the representation of rural voters. This is because rural districts hold a disproportionate number of prisons, whereas most inmates come from urban commu-

nities. In Texas, for example, 12 percent of “residents” in one rural district are prisoners, meaning “88 residents from that district … are represented in the State House as if they were 100 residents from urban Houston or Dallas.” As a result, location becomes a partial determinant of political influence.

Geographic patterns also have political consequences. Urban areas tend to skew liberal, whereas rural communities lean more conservative. According to Pew Research, this inflates the representation of Republicans at the expense of Democrats. The disproportionate effect of prison gerrymandering on

MOVED IN, LOCKED OUT

“[Prison gerrymandering] threatens the integrity of our democracy and inflates the representation of some districts while diminishing the influence of others.”

the two major political parties makes this practice undeniably undemocratic.

This phenomenon becomes an even bigger issue in the context of its relationship with systemic racism. Prison gerrymandering contributes to the broader issue of white supremacy that strips non-white Americans of equal representation. Biases in law, courts, and policing lead to higher rates of incarceration for people of color; unconscious—and sometimes conscious—racism from judges means that non-white individuals are frequently held to higher levels of scrutiny. For instance, while drug use is similarly prevalent among Blacks and whites, Black Americans are imprisoned for drug charges at six times the rate of whites. And while minorities are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, with Black Americans incarcerated in comparison to whites at a rate of five to one, prisons are disproportionately found in majority-white districts. Because the rural, over-represented communities are typically whiter in composition than the prison population itself, they not only fail to represent the interests of the prisoners but also dilute the power of the inmates’ home communities, where the inmates’ own interests are more

likely to be promoted. This is a system that diminishes the power of minority communities to the advantage of whites time and time again.

people in their home districts. Change is necessary, and early successes prove that reform is possible. It’s time for other states to follow suit.

When the United States redistricts after the 2020 Census, it will have the opportunity— and the imperative—to eliminate prison gerrymandering. But reform isn’t an easy task.

Indeed, it’s in the interest of many politicians to preserve prison gerrymandering—to the extent that this interest influences legislative priorities. For example, before New York reformed its districting process, “the staunchest opponents of drug sentencing reform were two senators whose districts were home to more than 17 percent of the state’s prisoners … almost one-third” of whom “were imprisoned for drug offenses.”

In states resistant to change, reformers can achieve progress through litigation.

Prison-gerrymandered districts have been successfully challenged in court, establishing a precedent for future challenges. Notably, a Florida district was deemed unconstitutional in a federal court case, Calvin et al. v. Jefferson County. The decision noted that “to treat the inmates the same as actual constituents makes no sense under any theory of one person, one vote, and… of representative democracy.” This is a huge victory for prison reformers, and these successes must inspire more widespread action.

Frustratingly, the Census Bureau continues to count prisoners as residents of the towns in which they are incarcerated, despite heavy public criticism. But on a state level, reformers can encourage governments to use prisoners’ true residencies when creating districts. There is hope already. Six states have effectively ended prison gerrymandering by adjusting census data to count incarcerated

The deadline for change, however, is almost upon us: Redistricting will take place over the next two years. When this happens, our democracy and commitment to racial justice will be tested. We need to act boldly on this issue to protect our democracy and ensure that racist and geographically discriminatory districting does not poison our elections in the coming decades.

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

21

INTERVIEW WITH

interviewer amelia spalter ’21 illustrator michelle perez ’20

Gary Noesner

Gary Noesner served 30 years in the F.B.I., where he was the first Chief Hostage Negotiator in the Bureau’s history. Througout his career, Noesner negotiated crises ranging from prison riots and right-wing militia standoffs to terrorist embassy takeovers, airplane hijackings, and over 120 kidnapping cases involving American citizens. Noesner recounts many of these stories in his autobiography, Stalling for Time: My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiator. Now retired, he lives in Virginia with his wife Carol, who also retired from the F.B.I.

as You once had to negotiate by surprise, over the phone, while celebrating a holiday with your family, after a couple of beers. Could you tell us about that?

amelia spatler What should one do if they find themselves a victim of kidnapping, in a hostage situation, or otherwise taken captive? gary noesner If you’re being held for ransom, don’t try to negotiate for yourself. Know that your company, your college, your family, or your government will be trying to get you out. Do not try to interfere with what they’re offering. You might, for example, be asked, “How much are you worth?” Don’t suggest, “You can probably get a million dollars for me,” or whatever.

If you have an opportunity to communicate with your captors, personalize yourself. “Hey, I’m just a regular person.

I’m a student. I do this, I do that.” It might enhance your survival. Eat when offered food. Don’t be afraid to say, “I need to go to the bathroom. I need this and need that.”

Avoid the extremes of being overly submissive or overly argumentative. Know in your mind that, even if it takes time, statistically, you will come out of this alive. Try to maintain your mental health and occupy your mind as best you can.

22

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

gn We’re on the D.C. Mall for the Fourth of July, ahead of the fireworks display. I get a call from an F.B.I. negotiator who says he’s en route to Charleston Harbor to assist local police where a man with a rifle had taken over the USS Yorktown, a decommissioned U.S. aircraft carrier that’s now a museum in the harbor.

I said, “What strikes me immediately is the fact that it’s the Fourth of July, a highly symbolic day. The venue, an aircraft carrier, is a highly symbolic incident location. We’re probably going to be dealing with a disgruntled veteran reaching out to be heard.” They hadn’t killed anybody, just fired shots to get attention. So I said, “When you get the lay of the land, call me back.”

An hour goes by, and my beeper goes off again with a new number. I call, thinking it’s the same guy from earlier, but it’s not. I say, “This is Gary Noesner with the F.B.I.,” and I ask to speak to the negotiator from earlier. The person on the other end says, “There’s nobody here like that.” I say, “Is this the command post?” “No.” “Is this the negotiation room?” “No.” The guy says, “Who did you say you were again?” I say, “Gary Noesner. I’m the chief negotiator with the F.B.I.” And the guy responds, “I guess I’m in more trouble than I thought.” That was very interesting to hear. I say, “You wouldn’t happen to be the guy with the gun, would you?” And he says, “Yes, I am.”

INTERVIEW: GARY NOESNER

“What leads to success in tense law enforcement situations— which, extrapolated, means it can be successful in almost any interpersonal communication— is the relationship of trust.”

The backstory here is my negotiator sent me the phone number to the souvenir shop where they’d set up a command. This guy’s up in the tower on the aircraft carrier.

My guy didn’t know the phone in the souvenir shop could also be answered up on the aircraft carrier. So the gunman answered the phone before the F.B.I. could. I said, “Well, how are you?” and found out his name’s Jim. And, not surprisingly, he was a veteran who was upset about his treatment at the hands of the V.A. I talked to him for a while, then he puts me on hold. Another number came across my beeper. I figure my guy has finally figured out what number I’m supposed to call.

So I pick up my wife’s phone, I call that number, and to a bigger surprise… Jim answers that one, too. Now I’ve got the gunman on two lines. Obviously, it’s not my role to be talking to him from 400 miles away, especially still having no idea what’s going on. I felt on pretty safe ground just saying things like, “I’m not there, Jim, but I know nobody wants to hurt you; they want to help you.”

They spent about ten hours talking with him. He ultimately surrendered without firing any more shots and got the help he needed. They didn’t threaten or intimidate him. They patiently listened and heard his problems and issues. A guy who served his country, isn’t he worth a little bit of our time instead of just “put the gun down or we’re going to kill you?”

as What should regular citizens know about crisis negotiation? gn What leads to success in tense law enforcement situations—which, extrapolated, means it can be successful in almost any interpersonal communication—is the relationship of trust.

