Eagleton Political Journal: Volume II (February 2023)

Eagleton Political Journal

Transforming political thought into meaningful practice

The Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University studies how American politics and government work and change, analyzes how the democracy might improve, and promotes political participation and civic engagement. The Institute explores state and national politics through research, education, and public service, linking the study of politics with its day-to-day practice.

The Eagleton Political Journal is a non-partisan, scholarly, student-led publication dedicated to transforming political thought into meaningful practice. As a student platform for thought-provoking political research and analysis, the Eagleton Political Journal provides a hub for political dialogue. The journal engages students from across Rutgers University with American politics in furtherance of the mission of the Eagleton Institute of Politics.

The Eagleton Political Journal serves students and the greater New Jersey community as a centerpiece for political discourse and engagement.

Contact: eagletonpoliticaljournal@gmail.com eagletonpoliticaljournal.rutgers.edu

The Editorial Team

Editor-in-Chief

Ardita Mirza

Ardita Mirza is a senior at Rutgers University—New Brunswick in the School of Arts and Sciences Honors Program, double-majoring in Criminal Justice and Political Science and minoring in Critical Intelligence Studies. She is an Eagleton Undergraduate Associate, the President of the RUAA Scarlet Council, an Alcohol and Other Drugs Peer Educator with the Rutgers HOPE Office, and an Advisor serving on the University President's Student Advisory Committee. Her interests in protecting national security, aiding international peace-building, combatting crimes against women and children, and advocating for better policies have led her to pursue opportunities with the International Rescue Committee, the National Intelligence University, a gubernatorial campaign, the Rutgers Advocacy Corps, and more. She loves watching movies, writing screenplays, and picking up new hobbies in her free time.

Editorial Director

Fiona Doyle

Fiona Doyle is a senior at Rutgers University—New Brunswick in the School of Arts and Sciences and Honors College, double-majoring in Political Science and Cognitive Science and minoring in Economics. She is completing an internship at the New Jersey Office of the Governor on the Economic Growth team. She previously interned with US Senator Chris Coons and the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which helped to highlight her interest in government and law. On campus, Fiona is an executive member of the Honors College Professional Development Council and the Director of the Rutgers Women in Business Mentorship Committee. After graduation, Fiona plans on going to law school and pursuing a career as a lawyer before transitioning to government. In her free time, she loves to work out, snowboard, and read murder mysteries.

The Editorial Team

Editorial Board

Sarika Akula

Sarika Akula is a student at Rutgers University—New Brunswick in the School of Arts and Sciences, majoring in Political Science. She is particularly interested in comparative politics and international affairs.

Insha Chhabra

Insha Chhabra is a pre-medical student in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in Biology and Political Science. As such a student, she is most interested in the intersectionality between science, medicine, and political science.

Ana Dorvil

Ana Dorvil is an Honors student at Rutgers University—Camden pursuing a Bachelor’s in Political Science and Urban Studies with a minor in Criminal Justice. She is a member of the Rutgers Camden SGA Legislative Committee, the Vice President of the Immigration Justice Association, Sergeant at Arms of South Jersey Young Democrats, a scholar of the Upsilon Sigma Honors Society, and a Youth Lead for Andy Kim For Congress. Her interests are in law and public policy, focusing on affordable housing and other aspects to alleviate poverty. She hopes to pursue a career in government and politics. Currently, she works on social media, outreach, and constituent services for Senator Fred Madden, Assemblyman Paul Moriarty, and Assemblywoman Gabriela Mosquera of the Fourth Legislative District office in New Jersey.

Ansh Gandhi

Ansh Gandhi is a freshman at Rutgers University—New Brunswick majoring in Finance and Accounting in the Business School. He is interested in research surrounding the topics of equity and economics.

Omkar Iyer

Omkar Iyer is a student at the Rutgers Business School, majoring in Business Analytics and Information Technology (BAIT) and Finance and minoring in Data Science. In his free time, he enjoys swimming.

Dhiya Jayadevan

Dhiya Jayadevan is a freshman at Rutgers University—New Brunswick in the School of Arts and Sciences, majoring in Economics and Political Science and minoring in Philosophy and Data Science. She is deeply interested in economic policy, finance, and international economics.

Joyce Lee

Joyce Lee is a sophomore double-majoring in Public Policy and Sociology. Her interests include domestic health policy, reproductive policy, political fashion, and LGBTQ+ politics. Outside of the Eagleton Political Journal, she is involved in Rutgers Enactus, the Knight Label, the Rutgers Society of Human Resources Management, and the Rutgers Sociology Club. She enjoys knitting, songwriting, and fashion in her free time.

Vedna Puskur

Vedna Puskur is a junior at Rutgers University—New Brunswick in the School of Arts and Sciences. She is double-majoring in Political Science and Philosophy and minoring in Law and History. Vedna is an executive member of the Rutgers University Moot Court Association and a Rutgers University Undergraduate Law Review staff writer. Through her prior experiences in policymaking and campaign work, Vedna has plans to attend law school, specifically toward compliance within the government.

Victoria Richard

Victoria Richard, a Rhode Island native, is a sophomore at the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in Political Science and double-minoring in Spanish and Critical Intelligence Studies. Her areas of interest include youth political involvement and American foreign policy.

Ayana Tapper

Ayana Tapper is a Senior majoring in Political Science and History with a minor in Creative Writing. She is a student in the School of Arts and Sciences and is a member of the 2023 Eagleton Undergraduate Associates cohort. She is a recent Rutgers Summer Service Internship graduate of their inaugural cohort, where she was and still serves as the communications intern for the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) of Greater Newark. Additionally, her academic interests in American politics allowed her to conduct research for the Eagleton Center on the American Governor as an Aresty Research Assistant. She enjoys writing and has recently published work in the Rutgers Writer’s House Review. After graduation, Ayana plans to pursue a degree in law and hopes to help marginalized individuals with a career in public service.

Isabella Tyszka

Isabella Tyszka is a senior at the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in Political Science and double-minoring in history/women’s & gender studies. She is part of the Douglass Residential College. In addition to her work at the Eagleton Political Journal, she serves as the Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Targum, the student-run newspaper at Rutgers. Her major area of interest within the realm of political research is political theory, pacifism, the military-industrial complex, and environmentalism.

Saleema Walter

Saleema Walter is a student at the School of Arts and Sciences, majoring in Political Science and minoring in Korean. She loves studying international relations, particularly focusing on the Middle East and East Asia-Pacific regions. Outside of school, she enjoys knitting and crocheting.

Thank you to the faculty and staff of the Eagleton Political Journal

John Farmer

Dr. Saladin Ambar

Sarah Kozak

Francine Newsome Pfeiffer

Ronald Chen

Ava Majlesi

Gabriella Korosec

Dr. Elizabeth Matto

John Weingart

THE FEDERAL ROLE IN U.S. EDUCATION POLICY AND THE FAILURE OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

K-12 Education Policy

by Noor Amanullah

The History of Federal Influence

Over Public Education

The United States education system, complex in structure and governance, has long been the focus of policy debates. With a history dating back to the nation’s independence, public schools in the United States have generally been a local matter, with schools established and run by regional communities. The local nature of education means it is not universal geographically, demographically, and in quality and standards. However, figures in American politics and education policy have long sought to create universal expectations and standards. An increasingly expanded federal government made way for the inevitable– an established federal role in education policy.