People surrender because they trust the negotiator. They come out because the negotiator says, “You’re not going to get hurt. I’m going to get you help.” The guy says, “Am I going to be charged with a crime?” Instead of saying, “No,” the negotiator says, “All I know is if you hurt somebody in there, it’s not going to make it any better.”

Good negotiation is good communication. You just create a relationship. Everything is based on relationships.

Everything. If you run a company, you’re a subordinate, you want to be a good neighbor, spouse, parent—everything’s about relationships. Showing an interest, paying attention, being respectful of somebody else’s opinion, even if it differs from yours. But it is still the tone of sincerity and genuineness that carries the day. It works.

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

23

Special Feature

PRIVACY 24

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

26 23andUs

by Justin Perry 29 Google Wants Your Health Data. You Should Give It To Them

by Rachel Yan

28 interview Ellen Malcolm

by Rose Houglet 33 The Right to Privacy

by Leela Berman

36 Public Spaces Bite Back 35 interview

by Ellie Papapanou Julie K. Brown

by Neha Mukherjee 39 interview David Cole

by Zachary Stern

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

25

PRIVACY

23andUs Rethinking the consequences of selling genetic data

by justin perry, ’23, undecided in concentration infographic minji koo ’20 data by prakrit baruah ’20

DNA, the genetic code that lays the foundation for a person’s health, mental abilities, and personality traits, is a fundamental building block of an individual’s identity.

This assortment of As, Ts, Gs, and Cs tells a unique story, and an analysis of a person’s genome can predict much about them. If health is tantamount to happiness, this genetic information—and the ability to decode it—is a sort of modern counterpart to tea leaves and oracles. Given the sensitivity of this information, it is reasonable to assume that it would be kept private. But this is not the case. In fact, genetic testing companies often sell data to third-party organizations without consumers’ informed consent.

Although the sale of genetic data has many potential benefits, these benefits come with

26

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

grave ethical concerns. Without proper regulations and increased public awareness, the processing, sale, and analysis of genetic data may do more harm than good.

Users of genetic testing platforms often unknowingly consent to sharing their data with outside research organizations. In the case of 23andMe, a leading genetic testing company, more than 80 percent of customers have decided to share their data for research.

Though different companies offer varying levels of transparency in their privacy agreements, users are often unaware of exactly how their genetic data is being used and the potential security risks involved. Consumers who do not have the time or knowledge to decipher complex privacy policies are unlikely to understand the full details of the data-sharing process.

The primary force driving the sale of genetic data is its value to pharmaceutical research.

When pharmaceutical companies have access to large collections of genetic data, they can more effectively determine whether a particular drug target is involved in the development of the condition in question. This significantly reduces the cost of research, development, and clinical trials.

It’s no surprise, then, that drug developer GlaxoSmithKline invested $300 million in 23andMe in exchange for exclusive drug development rights. But while biopharmaceutical advancements may benefit society at large, consumers have argued that they should be compensated financially for the role their genes played in developing these new drugs.

Genetic data can help pharmaceutical companies develop new drugs, but for average consumers, allowing companies to access genetic data may lead to additional financial strains. Although legislation currently exists to prevent health insurance companies from exploiting a patient’s genome, the law is not entirely straightforward. As stipulated by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), “employers and health insurance providers cannot discriminate against Americans based on genetic information.” The law dictates that health insurance companies cannot change a patient’s coverage or costs because they are genetically predisposed to certain conditions. However, if a patient exhibits symptoms that arise from an underlying genetic cause, health insurance coverage may be altered. Additionally, GINA does not extend to life, disability, or long-term care insurance, meaning that many Americans may experience financial burdens as a result of genetic testing, even if their health insurance costs are not directly affected.

The use of genetic information by law enforcement also raises a number of privacy concerns. Since genetic information is shared among family members, an individual can be identified using samples from a distant relative. A variety of cold cases, such as that of the Golden State Killer, have been resolved using this method, and law enforcement needs the DNA of only two percent of the population for almost every individual to be identified. Given that genetic testing companies like FamilyTreeDNA have allowed law enforcement agencies such as the F.B.I. to access their genetic libraries without a subpoena, nearly every individual may soon be identifiable using available DNA. Allowing law enforcement to become more effective is a good thing; however, doing so without proper regard to citizens’ privacy leaves open dangerous doors of distrust and abuse.

The lack of comprehensive legislation protecting genetic data leaves a slew of disconcerting ambiguities. Historically, legislation has failed to address privacy concerns regarding the use of such data. For instance,

23andUS

the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 prohibits the sharing of genetic data of participants in federal research studies but does not extend to participants in studies conducted by private organizations. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) also fails to provide adequate protection, as it does not prevent law enforcement from accessing genetic information that patients add to their electronic health records. In addition, government regulations have failed to address the storage of genetic data, and in June 2018, the genetic data of more than 92 million users from MyHeritage was found on a private server after a major data breach.

Furthermore, there is no protocol to protect users in the event that companies storing their data go out of business or are otherwise compromised.

It’s clear that our current laws are lacking.

As companies such as 23andMe become increasingly mainstream, it’s imperative that lawmakers match the speed of biotech advancements. Given the dizzying pace of genomic research, researchers may soon be able to predict qualities such as educational attainment, which could very well lead to a slippery slope of discriminatory practices.

“As companies such as 23andMe become increasingly mainstream, it’s imperative that lawmakers match the speed of biotech advancements.”

To prevent this, legislators must define clear regulations and penalties for the processing, analysis, and sale of genetic information. The most comprehensive statewide solution is an amendment to GINA signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown in 2011, which prevents genetic discrimination in housing, mortgage lending, employment, education, and public accommodations. A national incorporation of this amendment would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Because the process of passing legislation in Congress is slow and often gridlocked, change must come from another front. Consumers must begin to educate themselves about the potential privacy risks associated with using genetic testing services, and companies need to write consent forms in layman’s terms, not extra-fine print. By identifying the companies that engage in shady data sharing, users could make more

informed decisions about whether or not to seek genetic testing. Increased public awareness will help consumers hold companies accountable as local and state governments pass more comprehensive legislation.

The sale of genetic data has the potential to create a safer and healthier America, but that future is still a distant one. In order to protect consumer privacy and prevent discriminatory practices, there must be an active response from government officials as well as responsible, informed decision-making by consumers—only then will society be able to reap the full rewards of the past century of advancements in genetics.

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

27

Ellen Malcolm INTERVIEW WITH

interviewer rose houglet ’22, illustrator michelle perez ’20

Ellen Malcolm is the founder of EMILY’s List, a political action committee that helps elect pro-choice Democratic women. Now serving as the organization’s chair of the Board of Directors, Malcolm founded the group in 1985 and was its president until 2010. Throughout her career, Malcolm held positions ranging from an organizer at Common Cause, to press secretary for the National Women’s Political Caucus, to co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Her work was crucial in mobilizing people to vote through efforts such as “America Coming Together” and “America Votes.” In 2016, she authored When Women Win: EMILY’s List and The Rise of Women in American Politics.

rose houglet Do you feel that EMILY’s List has, on a structural level, spurred cultural shifts in activism? If so, how? ellen malcolm Very much so. One of the first barriers we had when we began was that people weren’t used to seeing women run for office, so they had no reference points. It was not what they expected. So the women would get all kinds of gender-related questions: Who’s cooking the dinner?

Who is taking care of the kids? What does your husband think about this? Are you really sure you’re going to be able to understand the budget? Just all kinds of questions that illustrated the doubts that voters had about seeing women in these new roles. As we elected more and more women, voters became more and more comfortable with it. Now it is very rare for a woman running for Congress to get questions [about her private life] like that. Now they get questions about the budget and what their priorities are. But what we’ve found is that as women try to break into higher offices, it blows up a whole other set of gender concerns.

When Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker, she got all kinds of gender-related questions about what she was wearing and her husband and her family and whether she was tough enough to deal with President Bush. Then, the second time, it really wasn’t quite like that. There was more acceptance of her in that leadership role, and people wondered seriously whether she was going to be able to pull it off and become the Speaker. rh Following the Anita Hill Senate hearings, support for your organization increased dramatically. In what ways did this event change how people viewed the rights of women both within the justice system and with respect to their own bodies? em When Anita Hill courageously came forward and said that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her, it was the first time that there was really a public discussion of what was appropriate behavior between men and women in the workplace. Before Anita Hill, it was sort of a Mad Men kind of world, and women in the workplace spent a lot of time strategizing how to keep the paws of their bosses

28

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

and their male colleagues off themselves. Anita opened up that issue. Also, the Judiciary Committee process really illustrated for so many people across the country how few women there were in the political process. It was like a case study of precisely what was wrong with our representative democracy. Here we were discussing an issue where men and women had a very different understanding of appropriate behavior, and there were no women on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That created a firestorm of women who said, “This has got to change. We need more women in the Senate. We need women at all levels of office, and we’re so glad we’ve learned about EMILY’s List because they can help us make that happen.” rh Do you view questions of being pro-choice and of reproductive justice as questions of privacy? em When we began EMILY’s List, we didn’t want to have a long list of issues because we wanted the members to decide. But one of the critical tenants of what we believed in as feminists was that women should have the right to make their own healthcare decisions, and that included reproductive issues. So we made being pro-choice one of the litmus tests for EMILY’s List candidates. In those days, it was more controversial within the Democratic Party. Now there is a fairly broad acceptance, even from Democratic men, that women should have that right. It’s been an important value for us. We think women should have the authority and the power to make those decisions, and we don’t think Congress belongs in women’s bedrooms.

Google Wants Your Health Data.

You Should Give It To Them.

The potential of American healthcare with Big Tech by rachel yan ’22, a Computer Science and Public Policy concentrator and an Associate Editor at BPR illustrator liam archibald ’20

Tech companies know too much about us.

So it makes sense that the conversation around digital privacy revolves around keeping our personal information encrypted and tucked away. The issue becomes more nuanced, however, when one considers healthcare data. On a moral level, it’s shocking that health and insurance providers control our medical information and thwart our access to it. On a practical level, healthcare data has the power to do a lot of good: If aggregated, anonymized, and properly regulated, the enormous amounts of medical data being recorded and digitized every day could revolutionize treatment plans across all fields of medicine. Although people may balk at the prospect of giving their private

healthcare information to tech companies, granting access to patient data for consumer apps and AI research could fundamentally transform the American healthcare industry and deliver power and autonomy back to the patients themselves.

In February, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed new rules surrounding its MyHealthEData initiative.

These new rules will support seamless access, transfer, and use of patient data through standardized, machine-readable formats for electronic health information (EHI). For the first time, upon patient approval, health providers will be allowed to send patients’ EHI to third-party consumer apps. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have long been committed to increasing accessibility of data for consumers. Now they are proposing requirements that federal health insurance programs—

Medicare, Medicaid, and any plans that participate in federal exchanges—be required to provide their 125 million enrollees electronic access to medical claims and other health information at no cost by 2020.

Not only will these rules expand patient choice by increasing market competition, they will also foster “innovation that promotes patient access to and control over their health information.” Currently, most medical organizations advocate for providers, and it is in providers’ interest to keep patient data hidden from their competitors.

However, without access to pricing information and sometimes even to their own medical data, patients are unable to make informed choices. With the newly proposed rules, healthcare providers and plans would be required to “open data sharing technologies to support transitions of care.” The rules would clear up discrepancies and confusion

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

29

PRIVACY

“If aggregated, anonymized, and properly regulated, the enormous amount of medical data being recorded and digitized every day could revolutionize treatment plans across all fields of medicine.” in the sharing of EHI, allowing all sides of the system—providers, caregivers, and, especially, patients—to securely access and share health information.

What’s more, the rules aim to provide a suite of new tools that will make healthcare data even more accessible. Standardized application programming interfaces (APIs) will make data available on smartphones, implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act will ensure that the information is free, and feedback sections on pricing informa-

tion will allow the public to gauge pricing discrepancies when making decisions. Indeed, an interoperable health IT infrastructure across systems is long overdue and will allow all parties—patients, providers, and health IT developers—to obtain immediate access to data when and where it is necessary.

There are many reasons why it’s important for patients to control their own medical information. For one, such control eliminates redundant procedures and testing, thus giving clinicians the time to focus on improving care coordination, and, ulti-

mately, health outcomes. Patients are also able to use their EHI to seamlessly switch to other providers who can give them the best standard of care. Indeed, CMS Administrator Seema Verma describes the new policy changes as “the beginning of a digital data revolution that truly empowers American patients.”

Despite these benefits, there are dissenting voices. Groups such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) are vehemently opposed to the newly proposed rules. They argue that because federal privacy protections do not apply to consumer apps, patients could unwittingly sign over sensitive data such as mental health history or prescription drug information. This data could then be sold and disseminated, eventually leading to employment or insurance discrimination. These groups claim that if patients worry about the privacy of their data, they are more likely to withhold sensitive clinical information from their doctors, potentially compromising the physician-patient relationship. For instance, patients tend not to disclose their substance abuse history, which may significantly impact the physician’s treatment plan for the patient.

Although these concerns are valid, the benefits of increased health data accessibility outweigh the costs. This is especially true in the age of artificial intelligence. Aggregated healthcare data has the potential to save millions of lives, as it allows researchers to develop new medical treatments and improve clinical outcomes. Groundbreaking algorithms that could revolutionize the healthcare industry already exist; however, these technologies require exorbitant amounts of employee training and data testing, and in the current environment, even

30

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

GOOGLE WANTS YOUT HEALTH DATA

anonymized data is extremely hard to obtain due to HIPAA and other bureaucratic hurdles.

Google has already begun to explore the use of artificial intelligence in diagnosing cancer and preventing blindness. Researchers recently used 45,856 chest CT scans obtained from an NIH’s research dataset to develop cutting-edge algorithms. In June, The National Academies published a report detailing a new way to combat cancer in the U.S. by harnessing the power of data from cancer registries, electronic health records, insurance claims, sensor technologies, and even social media. Data from these sources can be used in advanced technologies, such as cloud computing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. This sort of approach can be adapted to all fields of medicine, offering the promise of higher profits, greater efficiency, more accuracy, and better performance.

For niche studies with no large-scale datasets, however, the prospects are currently limited. Small datasets do not suffice to train these technologies. But there is a way to get more data: If patients had more control over their own healthcare information, they could allow researchers to use their data to develop these new programs. Companies can incentivize such data-sharing by promising compensation in the form of money or tech-related health services. Of course, regulation is needed. But done correctly, AI can drastically cut costs and improve outcomes in the healthcare industry.

There’s a successful model for this type of voluntary-data-sharing: Facebook, Amazon, and other tech giants already track health-related consumer information in a process known as “digital phenotyping.” Researchers can now use the information that tech companies collect about our digital behavior

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

31

PRIVACY to track our mood and cognition, which can in turn shed light on our physical and emotional health.

Hysteria about data breaches and privacy violations has taken over the news and our society; yet, considering the groundbreaking role our MRI scans or blood tests could play in medical innovation, perhaps we should rethink our hesitancy toward sharing our data. If my scan could help save someone’s life, I should be allowed to donate it to research.

32

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

“Without access to pricing information and sometimes even their own medical data, patients are unable to make autonomous choices.”