As the United States created and revised its federalist government following independence, Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson advocated for nationwide public education, viewing it as necessary to democracy. To Jefferson, an uninformed and illiterate citizen could not vote or lead properly, threatening the longevity of a democratic republic. Benjamin Franklin reportedly described the new U.S. government as “a republic, if you can keep it” at the close of the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson believed that public education in business knowledge, calculation and literacy skills, and understanding one’s rights and duties, would allow the young country to ‘keep’ its republicanism. While Jefferson may not have succeeded in including an education clause in the Constitution, he set a precedent whereby the federal government sets expectations for public education.

education systems, along with the federal government providing a clear expectation for education to states, it became evident that local communities, state governments, and the federal government all played a role in public education. This trend would continue into the twentieth century, as the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) brought a federal directive to states to desegregate schools and set an expectation that individual districts would follow through.

Source: National Commission on Excellence in Education

As early as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the federal government demonstrated an interest in public education from state and local governments. While outlining the process of admitting new states into the Union, the ordinance required each town to reserve one of its centermost plots of land for education, setting a model of consistency, accessibility, and local governance in public education. A century later, the federal government mandated state public education systems to be open to Black and white students as a condition for the final states reentering the Union following the Civil War. As freed Black communities developed their own schools and

With this three-tier system behind it, public education has come a long way and has become the site of numerous federal reform attempts in recent decades. The Cold War presented new trends in education, as technological advancement, American fear of Soviet domination in the Sputnik era, and A Nation at Risk, the 1983 report of the United States National Commission on Excellence in Education, led to worries over the quality of the US education system. The federal government responded rapidly with national goals and standards-based reform, establishing standardized testing as a core measure for teacher effectiveness and student performance.

Factors Informing Policy and Impacting the Efficacy of Education

The principal agent problem is an issue that motivates policy and enforcement in education, among other policy areas. It states that the principal, or stakeholders, cannot monitor day-to-day activity in individual schools, thereby allowing

1DerekW Black, Introduction, inSchoolhouseBurning:PublicEducationandtheAssaultonAmericanDemocracy(NewYork,NY:PublicAffairs,HachetteBookGroup,2020),p 12

2MerrillD Peterson,ThomasJefferson:Writings(NewYork,NY:TheLibraryofAmerica,1984),p 459

3DerekW Black,“TheAmericanRighttoEducation:TheNorthwestOrdinance,Reconstruction,andtheCurrentChallenge,”PovertyandRaceJournal,no

4Black,SchoolhouseBurning,p 111

5Brownv BoardofEducationofTopeka(UnitedStatesSupremeCourtMay17,1954)

6HelenF Ladd,“EducationandPoverty:ConfrontingtheEvidence,”JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement31,no

agents, such as teachers or administrators, to act against the principal’s interests. This concept informed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which will be broken down in the next section. Accountability systems, such as NCLB, are implemented as solutions to the principal agent problem.

While the principal agent problem responds to the broader context of the public school system and the nature of human behavior in education, other factors such as school environment, student socioeconomic status, and cultural context must be taken into account. Policy is necessary to address the inequities created by these factors, for example, the relationship between family background and academic outcomes. A 2011 study at

Stanford University compared differences in test scores between students from families with high and low socioeconomic statuses, measured by family income, and found that income-based achievement gaps not only existed, but grew through the latter half of the twentieth century. A black-white gap in test scores was also significant, but less so than the income gap. Similarly, factors correlated with being low-income such as poor nutrition, limited access to preschool, poor health, and single-family structures contributed to disadvantages in school. Overall, a negative relationship exists between the child poverty rate and student performance. A comprehensive education policy that acknowledges race and class gaps in education attainment and achievement is necessary to ensure the well-being of students and educators and to achieve high and sustainable outcomes. Education economist Helen Ladd fits this relationship between outcomes and context into an equation:

educational outcomes = f (public school quality, context)

Source: Associated Press

High public school standards rely on the “quality and quantity of inputs as well as the effectiveness with which they are used.” Policies cannot only ask that schools, districts, or states improve the quality of the education they provide via new curricula, technology, or methods. It is also necessary that when distributing funds, creating standards, and mandating an accountability system, the federal government or any other governing system also accounts for context in their reforms. Context must be evaluated alongside quality and not merely be an afterthought. The context of race and socioeconomic status, for example, must be at the foundation of education policy so that it responds to students’ current environments and does not exacerbate the difficulties they already face.

The No Child Left Behind Act

Signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) expanded the federal government’s role in education policy and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The law

“mandated explicit and increasingly severe sanctions for persistently low-performing schools that receive Title I aid (e.g., public school choice, staff replacement, and school restructuring).” NCLB implemented a nationwide era of testing, and, as is evident after the fact, the false promise of addressing disparities in achievement, a tag which appealed to legislators on both sides of the aisle and led to bipartisan support for the legislation. Proponents of the policy allege it has two goals: increase average educational outcomes and reduce gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students. However, NCLB failed by not addressing the second goal, as will be investigated in the next section. While the policy was not popular, Ladd presents that many in education and politics acknowledge “any serious effort to reduce poverty and to equalize incomes will take a long time, and the country cannot wait that long to address the educational needs of the current generation of children.” By this logic, it is necessary for policymakers to carry on establishing expectations for systems, regardless of the inefficiencies associated with their shortcomings.

The No Child Left Behind Act included AYP, Adequate Yearly Progress, a proficiency standard requiring schools to increase the number of students meeting proficiency standards each year. Following this annual assessment, sanctions and rewards were to be distributed according to a school’s progress; failing schools could be punished with a requirement to develop a new school improvement plan or restructure entirely. By raising proficiency every year, the policy aimed to reach 100 percent proficiency in reading and math by the 2013-2014 school year. States were compelled to conduct annual assessments based on their state standards and use the results to measure progress each year.

An important aspect of the policy, suggested by its name, is that it sets similar educational goals for all children so as not to ‘leave any child behind.’ Schools that could not fully offset the disparity in outcomes that their disadvantaged students faced were labeled “failing

7BrianJacob, TheChangingFederalRoleinSchoolAccountability,”JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement36,no 2(2017):pp 469-477,https://doi org/10 1002/pam 21975

8SeanF Reardon,“TheWideningAcademicAchievementGapbetweentheRichandthePoor,”Inequalityinthe21stCentury,2018,pp 177-189,https://doi org/10 4324/9780429499821-33

9HelenF Ladd,“EducationandPoverty:ConfrontingtheEvidence,”JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement31,no 2(2012):pp 203-227,https://doi org/10 1002/pam 21615

10HelenF Ladd, EducationandPoverty ”p 211

11ThomasS DeeandBrianJacob,“TheImpactofNoChildLeftBehindonStudentAchievement,”JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement30,no 3(2011):pp 418-446,https://doi org/10 1002/pam 20586

12DanielM Koretz,TheTestingCharade:PretendingtoMakeSchoolsBetter(Chicago,IL:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2019),p 31

13 HelenF Ladd, EducationandPoverty p 213

14“KeyPolicyLettersSignedbytheEducationSecretaryorDeputySecretary:GuidanceonAYPCriteriaandthePeerReviewProcess,”USDepartmentofEducation(ED),January29,2010, https://www2 ed gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020724 html

15EducationWeekStaff,“AdequateYearlyProgress, EducationWeek,September10,2004,https://www edweek org/policy-politics/adequate-yearly-progress/2004/09

"A comprehensive education policy that acknowledges race and class gaps "

schools.” In not being allowed accommodations for the differing contexts of their student bodies, schools faced unfair standards: “the legislation in practice denies the power of the correlation between family background and student achievement for groups of students.” Since the policy required students to meet the same standard regardless of the population they served, it did not account for students’ low or high socioeconomic status, a factor proven to impact educational outcomes. While NCLB recognizes the likelihood of differences in performance, it does not include an approach to this issue aside from emphasizing that schools should not ignore their disadvantaged students.