The Right to Privacy Since 1985, 86 countries have decriminalized homosexuality.

In many of these countries, legal restrictions upon the expression of LGBTQ identities have been replaced by a range of public conversations on everything from adoption rights to employment protections. As LGBTQ rights have grown more robust, LGBTQ issues and icons have become more visible.

One example: The once niche RuPaul’s Drag Race, one of America’s splashiest presentations of LGBTQ identity, has earned five Emmys in the last three years. Even so, challenges remain, as 71 countries still criminalize homosexuality. Going forward, it is important to recognize that the tool most productive for advancing LGBTQ visibility and most essential for future civil rights struggles is the legal right to privacy.

The right to individual autonomy has long been used to protect actions once deemed morally unacceptable, as exemplified in the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade.

For LGBTQ people, the right to privacy has been key to removing restrictions on private interactions, particularly laws banning sodomy or other “unnatural sex acts,” which essentially criminalized expressions of homosexuality. More generally, the right to privacy can be applied to protect LGBTQ rights “without explicitly recognizing LGBTQ

by leela berman ’23, a Political Science and Economics concentrator and a Podcast Associate at BPR illustrator jenny yu ’20

The secret hero of LGBTQ advocacy

individuals as a protected class.” This critical framework was first highlighted by the European Court of Human Rights’ 1981 decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, which decriminalized sodomy in the U.K. and relies on the fact that privacy is universally protected: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its successors—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights—all include a right to privacy. Thanks to these protections, the right to privacy can be invoked to fight discrimination across the globe, even where national constitutions do not explicitly grant it.

One example of international privacy protections overriding more conservative domestic laws comes from Tasmania in 1992. Nicholas Toonen, a gay man and activist, brought a complaint to the Human Rights Committee, arguing that Tasmanian laws criminalizing sodomy were an invasion of his right to privacy under Article 17 of the ICCPR. The court

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its successors—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights—all include a right to privacy.”

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

33

PRIVACY

“Today, as anti-discrimination laws become more commonplace, privacy has fallen by the wayside as a legal tool to protect and expand LGBTQ rights. In the future, however, anti-discrimination and privacy must go hand-in-hand.�

concurred; Australia changed its laws to prevent any such invasions of privacy in the future. The success of Toonen v. Australia in decriminalizing homosexuality via the ICCPR suggests that even in a relatively conservative country or state, the right to privacy in international courts could provide an angle of attack on draconian laws.

While not an international court, the Indian Supreme Court also relied upon the right to privacy in declaring Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, an anti-sodomy law, to be unconstitutional. Clearly, the right to privacy still has relevance in the contemporary global struggle for LGBTQ rights.

34

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

Today, as anti-discrimination laws become more commonplace, privacy has fallen by the wayside as a legal tool to protect and expand LGBTQ rights. In the future, however, anti-discrimination and privacy must go hand-in-hand. Often, positive public opinion of LGBTQ people comes after decriminalization, as the public, including institutions like the police and government, becomes more accepting and responsive to the unique needs of LGBTQ populations. Therefore, even as global opinions on LGBTQ issues progress, legal advocates for LGBTQ rights in nations with restrictive anti-gay legislation must recognize privacy as a potent tool for decriminalization.

The right to privacy exists regardless of protected status or anti-discrimination laws, making it a useful legal tool in the global struggle for LGBTQ rights. Even as LGBTQ rights become increasingly recognized as human rights, the gap between countries with protections and those without becomes even more apparent. In a world where rights to personal autonomy are often threatened, it is essential to acknowledge the importance of privacy and the protection it provides to all.

Julie K. Brown INTERVIEW WITH

by neha mukherjee ’22 illustrator michelle perez ’20

Julie K. Brown is an award-winning investigative journalist at the Miami Herald. She is best known for her work uncovering Jeffery Epstein’s underage sex ring. When the story lost public attention after a 2007 plea deal was signed off by the former Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acotsa, Brown uncovered thousands of court documents and identified 80 victims detailed in her spread, “Perversion of Justice,” exposing Epstein’s true crimes.

neha mukherjee What difficulties did you have getting all of the information to break the Epstein story? julie k. brown There had to be at least 10,000 pages of documents that I had to review from scratch, including police reports, state files, lawsuits from over the years, depositions, and others. Because the case was so old, some of the agencies claimed that they no longer had some of the public documents. I got around that a little by going to the court files, but it was a giant, very complicated puzzle that you could only put together after you’d read absolutely everything. nm How did you piece together the identities of the victims when court documents had them all listed as Jane Doe? jkb There were some cases where they would forget to black out a name, so you would get her name. Sometimes you would get a date of birth, her first name, or you would find a letter that was written to her lawyer that made some reference to her. It was a lot of detective work to put together a spreadsheet with all of these victims. One girl would lead me to another girl, since they often knew each other from their high school in Palm Beach. nm How did you get detectives and victims to trust you in interviews? jkb The detectives and the chief did not want to talk to me because they had been contacted by reporters over the years, and they felt that those reporters never did their homework or may have been pressured to drop the story by the powerful individuals who were involved. We read all of the available documents and had to assure them that we would follow through with the story.

piece, they became more willing to talk to me. I wasn’t going to ask them, for example, “Tell me all the celebrities you saw. Tell me about all of the men.” I focused on their experiences with the criminal justice system: what happened, why they thought it happened, and what should have been done differently. nm You were able to locate 80 victims and got four to go on the record. How did you strike a balance between maintaining their privacy and also getting the information that you needed for your story? jkb The first time I interviewed them was the hardest.

For some of them, once they started talking about it, they couldn’t stop. They felt like a big burden had been lifted off of their shoulders. For others, it was the first time they had really spoken about it. It was extremely emotional, with a lot of crying, so we didn’t spend a lot of time in the first meeting talking. We interviewed them a few more times until they got more comfortable and didn’t force them to talk about anything that they did not want to. We did it gently and in stages for those women who were just coming to grips with what had happened to them. nm Did you ever worry about your own safety with such a high profile case? jkb I tried not to think about the threatening part. I was more worried that I would make a stupid mistake. I would wake up in the middle of the night and think, “Oh, did I spell his name right?” My feeling was that if I bulletproofed the story, or wrote it so that everything in the story could be backed up by an interview or a court document, then I wouldn’t have to worry too much because I knew everything would be true and accurate.

The victims felt the media had focused too much on the sex and the celebrity aspects of the case, and not enough on the criminal justice system and how it had failed them.

When they realized that I was focusing on that important

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

35

PRIVACY

PUBLIC SPACES BITE BACK

Age discrimination in privacy technology

by ellie papapanou ’22, an International Relations concentrator and a World Section Editor at BPR illustrator emma yang ’20

In 2014, Mosquitos began to take over Philadelphia parks, forcing teenagers and young adults out of public spaces at night.

36

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

Contrary to the images of pesky bugs that may come to mind, the true source of the infestation was a city-wide installation of seemingly inconspicuous sonic devices.

However, the employment of such devices could not go unnoticed.

Philadelphia is but one of dozens of cities around the world that have installed noise-making gadgets—aptly named “Mosquitos”—to discourage loitering, vandalism, and other “antisocial” activities. Their target?

The city’s youth. Due to the high frequency of its buzzing, the Mosquito is inaudible to

PUBLIC SPACES BITE BACK

“Recreational spaces are created with public money for young people. Now, cities funnel taxpayer dollars into devices designed to keep teens out.”

individuals over 25 years old but is incredibly unpleasant for people between the ages of 13 and 25.

Recent backlash against these systems compelled Philadelphia to pause their installations. As the city deliberates the merits of the Mosquito, and as other cities continue to expand its usage, it is critical to examine the ethics of such a device. Though many public spaces are restricted at night, the use of these sonic devices poses a unique problem, which distinguishes the Mosquito from more traditional security methods: By targeting certain age groups, the device enforces privacy in a discriminatory way. Moreover, its placement in public spaces contradicts the primary purpose of these very areas. As a result, Mosquitos must be eliminated.

Michael Gibson, the president of Moving Sound Technologies, the device’s manufacturer, denies charges of discrimination. He explains that while Mosquitos exist in public spaces, “they’re not actually activated until the park or recreation center becomes private property [at night].” And, he adds, “people have the right to protect their property.”

Privacy is indeed a right, but this method of maintaining security is inherently biased.

The very nature of the Mosquito means that parks might be private to all at night in theory, but in practice, privacy is enforced only against a subset of the population—those young enough to hear the device.

By installing devices with such blatant agebased discrimination, governments send harmful signals to teenagers. The Mosquito draws upon the stereotype that a disproportionate number of teenagers are rule-breakers. Instead of encouraging youths to pursue healthy, productive activities at night, these sonic devices assume that young individuals will not do so. These assumptions have harmful psychological effects, seventeen-year-old Reed from Philadelphia explains: “It makes us feel like animals. Not all teens are bad just because we want to go outside for a breath of fresh air at night.” More concerningly, many studies have emphasized just how susceptible teens are to outside pressures and expectations. A study conducted at Wake Forest University titled “Stereotypes Can Fuel Teen Misbehavior” even noted that for teenagers, “higher expectations for risk-taking

and rebelliousness predict higher levels of problem behavior, even controlling for many other predictors of such behavior.” In other words, the signals sent by the Mosquito may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The use of Mosquitos is particularly egregious when one considers the original intent of publicly-owned spaces. Public areas can foster a sense of belonging and provide individuals with the opportunity to engage and form bonds with other members of their community. They need not be areas of unrestricted freedom. For example, a library limits the sorts of activities deemed acceptable within its confines, even though it is a public space. Although certain activities might be prohibited, public facilities should promote inclusivity and accessibility to all community members. And in many cities, inclusion is more than just an ideal—it is the law. In New York, for instance, “it is against the City Human Rights Law for a public accommodation to withhold or refuse to provide full and equal enjoyment of those goods or services based on…protected classes under the Law.” As one of these classes is age, the Mosquito violates these principles. While

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

37

PRIVACY

“Despite the backlash, Philadelphia has yet to commit to ending its Mosquito usage, even as it conveys harmful assumptions about youth and singles out community members based on age.” gates, security guards, and cameras are all used to secure public property after hours, they do so in a way that targets all individuals regardless of distinguishing characteristics.

Sonic devices, on the other hand, specifically exclude young people from public spaces, which should be welcome to all.

Moreover, the funding for these installations presents a rather ironic situation. In general, recreational spaces are created with public money for young people. Now cities funnel taxpayer dollars into devices designed to keep teens out. Rather than encouraging the use of these facilities for a multitude of productive activities, the city has decided to use public money to criminalize the act of simply existing in these spaces as a teenager.

The harmful effects of these devices are not purely psychological—a number of potential public health issues have also arisen from their installation. A study conducted by the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health concluded that the device may disproportionately harm infants and young children, noting they may experience “nausea, dizziness and pain.” Concerningly, their caretakers are often too old to hear the noise and do not know to move the children.

Other reports have noted such devices’ disproportionate effects on those whose sensitive hearing cause them to become especially alarmed by the high-pitched buzz. This strengthens the case against the Mosquito.

Unsurprisingly, the Mosquito has already faced several legal challenges. Many organizations assert that Mosquitos infringe upon human rights when installed in public

38

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

spaces. In 2008, the United Nations Committee on the Right of the Child urged the U.K. to reconsider the use of such devices, “as they may violate the rights of children to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly, the enjoyment of which is essential for children’s development.” Just two years later, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly agreed, calling on its 47 member states to ban the marketing, sale, and use of Mosquito devices and instead promote “the development of indoor and outdoor facilities to increase opportunities for physical, intellectual and leisure recreation.” Washington, D.C. has also taken decisive action, removing Mosquitos from its parks following the filing of a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Thus, there is a legal precedent for the Mosquito’s termination.

Many cities, however, continue to rely on these devices. Despite the backlash, Philadelphia has yet to commit to end its Mosquito usage, even as it conveys harmful assumptions about youth and singles out community members based on age. Ultimately, Mosquitos undermine the intent of public spaces. It’s time for Philadelphia to follow the examples of other cities and eliminate these sonic menaces.

David Cole

INTERVIEW WITH

interviewer zachary stern ’22 illustrator michelle perez ’20

David Cole is the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He manages the organization’s Supreme Court docket, oversees around 100 staff attorneys in the organization’s New York headquarters, and provides guidance to staff lawyers in ACLU branches across the country. Cole has argued a number of critical cases in the Supreme Court, including United States v. Eichman, which dealt with the question of flag burning in the United States and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colordo Civil Rights Commission and Harris Funeral Home v. EEOC & Aimee Stephens, both of which dealt with forms of sex discrimination. Cole has also taught at Georgetown University since 1990, writes regularly for publications such as The Nation and the Washington Post, and has written a number of books.

zachary stern I know you were arguing a huge case on Tuesday (Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC & Aimee Stephens).

How do you think it went? david cole A number of the justices we needed played their cards pretty close to the chest, so we’ll have to wait and see. Still, it was the first time that the Supreme Court considered arguments about transgender equality in the history of the Court, so that in and of itself was a milestone.

It felt meaningful and moving to many people there. zs During your argument, Justice Gorsuch voiced concern that a ruling in favor of Stephens would cause “massive social upheaval.” If it did create this upheaval, should it matter? dc As I said in the courtroom, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that it would create a “massive social upheaval.” Lower courts have been recognizing transgender rights under Title XII for 20 years, and we have seen no upheaval. Also, transgender people largely follow gender rules—they just follow those consistent with their gender identity. In the courtroom, I illustrated this by saying that there were a number of transgender male lawyers in the courtroom, and they are following the men’s dress code and using the men’s restroom. Neither the Supreme Court’s dress code nor its separate sex restrooms have fallen apart because transgender people are following the codes consistent with their gender identity. zs Did you see any friction, in this case, between the more conservative justices’ judicial philosophy and their social beliefs? dc In this case, by far the stronger textual argument is that to discriminate against someone because she is transgender is a form of sex discrimination, so it challenges their commitment to textualism, because if the justices are going to rule against us, it puts them against the text. zs How do you see Court’s action on privacy in recent years? dc

Privacy is one of the most important constitutional

challenges for the next generation, and it requires a major adaptation of constitutional principles to new technology that radically changes the rules of the game. Thus far, the court has shown that it recognizes the need for this adaptation. It has addressed three cases (United States v. Antoine Jones, Riley v. California, and Carpenter v. United States) in which the police use digital tools to conduct searches and argued that the same rules that applied in the analog era should apply to these tools. In all three cases, the government lost. zs

Do you see any chance that Roe v. Wade will survive?

dc It depends on us as citizens. It depends on how costly it seems for the court to overrule Roe v. Wade, and that turns on the extent to which U.S. citizens are engaged in the political fight to preserve it. The decision has been eroded in large part because of the organizing efforts of the pro-life movement, and it has been maintained to the extent it has in large part because of the organizing efforts the pro-choice movement. What the abortion issue shows is that a Supreme Court decision announcing a constitutional right does not guarantee that right. That it is not the end of the story, so it’s incumbent on those who believe in the importance of the right to engage with those organizations that are committed to preserving it. And if we do our job, I don’t think it will be overturned. zs Why, strategically, do you think states such as Alabama and Georgia have decided to pass such extreme anti-abortion laws? dc The anti-abortion side hopes that by presenting the issue in this stark form, they will prompt five members of the court to do away with Roe v. Wade, but I think it’s more likely that the court will continue to erode the right at the margins. For instance, many states have imposed various kinds of restrictions on abortion clinics such that there’s only one clinic left standing. As a practical matter, these restrictions deny abortion to many people, so though I think the battle is going to be on all sides; we can’t lose sight of these incremental attacks.