It is important to note that NCLB was not the origin of the “pay-and-punish” system, which uses performance-based pay for teachers as an accountability tool. Before NCLB installed the policy at a federal level, numerous states followed similar systems. These states established performance standards, required schools to reach proficiency levels, and created timelines by which schools had to accomplish goals. Although they differed in the scales and values for these standards, the states maintained these systems, and federal funding was not at stake the way it became when NCLB was implemented.

NCLB in Review

Criticism of the No Child Left Behind Act varies but is strong and vast. Some experts say that because states adjust their assessments over time, relying on trends in state assessments is misleading. Another criticism of NCLB’s testing-based approach is that the policy itself is not the driver of any recorded progress in student outcomes. Proponents of this view argue that reports seeing higher annual levels of achievement following the implementation of NCLB are simply tracking pre-NCLB trends. Others find that despite some improvement in math scores following the passage of NCLB, actual growth plateaued over this period.

While standardized tests provide data on differences between students and schools, they fail to account for context in terms of resources, preparation, and comparison. This was especially evident in Vermont where, in 2014, Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe reported that “under the terms of NCLB, every school in the state that had administered the state tests was classified as a lowperforming school in need of improvement,” and thus were subject to “a series of escalating sanctions.” Despite Vermont being considered high performing relative to other states and countries according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, an arbitrary ‘proficiency’ measure labeled its schools as failing. Such measures do not provide an accurate picture of educational outcomes, nor can they accurately prove whether or not a school is fulfilling NCLB’s primary goal of increasing average educational outcomes.

Additionally, the testing standards enforced by NCLB set unrealistic and unfair expectations for students. By the 1990s, testing expert Daniel Koretz stated that the phrase ‘“all children can learn to a high level’ had become a mantra in the education policy world.” However, this idea does not translate well when all students are assessed on the same set of standards. Under NCLB, only students with “more severe” cognitive disabilities than “mild” could be assessed at a lower standard, meaning many students with

cognitive disabilities were not afforded differences in expectations or assessment. NCLB also put a cap on how many students could be assessed at a lower standard; any students beyond the one percent exception per district who were assessed at a lower standard were to be counted as “not proficient.” In practice, these guidelines created unfair learning environments for students with cognitive disabilities, with limited alternative testing options. Such features of NCLB call into question its proposed goal of closing gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students.

Some successes can be attributed to NCLB, such as clarity on disparities in educational outcomes through required score reporting. Another benefit of NCLB’s data collection is that because the policy designated subgroups by race, income, and gender, it created a level of disaggregation in data that allows schools, districts, states, and the federal government to observe achievement gaps between different categories of students, as well as gaps between schools or districts. The differences identifiable in this data provided information vital to advocacy campaigns that ultimately led to policy reform and promoted further research into effective interventions and student performance. Finally, modest improvements in student performance, most notably in math on high-stakes tests, are evident during the NCLB era. Although it cannot be proven that this was a direct outcome of NCLB’s accountability system, it cannot be entirely disproven either.

The Future of Federal Education Policy

Following Barack Obama’s election to the presidency in 2008, the United States entered a new era of federal education policy with the Race to the Top (RTTT) program. A grant program funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment program, RTTT sought to recharacterize the federal government as rewarding, contrasting with the punishing role it took on through No Child Left Behind. Despite the attempt at rebranding, the practices behind RTTT have also been criticized, drawing controversy over teacher evaluations, Common Core standards,

and an encouraging attitude toward charter schools. The policy created a new air of competition in American public education, with a focus on teachers and states this time. In 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a replacement for NCLB. The Obama-era policy allowed states more flexibility in establishing education goals and overseeing interventions in low-performing schools. However, this policy faced similar criticism to NCLB for continuing the testbased accountability model.26

16HelenF Ladd,“EducationandPoverty ”p 213

17GailL Sunderman,JamesS Kim,andGaryOrfield,NCLBMeetsSchoolRealities:LessonsfromtheField(ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress,2005),pp 25-26

18DanielM Koretz,TheTestingCharade,p 27

19DeeandJacob, TheImpactofNoChildLeftBehind,”p 422

20DanielM Koretz,TheTestingCharade,pp 3-4

21DanielM Koretz,TheTestingCharade,p 127

22DanielM Koretz,TheTestingCharade,p 128

23AmyElledgeandJenniferODay “StateandLocalImplementationoftheNoChildLeftBehindAct ”StateandlocalimplementationoftheNoChildLeftBehindAct§(2009) p 2

24RaymondYeagley,“TheDemandsofDataunderNCLB,”AASA,n d ,https://aasa org/SchoolAdministratorArticle aspx?id 8920 25BrianJacob, TheChangingFederalRoleinSchoolAccountability, p 470

26DanielM Koretz,TheTestingCharade,pp 7-8

Any education policy, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must directly address the factors causing disparities between students of low and high socioeconomic statuses and establish measurements to evaluate whether unmeasured or new disparities between any groups of students exist. In particular, education policy should account for students’ health and developmental needs and be seen as part of the push for quality, accessible health care. Additionally, federal and state governments should take early childhood education seriously as an important input into not only the K-12 education system but into a healthier, better educated, and more equitable society and democracy. President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better framework began to address these needs. The bill, which attempted to reduce the costs of child and health care— important

factors in students’ long-term performance in school and social mobility following graduation— failed to pass in the Senate. Its proposal for universal pre-K would have been a major step toward more equitable education and quality inputs into the system. One catch-all bill cannot promise a sound future for education, and No Child Left Behind and the policies that preceded and followed it show how many cracks exist in public education. Education reform that considers funding formulas and distribution, as well as teaching practices and existing gaps in resources and achievement, is necessary to improve performance for all students meaningfully.

Bibliography

Black, Derek W. Schoolhouse Burning: Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy. New York, NY: PublicAffairs, 2020.

Black, Derek W. “The American Right to Education: The Northwest Ordinance, Reconstruction, and the Current Challenge.” Poverty and Race Journal, no. Jan-Apr 2021 (March 22, 2021).

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (United States Supreme Court May 17, 1954).

Dee, Thomas S., and Brian Jacob. “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30, no. 3 (2011): 418–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586.

Education Week Staff. “Adequate Yearly Progress.” Education Week, September 10, 2004. https://www.edweek.org/policy politics/adequate-yearly-progress/2004/09.

Jacob, Brian. “The Changing Federal Role in School Accountability.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 36, no. 2 (2017): 469–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21975.

“Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary: Guidance on AYP Criteria and the Peer Review Process.” Laws & Guidance / Elementary & Secondary Education. US Department of Education (ED), January 29, 2010. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html.

Koretz, Daniel M. The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2019.

Ladd, Helen F. “Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31, no. 2 (2012): 203 27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21615.

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Amy Elledge, and Jennifer O'Day, State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act § (2009).

Peterson, Merrill D. Thomas Jefferson: Writings. New York, NY: The Library of America, 1984.

Reardon, Sean F. “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor.” Inequality in the 21st Century, 2018, 177–89. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499821-33.

Sunderman, Gail L., James S. Kim, and Gary Orfield. NCLB Meets School Realities: Lessons from the Field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2005.

Yeagley, Raymond. “The Demands of Data under NCLB.” AASA, n.d. https://aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8920.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FUTURE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

by Insha Chhabra

A Brief Introduction to Affirmative Action

Affirmative action refers to policies that aim to increase workplace and educational diversity by providing opportunities to underrepresented individuals. Such policies generally benefit people of color, women, and people of minority religious and cultural backgrounds. One such place where we see affirmative action is in racebased college admissions. Universities that employ race-based admissions consider an applicant’s race in the admissions process and generally provide racial preference to underrepresented minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.

The Supreme Court will hear two cases dealing with race-based admissions in its 2022-23 term - Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (UNC) and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard. These cases are not consolidated and, as such, will be heard and decided separately - primarily because UNC is a public university and Harvard is a private institution. In both cases, the petitioner is Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit membership organization that believes that the use of racial preferences in college admissions should be prohibited and that the court should overturn the precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).

Constitutional Provisions and Laws Involved

The cases before the Court deal primarily with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These

provisions are the basis for SFFA’s argument against affirmative action.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encapsulates the idea that states must equally protect all citizens and govern impartially. It reads that

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SFFA uses this clause to argue that the precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) is grievously wrong because it conflicts with the Court’s equal protection principles. The petitioners argue that diversity is not a compelling enough reason to justify racial classifications that violate this fundamental right of all citizens.

The second legal cornerstone of SFFA’s argument is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which reads that

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

The petitioners argue that as institutions that receive federal funding, these universities cannot use race as a factor in their admissions, as this violates Title VI. Title VI is also enforced by the US Department of Education (ED), which clearly asserts that programs receiving ED funds - which includes UNC and Harvardmust operate in a non-discriminatory manner, even in terms of admissions.

The first Supreme Court precedent that SFFA brings forth is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). This case deals with the segregation of public schools based on race. In 1896, the Supreme Court affirmed the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine, which stated that racially segregated facilities were legal, as long as the facilities in question were equal. This ruling gave legal foundations to Jim Crow laws that denied African Americans the right to share public facilities with whites. This was challenged by the plaintiff, Oliver Brown, who filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas after his daughter, Linda, was denied admission to Topeka’s all-white elementary schools. Brown claimed that segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that separate but equal educational facilities were inherently unequal and agreed that they violated the Equal Protection Clause. Their primary reasoning for this decision was that segregated education instilled a sense of inferiority in colored children. SFFA uses this case in its argument for its promise of educational equality, regardless of race.

Source: Bloomberg

1AlanBelletal , IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesonPETITIONforaWRITofCERTIORARIbeforeJUDGMENTtotheUNITEDSTATESCOURTofAPPEALSfortheFOURTHCIRCUITPETITIONforaWRITofCERTIORARI beforeJUDGMENT,”2021,https://www supremecourt gov/DocketPDF/21/21-707/199684/20211111164129792

UNC%20Cert%20Petition%20-%20Nov%2011%20-%20330pm%20002 pdf

2“HelpUsEliminateRaceandEthnicityfromCollegeAdmissions,”StudentsforFairAdmissions,2019,https://studentsforfairadmissions org/

3“FourteenthAmendmentSection1|ConstitutionAnnotated|Congress gov|LibraryofCongress, constitution congress gov,n d ,https://constitution congress gov/browse/amendment-14/section1/#: :text No%20State%20shall%20make%20or

4“TitleVI,CivilRightsActof1964|U S DepartmentofLabor,”www dol gov,n d ,https://www dol gov/agencies/oasam/regulatory/statutes/title-vi-civil-rights-act-of-1964#: :text No%20person%20in%20the%20United

5USDepartmentofEducation,“EducationandTitleVI,”Ed gov,September25,2018,https://doi org/http://www ed gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq43e4 html 6History comEditors, Brownv BoardofEducation,”History com(A&ETelevisionNetworks,October27,2009),https://www history com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka 7“Brownv BoardofEducationofTopeka,”Oyez,2019,https://www oyez org/cases/1940-1955/347us483

The primary precedent in these cases is Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). In this case, Barbara Grutter, a white female, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. The school admits to using race as one of the factors in making admissions decisions to achieve diversity among its student body. The Supreme Court held that the school’s narrowly tailored use of race in furthering its compelling interest in maintaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI. The Court ruled that the individualized and thorough review of each applicant ensured that no decision was based solely on race and, therefore, does not “unduly harm nonminority applicants.”

Argument from the Petitioner

SFFA would like the Court to overturn the precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). While there are no formal requirements for

the overturning of precedent, the three general considerations looked at are (1) Is the precedent grievously wrong?, (2) Has the precedent caused significant negative real-world consequences?, and (3) Would overruling the precedent unduly harm reliance interests (laws, reasoning, or societal interests that have come to rely on the precedent)? SFFA argues that Grutter meets all these considerations for overturning.

First, it holds that the precedent of Grutter is grievously wrong. The petitioners argue that Grutter has no support in the Fourteenth Amendment, for this amendment rests on the principle that distinctions on color and race have no place in a free society. This same principle is also seen in the Declaration of Independence and was accepted in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). Though Grutter claims a diversity rationale, the petitioner argues that its argument is both uncompelling and violates equal-protection principles. SFFA argues that the claim that a university can predict a student’s views or experiences solely based on their race is nothing more than racial stereotyping. Additionally, the educational benefits identified by Grutter are suspect - Grutter insists that racebased admissions would “break down racial stereotypes” and prepare students for an increasingly diverse workplace. Thus, it treats underrepresented minorities as instruments to provide educational benefits for other, mostly white students, instead of the beneficiaries of this racial preference.

Secondly, SFFA holds that Grutter has caused significant negative real-world consequences. Grutter does not meaningfully limit universities’ use of race in admissions and instead encourages the use of unspoken, implicit rules as opposed to explicit racial quotas. Additionally, SFFA argues that admissions programs that pass Grutter standards intentionally discriminate against other historically oppressed minorities - namely Jewish and Asian Americans. By considering race in admissions criteria, universities invite admissions officers to rely on anti-Asian stereotypes and create a ceiling on the success of Asian Americans. In fact, an

industry of counselors exists to make them appear “less Asian” in their applications, and this contributes to high levels of anxiety and depression among Asian students. On a broader scale, Grutter conveys to universities that treating students differently based on race is acceptable - a notion that can have dangerous repercussions. In fact, universities are now openly embracing segregation by encouraging race-specific housing, orientations, networking events, and graduation ceremonies. This obsession with race impedes their progress towards Grutter’s true aim of diverse viewpoints.

Finally, SFFA argues that Grutter has not generated reliance interests. One of the broad considerations that the Court takes into account when reconsidering a precedent is whether overruling the precedent would unduly affect reliance interests - laws, reasoning, or societal interests that have come to rely on the precedent. The petitioner posits that Grutter cannot be sustained for the purpose of reliance interests. They argue that since Grutter departs so far from our basic equal-protection principles, the decision has not become part of our national culture. Additionally, according to the Pew Research Center, most Americans (73% of all American adults) believe that universities should not consider race when making admissions decisions, and several states have also banned race-based admissions for their universities. Further, Grutter’s majority opinion concludes with a statement that “the Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary” to further the interest of diversity. The petitioner uses this statement to prove that Grutter was never meant to be a timeless precedent or create reliance interests in the first place.