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

39

WORLD

MONEY MONEY MONEY [

in a Local World

]

The problems and potential of convertible local currencies by emma blake ’22, an International Relations concentrator and a Managing Editor at BPR illustrator daimei wu ’20

Every third Sunday, local vendors, renowned culinary experts, and pancake and produce stands line the streets of Totnes, a small British town famous for its award-winning weekend market.

There’s not much you can’t find: The attraction boasts everything from vegan dips to tikka masala to artisan rolled fudge. Until recently, the market also served as an import-

40

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

ant site of exchange for what an outsider might mistake as Monopoly money—the Totnes pound.

The Totnes pound is an example of a convertible local currency (CLC), a currency that can only be spent and circulated in a particular locale. It’s not the only one of its kind in England: Several other small towns, including Bristol and Kingston, have adopted their own versions. In theory, CLCs support small businesses, foster community values, and create a sustainable local economy resilient to political uncertainty and national austerity measures. In practice, however, England’s CLCs have suffered from ineffective implementation, poor design, and a lack of government support. If they continue to operate as-is, it’s unlikely that they will be able to serve their intended purpose.

Under a typical CLC implementation, residents can freely exchange their local bills

for national ones, and vice versa. The local currency is tied to the national currency: Each Totnes, Bristol, or Kingston pound is backed by one British pound. Consumers are then encouraged to spend CLCs at local businesses, which accept the currency and often trade it back for the national pound. In some places, CLCs can even be used to pay taxes or rent.

In order to succeed, however, a CLC needs the local government to actively support its widespread adoption. In Bristol, for example, where the government accepts CLCs as tax payment, residents have spent over £5 billion Bristol pounds in both paper vouchers and electronic payments since the CLC’s introduction in 2012. By contrast, a lack of government follow-through in Totnes led to its ultimate demise.

Still, the failure of CLCs in towns like Totnes does not detract from the potential of the

MONEY MONEY MONEY (IN A LOCAL WORLD)

“In theory, CLCs support small businesses, foster community values, and create a sustainable local economy resilientto political uncertainty and national austerity measures.”

local currency model. CLCs are rooted in powerful ideals, such as the promotion of small businesses, sustainable practices, and community resilience. Fundamentally, circulating a currency that can only be used at the local business level helps small towns fight the power of bigger globalized chains.

By encouraging residents to buy locally, CLCs foster stronger relationships between local business owners and residents. As consumers grow increasingly reliant on local vendors, they create greener communities that prioritize local production as opposed to mass imports of foreign products. Altogether, CLCs help towns become increasingly self-reliant in times of uncertainty while also building a stronger sense of community identity.

Promoting these community-based ideals is especially important in a world where small, rural locales are often left behind in the wake of globalization. Though we tend

to understate the significance of economic activity in these towns, they are bursting with potential. In fact, a 2017 report by the International Institute for the Environment and Development emphasizes the critical roles of these communities: They link food production with urban centers and are becoming hubs of non-agricultural growth, activity, and employment for small enterprises.

Clearly, prioritizing and protecting these small towns is critical. So if CLCs are, theoretically, an effective way of addressing such concerns, where have they gone wrong?

British CLCs represent a classic conundrum: They’re powerful in principle but ineffective in practice. They have failed not because of their ideological foundation but because of structural flaws. Usually, this means that local governments aren’t sufficiently dedicated to their success, local consumers lack an incentive to use them, or

the changing nature of the global economic landscape—like its shifts toward electronic money—have rendered them futile. These failures, however, should not discredit the ideals that led to the establishment of CLCs in the first place. Rather, they underscore practical issues that have accompanied their implementation.

There are a few ways to address these shortcomings. First, although local currencies are rooted in community-based principles, local institutions need to make them more community-focused. These efforts must go beyond helping businesses opt into the CLC model and should instead go toward actively promoting sustainability. A good example of this practice is the SOL-Violette, a CLC used in Toulouse, France. Just as the Totnes pound was backed by British pounds, each unit of SOL-Violette purchased is backed by a pool of euros. These euros make up an investment fund that finances the devel-

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

41

WORLD

“British CLCs represent a classic conundrum: They’re powerful in principle but ineffective in practice.” opment of ethical businesses and contributes to social assistance efforts for town residents living in poverty—a self-sustaining welfare-like program. By committing to investment in sustainability projects, those who control CLCs in Britain can increase their community impact.

Second, it’s equally important to address the issue of government support. As it stands, local governments in Britain haven’t done enough to support the usage of CLCs. To change this, governments could accept their currency in local tax payments, as Bristol does with its Bristol pound, or pay employees a part of their salary in the local currency, as Brazil’s São João do Arraial does with its Cocais.

Finally, towns need to create stronger incentives for their residents to use CLCs. One of the most powerful options is to offer discounts to encourage spending. The Cocais offers a helpful model for reference: Although Cocais notes are equivalent to the Brazilian Real, consumers who use the Cocais receive a 10 percent discount on everything they buy. Thus, this structure incentivizes consumers to spend Cocais instead of Real notes when they enter local shops. Making a currency available and userfriendly would similarly incentivize consumers to use them more. The virtual availability of the Bristol pound, for instance, contributed to its success relative to the Totnes pound.

Britain’s early attempts clearly weren’t powerful enough to encourage the circulation of CLCs beyond the few thousand consumers who currently use them. But the ideals upon which CLCs rest hold powerful potential. Now it’s simply a matter of making structural adjustments so that practice aligns with principle.

42

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

Don’t Kiss & Tell [King Abdullah] Can Netflix bring down the Hashemites? by allison meakem ’20, an International Relations concentrator and an Associate Magazine Editor and Senior Campus Editor at BPR infographic minji koo ’20

data by erika bussman ’22

“It started out as a kiss; how did it end up like this?” wonder The Killers in their timeless 2003 hit “Mr. Brightside.” This refrain doubles as a genuine question about Jordan, where, this past summer, a single kiss propelled the desert kingdom into mayhem.

In June, Netflix released its first Arabic-language original series, Jinn. The show was intended to remedy gross misrepresentations of the Arab world, but it instead sparked uproar in Jordan, where it is set.

The cause of this rage? In one episode, high school students are seen kissing at an Amman party featuring substances considered haram (forbidden) in Islam. Public outrage over this scene swiftly spilled from the YouTube comments section into the Jordanian Parliament, where government officials convened an emergency meeting to discuss the show and its allegedly sullying effect on Jordan’s global image. The Kingdom’s Attorney General then launched an official investigation into Jinn, referring the series to its cyber-crimes unit and threatening Netflix with vague “punishment.”

Since then, the Jordanian government has lapsed into silence on the matter. Meanwhile, Jinn remains readily available to stream on Netflix. Either Parliament’s fury-fueled actions were embarrassingly toothless, or they were a performative ploy to appease public opinion. Given that Jordan typically has no problem censoring media at every turn, the former case seems far more probable. In short: King Abdullah II doesn’t know how to deal with Netflix, nor does it seem that he’ll get a grasp on the platform anytime soon.