Arguments from the Respondents

The next precedent to consider is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). In this case, Allan Bakke, a white male, was rejected twice from the University of California Medical School at Davis. The school reserved 16 spots in each entering class for qualified students of color as part of their affirmative action program. Bakke’s test scores and GPA exceeded those admitted into these spots in the years he applied. Therefore, Bakke sued, arguing that he was denied admission solely based on race and that the school’s clear-cut racial quota system violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court ruled in favor of Bakke, holding that the admissions criteria violated the Equal Protection Clause, thereby also violating the Civil Rights Act. The Court found that there are other ways that the school could have achieved classroom diversity and provided educational opportunities to underrepresented groups that did not involve a blatant racial quota system. The main takeaway from this case is that university admissions criteria cannot use race as a definitive and exclusive basis for a decision. The Court did, however, leave the door open for race to be used as one of many considerations in admission. 8“RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav Bakke ”n d Oyez RetrievedSeptember18,2022,fromhttps://www oyez org/cases/1979/76-811 9 RegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniav Bakke(1978) n d LII/LegalInformationInstitute RetrievedSeptember18,2022,fromhttps://www law cornell edu/wex/regents of the university of california v bakke (1978)

The respondents in these cases first argue that SFFA lacks the standing to bring this suit. To establish standing, the petitioner must prove that they had a stake in the outcome of the case at the time they filed the suit - as such, standing has to be established at the time of complaint as

10“GRUTTERv BOLLINGER,”Cornell edu,2003,https://www law cornell edu/supct/html/02-241 ZS html

11 Grutterv Bollinger,”Oyez,2019,https://www oyez org/cases/2002/02-241

12AlanBelletal ,“IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesonPETITIONforaWRITofCERTIORARIbeforeJUDGMENTtotheUNITEDSTATESCOURTofAPPEALSfortheFOURTHCIRCUITPETITIONforaWRITofCERTIORARIbefore JUDGMENT,”2021

13AlanBelletal , IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesonPETITIONforaWRITofCERTIORARIbeforeJUDGMENTtotheUNITEDSTATESCOURTofAPPEALSfortheFOURTHCIRCUITPETITIONforaWRITofCERTIORARIbefore JUDGMENT ”2021

14“StudyQuestionsBiasagainstAsiansinAdmissions|insideHigherEd,”www insidehighered com,n d ,https://www insidehighered com/admissions/article/2021/07/19/study-questions-bias-against-asians-admissions 15NikkiGraf, MostAmericansSayCollegesShouldNotConsiderRaceorEthnicityinAdmissions, PewResearchCenter(PewResearchCenter,February25,2019),https://www pewresearch org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-saycolleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/ 16 Grutterv Bollinger,539U S 306(2003),”JustiaLaw,n d ,https://supreme

opposed to during the course of the case. SFFA claims to have associational standing because, in bringing the suit, it is acting as a representative of its members. However, the universities argue that SFFA does not have standing because it lacked genuine members at the time it sued.

Though the Court has never explicitly defined what constitutes a genuine membership organization, lower courts have generally considered two factors to establish whether the organization is “in the hands of those who have a direct stake in the outcome” - (1) whether members control the organization, and (2) whether members fund the organization. On the first consideration, the respondent argues that SFFA’s members had no control or meaningful role in the organization. At the time of filing, SFFA’s bylaws only had ‘affiliate members’ who had no voting rights. In 2015, the year after it sued, SFFA revised its bylaws to create ‘general members’ with limited voting rights. As the second consideration, SFFA members generated almost none of the organization’s funding - the board lacked the power to even assess dues until the bylaws were revised in 2015. Until that point, SFFA was funded almost exclusively by outside groups. As such, the respondent argues that, at the time of filing, SFFA was a founder-controlled organization with the main purpose of bypassing the Court’s ban on suing for generalized grievances.

Secondly, the respondents hold that the precedent of Grutter should be upheld. SFFA argues that the decision in Grutter violates the equal protection stance of the Court as well as the precedent of racial neutrality established in Brown. However, the respondent holds that it is the universities - not SFFA - that carry on Brown’s vision of an integrated and diverse educational environment. Brown holds that separating students based on race relies on biased assumptions about the inferiority of certain races and “deprive[s] the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities.” These schools keep with Brown’s core promise by relying on an admissions policy that furthers the school’s commitment to providing equal educational opportunities regardless of race. Brown

also reaffirms the importance of student body diversity, for it allows people to “engage in discussions and exchange views with other students” - a value that the schools have repeatedly proclaimed.

Further, the respondents argue that Grutter cannot be overturned because it has created legitimate reliance interests by developing a framework for assessing the legality of admissions programs. Overturning this precedent would raise a host of difficult questions regarding admissions programs that would invite further cases and litigations. One such question that UNC brings up is how a university can conduct a thorough, individualized review of an applicant without considering race. As such, the respondents argue that overturning this precedent would trigger uncertainty among universities nationwide that have built their admissions programs around the precedent of Grutter. These schools have also expended financial and other resources, such as training admissions counselors, to ensure their policies comply with the Court’s rulings. Overturning this precedent would force universities to abruptly and fundamentally alter their admissions processes.

Finally, the respondents argue that there are no workable, race-neutral alternatives to their current admissions programs. They accept that in order to be narrowly tailored, a university’s admissions processes must have no workable race-neutral alternative. A workable alternative is defined as something that is both feasible and likely to achieve the university’s compelling interest. SFFA cites simulations that it claims would allow the schools to continue admitting a diverse and academically qualified class; however, the district court found these simulations to be based on unrealistic assumptions. Additionally, the respondent argues these simulations to be unworkable because they require the schools to abandon holistic admissions that look at each applicant individually. They claim that SFFA’s models place weight on only three criteria - GPA, SAT scores, and socioeconomic status. As such, the respondents argue that SFFA’s alternatives are based on flawed

assumptions and untested proposals that would require the school to overhaul its holistic process - making these alternatives unworkable at this time.

Conclusions and Implications

There are multiple considerations the Court must recognize when deciding this case. Namely, is a university's desire to admit a diverse student body a compelling enough reason to justify the use of race in admissions processes? The Court must strike a balance between a school’s desire for diversity and an individual student’s right to be admitted regardless of their race. The Court must also determine whether SFFA has the standing to bring this suit before the Court and whether the precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) should be overturned.

Given the current conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, they will likely rule in favor of SFFA - against affirmative action. This will require US universities with racebased admissions to completely revamp their admissions process. Additionally, this will likely result in lower admission and graduation rates for minorities such as African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics, particularly at selective universities. In turn, students and universities worry that this decreased diversity will also decrease their quality of education by limiting the number of perspectives and worldviews that students encounter in college. Further, such a ruling would widen representation gaps in careers that rely on a college degree.

With the future of affirmative action and race-based admission in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court, it is imperative that universities across the country begin preparing alternative methods to ensure the diversity of their student body. One such method is outreach programs that increase the number of qualified minority applicants.

17JoshuaSteinetal , IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesonWRITofCERTIORARIbeforeJUDGMENTtotheUNITEDSTATESCOURTofAPPEALSfortheFOURTHCIRCUITBRIEFbyUNIVERSITYRESPONDENTS, n d 18NationalArchives,“Brownv BoardofEducation(1954),”NationalArchives,September29,2021,https://www archives gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education 19JoshuaSteinetal ,“IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesonWRITofCERTIORARIbeforeJUDGMENTtotheUNITEDSTATESCOURTofAPPEALSfortheFOURTHCIRCUITBRIEFbyUNIVERSITYRESPONDENTS,”n d 20JoshuaSteinetal ,“IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesonWRITofCERTIORARIbeforeJUDGMENTtotheUNITEDSTATESCOURTofAPPEALSfortheFOURTHCIRCUITBRIEFbyUNIVERSITYRESPONDENTS, n d 21NatashaWarikoo, AffirmativeActionBansMakeSelectiveCollegesLessDiverse–aNationalBanWillDotheSame,”TheConversation,accessedDecember12,2022,https://theconversation com/affirmative-action-bans-makeselective-colleges-less-diverse-a-national-ban-will-do-the-same-189214#: :text A%20ban%20on%20affirmative%20action 22LizWillen,“CollegeAdmissionsIsAlreadyBroken WhatWillHappenIfAffirmativeActionIsOverturned?,”TheHechingerReport,October11,2022,https://hechingerreport org/college-admissions-is-already-broken-what-willhappen-if-the-affirmative-action-precedent-is-overturned/

"Overturning this precedent would force universities to abruptly and fundamentally alter their admissions processes."

Rutgers University itself, though not considering race in admissions decisions, employs several such programs, including the Rutgers Future Scholars Program. This program accepts 200 eighth-grade students every year, the majority of them being black or Hispanic, and provides five years of academic and other support, using Rutgers students as mentors. Should the Court overrule affirmative action, universities will have to rely on outreach programs such as this to continue their efforts to create a racially and economically diverse student body.

Source: Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

Bibliography

Bell, Alan, Davis Pitt, Patrick Strawbridge, Consovoy Mccarthy, Thomas Mccarthy, William Consovoy, J Connolly, Bryan Weir, Cameron Norris, and James Hasson. “In the Supreme Court of the United States on PETITION for a WRIT of CERTIORARI before JUDGMENT to the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION for a WRIT of CERTIORARI before JUDGMENT,” 2021. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21

707/199684/20211111164129792_UNC%20Cert%20Petition%20-%20Nov%2011%20-%20330pm%20002.pdf.

Constitution Congress. “Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress,” n.d. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-1/#:~:text=No%20State%20shall%20make%20or. Cornell.edu. “GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER,” 2003. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html.

Graf, Nikki. “Most Americans Say Colleges Should Not Consider Race or Ethnicity in Admissions.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, February 25, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/.

History.com Editors. “Brown v. Board of Education.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, October 27, 2009.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka.

Justia Law. “Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003),” n.d. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/#tab-opinion 1961290.

National Archives. “Brown v. Board of Education (1954).” National Archives, September 29, 2021. https://www.archives.gov/milestone documents/brown-v-board-of-education.

Oyez. “Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,” 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483.

Oyez. “Grutter v. Bollinger,” 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241.

Rutgers Future Scholars. “About,” n.d. https://futurescholars.rutgers.edu/about/.

Students for Fair Admissions. “Help Us Eliminate Race and Ethnicity from College Admissions,” 2019. https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/.

Stein, Joshua, Ryan Park, Nicholas Brod, Sarah Boyce, James Doggett, Stephanie Brennan, and Tamika Henderson. “In the Supreme Court of the United States on WRIT of CERTIORARI before JUDGMENT to the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FOURTH CIRCUIT BRIEF by UNIVERSITY RESPONDENTS,” n.d. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21

707/230779/20220725144111091_21-707_Response%20brief.pdf.

“Study Questions Bias against Asians in Admissions | inside Higher Ed,” n.d. https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2021/07/19/study-questions-bias-against-asians-admissions.

“Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Department of Labor,” n.d. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/regulatory/statutes/title-vi-civil rights-act-of-1964#:~:text=No%20person%20in%20the%20United.

US Department of Education. “Education and Title VI.” Ed.gov, September 25, 2018. https://doi.org/http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq43e4.html.

Warikoo, Natasha. “Affirmative Action Bans Make Selective Colleges Less Diverse – a National Ban Will Do the Same.” The Conversation. Accessed December 12, 2022. https://theconversation.com/affirmative-action-bans-make-selective-colleges-less diverse-a-national-ban-will-do-the-same-189214#:~:text=A%20ban%20on%20affirmative%20action.

Willen, Liz. “College Admissions Is Already Broken. What Will Happen If Affirmative Action Is Overturned?” The Hechinger Report, October 11, 2022. https://hechingerreport.org/college-admissions-is-already-broken-what-will-happen-if-the-affirmative-action precedent-is-overturned/.

AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL POLICY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

A Framework

by Tyler Clark

As we delve through the 21st century, one thing has become increasingly apparent to Americans over the past three years: the control we have over our increasingly complex supply chain is nowhere near the level we believed it to be. With biological threats like COVID-19, natural disasters, and political strife ripe around the globe, supply chains are more fragile than ever. The closing of businesses, shuttering of transportation services, and political issues have left supply markets ravaged by undersupply and scarcity, leading to higher prices and long lead times. As supply chain issues will likely occur again, a peculiar question arises for the United States economy: Should the US adopt a broader industrial policy to cope with the increasing interconnectedness of supply chains with cyber-networks, national security, and economic innovation & prosperity? This article seeks to argue that through increased industrial policy, with recent policy examples, the United States can secure its trade & supply chains, rebuild the American manufacturing core, and protect its intellectual property & innovation in manufacturing. The following solutions could help reduce the burden: introducing research initiatives and departments for supply chain management, security, & operations research, enacting various ‘Factory’ bills to ensure manufacturing prowess in various sectors, and encouraging innovation by preventing foreign economic espionage in the industrial sector.

Supply Chain Crisis

For the past three years, natural disasters and weather anomalies have

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

greatly threatened American supply chains. Global chlorine prices were affected when a fire occurred at a chlorine plant in Texas in early 2020. Hurricane Laura ravaged one of Westlake Chemical’s plants, a global supplier of petrochemical and Chlor-alkali materials for critical consumer and industrial industries, causing over $170 million in damages. With many Chlor-Alkali plants not constructed to withstand the freezing temperatures of early 2021, U.S. production capacity fell by 80 percent. In recent years, there have been numerous chemical plant explosions and mishaps in Texas, driven by large hurricanes, freezing winter temperatures, and power outages.

Cyberattacks on civilian businesses and government agencies by foreign state actors have also damaged the United States supply chain. For example, attacks like the May 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, suspected to be conducted by the group ‘DarkSide,’ hired by the Russian government, and the 2020 US Government data breach, which led to the expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats,

have exposed weaknesses in American cyber defense and its connection with our supply chains. These examples underscore the vitality of enacting adequate measures to protect the supply chain and the data of the American people.