Netflix is only widening its cultural influence;

by August, the media conglomerate had already released its second Arabic-language original, Dollar, and plans for more series are in the works. Not only do these shows reject traditionally skewed and war-ridden depictions of life in the Middle East, but the global ubiquity of multinational streaming platforms like Netflix also offers a unique opportunity to promote cultural freedom and challenge seemingly rigid censorship laws in the Arab world.

The rise of unrestricted access to international media certainly challenges Jordan’s cultural and political uniformity. Though euphemistically dubbed a “parliamentary

constitutional monarchy,” Jordan’s government possesses all the trappings of an autocracy. King Abdullah II appoints the Prime Minister and must personally approve all pieces of legislation, rendering the Jordanian Parliament a de facto formality.

It should come as no surprise, then, that censorship in Jordan is quite draconian. The task falls to the Jordanian Media Commission (MC), which features both “press and publications” and “audio-visual” branches, as well as accompanying codes of conduct and enforcement mechanisms. Sex, politics, and religion form an un-holy trinity of Jordanian censorship; the MC bans all media that even remotely touches upon any of these topics. Although Jordan’s intensely conservative culture partly accounts for this moratorium, much more than cultural preservation is at stake. Rather, the entire legitimacy of Hashemite rule rests on its religious claim to authority, which in turn stands on the delicate intersection of these three topics.

Like many rulers in the Middle East, the Hashemites were installed by the British to govern Transjordan in the aftermath of World War I. They led the Arab Revolt of 1916, during which they gained trust by claiming to be the direct descendants of the Prophet

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

43

WORLD

“Platforms like Netflix have become so cross-cutting in their audience and so central to daily life that they will not disappear.”

Muhammad, a purported connection that the Royal Hashemite Court (RHC) vigorously defends to this day. Undisguised insinuations that the Jordanian government is the modern extension of the Islamic caliphates in turn serve to justify its overtly nepotistic, monarchical character. To challenge the Hashemites’ control of the trinity is to call into question Jordan’s entire reason for existence.

Understandably, then, the MC takes its job extremely seriously. Censors have doctored everything from Fast and Furious 7 (which mentions a wealthy Jordanian prince) to The

44

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

Wolf of Wall Street, which becomes a whole half-hour shorter when watched in Amman and stripped of all sex scenes. Bands like Mashrou’ Leila are prohibited from performing because they have openly-gay members, and any media mentioning Saddam Hussein, an absolute superstar in Jordan, is promptly banned, lest his reputation risk posthumous degradation.

Enter streaming, which has transformed the internet into a cultural minefield. One can listen to Mashrou’ Leila on Jordanian Spotify before indulging in an hour of entertainment on Netflix, where shows like Sex Education

DON’T KISS AND TELL [KING ABDULLAH]

“Either Parliament’s fury-fueled actions were embarrassingly toothless, or they were a performative ploy to appease public opinion.”

are readily available on Jordanian WiFi. Boasting 140 million subscribers worldwide, Netflix perhaps best exemplifies the globalizing power of streaming. The platform is available in 190 countries, notably absent only in China, Syria, and the occupied Crimean peninsula.

Legally, Netflix occupies a nebulous space, as it is uncertain who governs the internet powerhouse. Importantly, a distinction can be made between Netflix’s original shows (such as Orange is the New Black) and those to which it buys rights (The Office). Barring its infamous capitulation to Saudi Arabia regarding one episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Patriot Act, Netflix generally makes its original series available everywhere it operates, while non-originals may be viewed only in select locations. By allowing individuals to easily consume shows outside their own regulatory spheres, original series partly erode the supervisory capacity of autocratic states like Jordan.

Jinn serves as Jordan’s first real foray into the mess that is internet streaming. Though the MC is charged with censoring media, it does not grant permits for media production. These are distributed by the Royal Film Commission (RFC), which eagerly awarded Netflix authorization to shoot Jinn in 2018.

At the time, the RFC had been excited about the potential tourist revenue a show based in Jordan and starring Jordanians might accrue. Backlash against Jinn prompted the RFC to make a public concession that the Netflix deal had been an error and claim to

have been deceived by what it saw as a great opportunity.

In a statement, the commission underscored that Netflix is a private platform only accessible to those with subscriptions. The MC followed up by confining its audiovisual censorship mandate to publicly available content and theatrical productions, deliberately exempting streaming platforms. Such evasive maneuvering signals that the Jordanian government has effectively given in.

By implicitly admitting defeat, Jordan has acknowledged something crucial: Streaming won’t be brought down, at least not anytime soon. Yes, autocrats continue to plot the demise of Netflix: In August, Turkey began to force platforms to share consumer data and receive official government licensing in order to operate. But the rate at which ideas and content travel on the internet outpaces sluggish bureaucracy by a ratio of milliseconds to months. Moreover, platforms like Netflix have become so cross-cutting in their audience and so central to daily life that they will not disappear. Nor will regulation anger only fringe groups; on the contrary, targeting the streaming industry is sure to trigger a movement that unites even the most disparate demographics.

For the time being, we exist in a precarious void of opportunity: The means of dissemination are there, and the obstacles are only in the early stages of conception. So let’s take advantage of it.

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

45

WORLD

A Buzzing Industry Stings The truth behind Cuban honey money

by andrew steinberg ’22, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and a Staff Writer at BPR illustrator jonathan muroya ’20

Cuba is home to over 2,800 beekeepers, who collectively control around 180,000 hives.

Over the last 30 years, organic honey has grown into the nation’s fourth most valuable agricultural export, bringing in more foreign currency than either coffee or sugar. A liter of the island’s “liquid gold” costs more than a liter of oil. As pollinator populations fall across the globe, Cuba’s hives are all the buzz. But while the island’s warm climate exempts it from the winter frost that kills 20 percent of colonies in colder regions, its geographical advantage does not fully explain the industry’s growth. A closer look into Cuba’s apicultural paradise reveals the

46

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

grim forces—politically-enforced poverty and labor suppression—that enabled its rise, presenting a dilemma for conscious consumers.

The Cuban honey market exemplifies a fascinating paradox of market economics.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s, farmers on the island lost access to modern fertilizers and pesticides. An American embargo also prevented growers from buying and using foreign chemicals, which made the island’s natural flora healthy and lush for bees. Beekeepers around the world have expressed concerns over the impact of agricultural chemicals on roaming bee populations. But not in Cuba. While other farmers may struggle with optimizing yields, the island’s apiarists benefit from the organic vegetation surrounding their hives.

Cuba’s adoption of organic farming practices has contributed to the soaring popularity of its honey industry. Consumers usually pur-

A BUZZING INDUSTRY STINGS

chase organic products because they feel that in doing so, they are eating healthily or helping the environment, as organic foods are often marketed as the edible manifestation of harmonious coexistence between man and nature. Cuba has certainly taken advantage of this image: In 2018, 1,900 metric tons of its honey (one ton is equivalent to 2,205 pounds) were certified as “organic”—a national record. Organic honey is more profitable on the open market than non-organic alternatives; ordinary honey sells for $4,600 per metric ton, while organic honey can sell for up to $14,000 per metric ton. In this way, Cuba’s lack of access to international markets has given its honey a competitive edge.

Despite these advantages, the “organic” label on Cuba’s honey obscures the bleak reality faced by the workers behind it. Cuban apiarists cannot sell their produce on the open market. They must instead exchange their crop with a state-run company, Apicuba.

When they do attempt to circumvent the state and sell their honey independently, producers are penalized heavily; the Cuban government flexes the power of its monopoly by enacting massive efforts to crack down on the underground market.

“Over the last 30 years, organic honey has grown into the nation’s fourth most valuable agricultural export, bringing in more foreign currency than either coffee or sugar. A liter of the island’s ‘liquid gold’ costs more than a liter of oil.”