Department of Supply Chain Management

By establishing a Department of Supply Chain Management, the United States government can ensure an integrated and robust network. To provide insight to its intended audience, the department should develop a stress test to test threats and potential incapacitations of the supply chain rigorously. A stress test set to pinpoint fundamental supply chain inefficiencies would enable businesses and organizations with a responsive network to quickly eliminate disruptions. Smaller companies will reap the benefits of access to vital information on market conditions by establishing a national standard for developing robust supply chain networks. Access to this information will prevent the bullwhip effect, an instance of mismanagement where a company over or under-corrects for demand, leading to a spiraling result in the supply chain. Recent presidents have proved their willingness to dabble in industrial policy with massive investments during the Trump administration, such as the National Quantum Initiative Act and the signing of the US, Canada, and Mexico Agreement (USCMA), and the continued interest of the Biden administration with the CHIPS and Science Act. However, a stress test has

yet to be conceived, even for the federal government or military-industrial complex. By developing a readily available and comprehensive supply chain stress-test and response procedure, companies can structure their operations around different scenarios, such as biological threats, terrorism, or nuclear disasters.

With a government department for oversight, companies could rely on enhanced systems integration, allowing for easier transactions and sharing of information crucial for supply chains. In addition, the department would allow federal organizations and institutions to adopt a uniform means of procurement, shipment, and transportation. In turn, it would simplify these organizations and allow them to focus on their essential functions rather than trying to secure their supply chains. As an extension of its creation, DoSCM would provide a magnitude of credibility to the field of supply chain management & logistics. In turn, the industry would become more standardized and scrutinized by the eye of the government, much like the financial services industry. Standardizing routes amongst modes of transportation, measurements, and codes, would allow companies to interact on the supply chain network without relying on incompatible data or proprietary methods of operation. In addition to this uniformity, a DoSCM would give more credibility to supply chain management, something the industry has long needed. A DoSCM could help implement new methods of supply chain construction, consolidation, standardization, and security by creating a strong department with adequate personnel and functions. Yet, Congress is not convinced about the severity of the situation. In recent legislation known as the US Innovation and Competition Act S.1260 (USICA), only $10 billion was dedicated to creating a supply chain crisis response program and regional technology hubs. This pales in comparison to the over $100 billion dedicated to research and development (R&D) into new technologies aimed at competing with China. This act eventually became the CHIPS and Science Act, which allocated over $300 billion towards the industrial and manufacturing sectors, but a measly

$500 million to the Department of State to coordinate with foreign governments on semiconductor supply chain security Biden’s Build Back Better Act of 2022, a $3.5 trillion dollar infrastructure bill, surprisingly had no specific or significant allocation of funds toward supply chain issues, something that feels like a missed opportunity. This showcases Congress’s willingness to flirt with industrial policy, but it also shows us that supply chain issues are still not a focus when allocating funds.

A Factory Bill

During the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933. He continued with

an updated bill in 1938, stipulating that the legislation must be revised and updated every five years, a practice still kept by Congress today. This series of bills is known as the Farm Bill, a collection of legislation providing subsidies, training, and technological prowess to American farmers. While the discussion of agricultural policy is to be left to my colleagues, I feel that a similar bill tailored to American manufacturing, branded as a ‘Factory’ Bill, an idea presented by Keith Belton, would provide American industry with necessary revitalization. By following the Farm Bill and featuring mandatory reintroduction every five years, the American government can actively fill essential gaps in its manufacturing base. This series of bills would provide funds for industrial R&D, best practices for supply chain management, and coordinate industrial efforts in the US without creating a new government agency or department, something that many Republican lawmakers would scrutinize. Considering the role industrial policy plays in other advanced economies, it is becoming safer to assume that members of both parties will come together for increased industrial policy support.

The US saw its first post-COVID industrial policy boom in 2021 when the 116th Congress passed the USICA S.1260, a bill designed to help solidify an American manufacturing base for microchips and circuit boards, two commodities essential to the production of technology, automotive, and defense products. This act passed with bipartisan support and paved the way for the America COMPETES Act of 2022, which passed Congress with a narrow majority. These acts eventually merged to become the CHIPS and Science Act, but the amount of time spent formulating a response, especially when support was largely positive for the legislature, shows that compromise can be tedious even for relief efforts. This indicates there is a lot of progress to come for bipartisan support. Republicans especially need to start realizing the merits of leveraging industrial policy into crafting a strong American state and how beneficial it can be for their own platform. Funding of over $100 billion was allocated to federal investments in

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc

" ... provide American industry with necessary revitalization "

domestic quantum computing, advanced industrial capabilities, and semiconductor R&D and manufacturing provisions laid out in the CHIPS and Science Act. This penultimate industrial policy legislation passed in 2022. All of this investment is directly aimed at competing with China, a nation known for its aggressive and substantial industrial policy. Industrial competition with China has become a necessary evil, as China has consolidated its security alongside its economic prowess, allowing both industries to mingle and share practices and technologies.

Expanding upon recent instances of industrial policy in legislation, such as the NDAA in 2021 and 2022, the USICA, the CHIPS Act, and the formation of the USCMA, will be necessary for the coming years for the US. Considering the strategic implications of leaving the US military’s procurement efforts to single-source contracts, many of which are with foreign companies (including Chinese chemical producers that effectively monopolized the production of chemicals necessary for American missiles), an industrial policy must take on an increasing role in national security. Expanded legislation should include rigorous measures to counter corporate espionage in American companies conducted by foreign adversaries. Some solutions would be efforts to counter the acquisition of American companies by foreign institutions and by providing incentives for reshoring for the sake of securing stable domestic producers of essential components (such as machine tools, semiconductors, etc.) and commodities. To increase the competitiveness of American companies on the international stage, a Factory Bill would require the government to provide updates to necessary processes every five years. This dynamism would allow the manufacturing core to adapt to the grand scheme of the market, give ample opportunities for investment outside of just providing subsidies, and habitually reinforce efforts to create a resilient and capable supply chain.

Securing American Industry

Since the mid-1980s, American manufacturers have been prime foreign

espionage and acquisition targets. In the 1980s, a decrease in domestic manufacturing saw the US tumble in levels of innovative products, but as American companies introduced dozens of new technologies throughout the early and mid-1990s, this changed. As many entrepreneurs in America started to move into digital entrepreneurship, such as software development and digital services, manufacturers often began to lag. As these manufacturers, such as Radio Corporation of America (RCA), moved their domestic production abroad, foreign manufacturers started to take advantage of the manufacturing process to reengineer American-made products. This control of the manufacturing process has allowed companies like Sony and Samsung to be at the forefront of manufacturing prowess and innovation, leading to the creation of affordable LCD televisions and continuous improvements to smartphone technology, respectively.

Preventative measures to curb corporate espionage would be to implement many of the programs previously discussed. By developing a robust standard for supply chain management, there would be little benefit in companies disrupting the network, especially knowing the domino effect impacting their networking. Educating employees on the facets of corporate espionage is key, as many have no idea about the practice. Investing heavily in cybersecurity and ensuring that employees are following proper procedures when dealing with sensitive corporate information should be standard practice in the US. Yet, this is still not the case, as the US is experiencing frequent information skirmishes with countries like Russia and China. In 2018, Idaho-based Micron Technology Inc. was involved in a case where three Chinese nationals were accused of conspiring and stealing up to $8.75 billion in trade secrets from the company. In the same year, federal prosecutors had rounded up Chinese intelligence members and hackers that were accused of trying to steal information on commercial jet engines in the US. Micron Technology could have escaped this fate, but when its disheveled employees decided it was time to head

html 7Promnick,Genna 2017 “CyberEconomicEspionage:CorporateTheftandtheNewPatriotAct

https://repository uchastings edu/hastings science technology law journal/vol9/iss1/3

out of the US and back to a competitor in Taiwan, he downloaded over 900 proprietary and confidential files from Micron’s server to a personal cloud server and hard drives. This lack of information security allowed Chen Zhengku, He Jiantng, and Wang Yungming to divulge this information to mainland China’s Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co., which subsequently went on to mass produce the stolen microchip technology at a brand new $5.7 billion factory in China, severely impacting American microchip manufacturing and causing over $9 billion in trade secrets to be leaked to China.