Cuban apiculturists are truly at the mercy of the state. A closer look reveals that they are not compensated nearly enough for their labor, making life even more difficult for citizens of a country already cut off from international monetary flows. The government monopoly often shortchanges producers for their services, forcing them to sell at around $600 a metric ton while exporting their organic crop for as much as $14,000 (a markup of over 2,300 percent). In addition to this shocking discrepancy, the Cuban government rarely adjusts compensation for producers to reflect fluctuations in the international price of honey, further capping workers’ already meager compensation.

Furthermore, the frequency of environmental disasters compounds workers’ hardships.

In 2016, Hurricane Irma decimated the industry’s production capacity and destroyed large swaths of flora. Since replacement capital could only come from the government, farmers had fewer opportunities to adapt and resume production.

Although the Cuban government’s actions are clearly exploitative, change is difficult, partly because of how little say workers have over their payment scheme and production opportunities. Apiarists with more than 25 hives are mandated to join “collectives,” which organize their production and provide machinery and other capital. This forced reliance on the government, not to mention the complex bureaucracy attached to it, makes it difficult for workers to pursue late payments. “They pay us when and how the

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

47

WORLD

“Despite these advantages, the ‘organic’ label on Cuba’s honey obscures the bleak reality of the workers behind it.”

48

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

company wants,” explained a disgruntled beekeeper. “The payments take months and the resources we requested never arrive.”

Despite the fact that beekeepers are treated like public employees, they often incur massive out-of-pocket costs. Hives are usually far from the producers’ homes, so apiarists must rent vehicles to access their farms, a cost that drains their already shallow pockets. Although it’s true that Apicuba provides equipment and discounts for inputs such as fuel, these perks are often too little, too late. Such delays pressure farmers to procure necessary equipment by taking out loans

from banks, some of which are owned by the state. By these methods, the Cuban government profits immensely from its honey, yet those who actually produce it do not share these gains.

These troubling conditions for workers have not dissuaded consumers from purchasing what they perceive to be a superior product.

Recently, the popularity of Cuban honey has surged in Europe: Germany, France, Spain, and Switzerland top the list of buyers. On the island, officials have announced further plans to expand into Chinese and Saudi Arabian markets. Last year, the island produced

A BUZZING INDUSTRY STINGS

“The Cuban honey industry should not mask its problems with the ideals of environmental sustainability and worker empowerment.”

8,834 metric tons of honey, 1,500 metric tons more than Apicuba’s target. While the overall output is small compared to those of other giants such as China and Turkey, the government opened a new bottling facility to increase output to 15,000 metric tons a year.

The state also plans to diversify its portfolio by selling honey byproducts such as beeswax.

is simply a myth. This reality does not necessarily warrant boycotts or sanctions; such measures would only cut Cuban apiarists off from their lone source of income. But as the industry continues to expand, consumers will have to grapple with what the “organic” label on Cuban honey really means—and the reality might not be as sweet as it tastes.

Clearly, there is no sign of the industry slowing down. The Cuban honey industry should not mask its problems with the ideals of environmental sustainability and worker empowerment. The former is reinforced by external political conditions, and the latter

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

49

WORLD

Willful Ignorance France must acknowledge cultural appropriation by alexandra wells ’22, a Middle East Studies and International and Public Affairs concentrator and a Staff Writer at BPR. illustrator shyaoman zhang ’21

Polo and Pan, a French electronic duo, are great artists—until their lyrics start.

Dreamy rhythms become corroded by blatantly racist imagery as the white duo sings of “seeing [themselves] as ivory hunters… running away…to the Congo” in a Paris club.

Their music imagines brutal scenes of colonization to an upbeat blend of techno and pygmy flutes.

Elsewhere in the city, partygoers might listen to L’Imperatrice sing of “indecent latitudes” and “the imperial exuberance,” or to Claire Laffut telling tales of “speak[ing] a little bit like a Jamaican boy, Jamaican in my veins.”

These artists have one thing in common: They represent the forefront of the French electronic music scene, which has recently become steeped in racist overtones that somehow evade larger critique. Regretfully, the country’s electronic music industry is emblematic of a larger trend: French society’s denial of cultural appropriation. This

50

FALL 2019 | ISSUE 01

willful ignorance goes hand in hand with France’s oppression of its citizens of color.

Cultural appropriation was first noted by writers of the Harlem Renaissance, but the term only gained traction recently after emerging out of postcolonial anglophone literature in the late 20th century. Broadly speaking, cultural appropriation encompasses the unacknowledged co-option of customs and ideas emulating from another people. Particularly important are the power dynamics therein: The appropriators almost always come from a historical position of privilege and dominance.

Though francophone academics have discussed cultural appropriation since the mid-1990s, its continued presence in French music reflects French society’s ignorance surrounding the issue as a whole. Further-

more, media coverage is skewed: French outlets tend to report on cultural appropriation principally in the context of American scandals, such as Madonna’s 2015 “Berber” outfit at the MTV awards ceremony. Yet one can scroll through pages of Google results without finding a single article about l’appropriation culturelle in the context of France. It seems that the vast majority of French society is unable to look inward, treating cultural appropriation as a foreign phenomenon when, in fact, it flourishes at home.

Oftentimes, claims of cultural appropriation in France are reframed and defended as cultural appreciation. Laffut denies cultural appropriation in her music by arguing that she is merely representing her “curiosity and admiration” for music of other cultures. But alleging “appreciation” in a country where racism is both omnipresent in modern times

“It seems that the vast majority of French society is unable to look inward, treating cultural appropriation as a foreign phenomenon when, in fact, it flourishes at home.”

ARTICLE TITLE

and integral to national history is an excuse that rings hollow. Rather, cultural appropriation in French music conveys to French people of color that only certain aspects of their histories and traditions are “acceptable,” while the very proprietors of these customs remain marginalized.

The case of appropriation becomes even more curious when France’s official stance as a “color-blind” country is taken into account.

Neither race nor ethnicity is included on the national census, yet cultural appropriation, exoticism, and racism abound in popular culture. Culture, it seems, may be acknowledged—but only with a flippancy that mocks the histories of the marginalized. “Color-blindness” does not erase color; instead, it allows such offensive behavior to thrive, especially when masked by the nebulous framing of “art.”

European art is a byproduct of colonial expansion and exploitation. The cultural appropriation in current French music can therefore be seen as an extension of this trend and as one of many mediums through which colonialism operates today. Misrepresentations of colonialism in French music are reflected in French society at large:

French history classes have asked students to identify “positive aspects” of colonization, and children verbalize the n-word in rap songs. Dreadlocks, too, are popular among white people.

This situation is not unlike that of the United States, save for France’s extremely narrow definition of what it means to be a “citizen”: While the country is ostensibly “color-blind,” the term “immigrant” has come to label all non-white French citizens, regardless of immigration status. This sentiment is manifested both societally by white French citizens and institutionally via national statistics. French people of color are therefore perpetually considered “outsiders,” even when specific aspects of their cultures are accepted by the majority.

In order to remedy the prejudice entrenched within its culture, France must look inward and recognize the problematic nature of popular music in order to bring awareness to the large presence of cultural appropriation.

There is no simple step-by-step solution to this problem, but acknowledgment by the French media of instances of cultural appropriation would inaugurate a very important— and necessary—conversation.

“‘Color-blindness’ does not erase color; instead, it allows such offensive behavior to thrive, especially when masked by the nebulous framing of ‘art.’”

THE PRIVACY ISSUE

51

Support Student Journalism

Have our magazines delivered directly to your mailbox by subscribing today.

You will receive two Brown Political Review magazines each semester.

All payments are processed securely through PayPal for $17.99/semester.

To subscribe, go to http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/subscribe