Modern Counterespionage

While the US is able to protect against economic espionage, perhaps more legislation is needed to ensure that the consequences of conducting these acts are harsher. The last time the US government enacted broad economic espionage legislation was in 1996 with the Economic Espionage Act. This act stipulates that any act of economic espionage conducted against a company in the US is punishable with up to a $5,000,000 fine and up to ten years of imprisonment. While this may have been a suitable punishment before the Information Age, the information world has come a long way since the 1990s, and the act should be vigorously updated with better defensive capabilities and optimized network structures to reflect the different aspects of this stage of the information era. By incorporating defensive cyber capabilities into the framework of our economics, we can successfully bridge any means of modern economic warfare.

Genna Prominck presents in Cyber Economic Espionage: Corporate Theft and the New Patriot Act just how different cyber economic espionage is from traditional espionage, and presents that radical changes must be added to the Economic Espionage Act for it to protect companies from modern cyber attacks and espionage.

In order for the US to continue on in the 21st century it needs to define the future landscape of the economy, supply chains, and cybersecurity. With modern technology and information warfare, these three assets can be weaponized against average citizens to wreak havoc and cause disruption, and the US must be prepared for it on a policy and organizational level.

Bibliography

117th Congress. 2021. “S.1260 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): United States Innovation and ...” Congress.gov. US Congress. 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260.

117th Congress. 2022. “The Chips and Science Act: House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.” Science.house.gov. The Committee On Science Space and Technology. 2022. https://science.house.gov/chipsandscienceact.

Barnes, Mitchell, Lauren Bauer, and Wendy Edelberg. 2022. “11 Facts on the Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Brookings. Brookings Institute. March 9, 2022.https://www.brookings.edu/research/11-facts-on-the-economic-recovery-from-the covid-19-pandemic/.

Belton, Keith B. 2021. “The Emerging American Industrial Policy.” American Affairs, Fall 2021, V (3): 15–16.

Biden, Joseph R. 2022. “Economic Report of the President 2022.” Chapter 3 The U.S. Economy and the Global Pandemic. Government Publishing Office. 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Chapter3.pdf.

“CPI Home.” n.d. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

“Crushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB.” n.d. Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price Fob (Dollars per Barrel). US Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcD.htm.

House Armed Services Committee. 2021. “Summary of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 .”

https://Armedservices.house.gov/_cache/Files/4/c/4c91c1c0-d977-46bb-9a4b

3c0d4775ffbb/546820DB78FA2323E6833ED24BF23412.fy21-Ndaa-Chairman-s-Mark-Summary-Vfinal.pdf . United States House of Representatives. 2021.

Hume, Robert. 2021. “US Chlor-Alkali Supplies to Be Impacted after Westlake Chemical Declares Another Force Majeure.” Chem Analyst. Techschi Research. June 4, 2021. https://www.chemanalyst.com/NewsAndDeals/NewsDetails/us-chlor-alkali-suppliesto-be-impacted-after-westlake-chemical-declares-another-force-majeure-6581.

Mason, J. Derek, Gerald J. Mossinghoff, and David A. Oblon. 1999. “The Economic Espionage Act: Federal Protection for Corporate Trade Secrets.” Oblon. March 1999. https://www.oblon.com/publications/the-economic-espionage-act-federal-protection-for corporate-trade-secrets.

Nagle, Peter. 2020. “The Oil Market Outlook: Lasting Scars from the Pandemic.” World Bank Blogs. World Bank. October 27, 2020. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/oil-market-outlook-lasting-scars-pandemic.

Nakashima, Ellen, and Craig Timberg. 2020. “Russian Government Hackers Are behind a Broad Espionage Campaign That Has Compromised U.S. Agencies, Including Treasury and Commerce.” The Washington Post. WP Company. December 14, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/russian-government-spies-are-behind-a-broad-hacking-campaign-that-has breached-us-agencies-and-a-top-cyber-firm/2020/12/13/d5a53b88-3d7d-11eb-9453-fc36ba051781_story.html.

Promnick, Genna. 2017. “Cyber Economic Espionage: Corporate Theft and the New Patriot Act.” Hastings and Technology Law Journal 9 (1): 88–111. (Winter 2017). https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_science_technology_law_journal/vol9/iss1/3. Saeed, Hira. 2021. “Chlor-Alkali: 2021 Review and Outlook for 2022.” Orbichem. December 16, 2021.

https://www.orbichem.com/blog/chlor-alkali-2021-review-and-outlook-for-2022.

Saefong, Myra P. 2021. “Oil Prices Went Negative a Year Ago: Here's What Traders Have Learned Since.” MarketWatch. April 19, 2021. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-prices-went-negative-a-year-ago-heres-what-traders-have-learned-since 11618863839.

Sanger, David E., Clifford Krauss, and Nicole Perlroth. 2021. “Cyberattack Forces a Shutdown of a Top U.S. Pipeline.” The New York Times. The New York Times. May 8, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/us/politics/cyberattack-colonial-pipeline.html. Temple-Raston, Dina. 2021. “China's Microsoft Hack May Have Had a Bigger Purpose than Just Spying.” NPR. NPR. August 26, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1013501080/chinas-microsoft-hack-may-have-had-a-bigger-purpose-than-just-spying.

Tucker, Eric. 2018. “US Charges China-Controlled Company in Trade Secrets Theft.” AP NEWS. Associated Press. November 1, 2018. https://apnews.com/article/technology-politics-business-ap-top-news-china-848ef01221ea4316903f525a6ae2ddce.

Bibliography

Tucker, Eric. 2021. “US Expels Russian Diplomats, Imposes Sanctions for Hacking.” AP NEWS. Associated Press. April 16, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/us-expel-russia-diplomats-sanctions-6a8a54c7932ee8cbe51b0ce505121995.

Turton, William, and Kartikay Mehrotra. 2021. “Colonial Pipeline Cyber Attack: Hackers Used Compromised Password.”

Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. June 4, 2021. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-04/hackers-breached-colonial pipeline-using-compromised-password.

United States of America V. United Microelectronics Corporation, et. al. 2018 justice.gov

1–10. United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Wendland, Tegan. 2021. “Chemical Company to Spend $170m Rebuilding Westlake Chlorine Plant Damaged by Hurricane Laura.” WWNO. WWNO. June 30, 2021. https://www.wwno.org/coastal-desk/2021-06-30/chemical-company-to-spend-170m-rebuilding westlake-chlorine-plant-damaged-by-hurricane-laura.

Inflation and the Economy

Famous British economist Friedrich Hayek once said, “history is largely a history of inflation.” From the Roman to Ottoman Empires, the core of governmental collapse for centuries has inflation as the root cause. An increase in food prices, housing costs, and a decrease in wages are all indicators of an inflationary problem. These issues effect Americans as a whole, reaching marginalized communities the most, leading to a decrease in quality of life and ultimately societal unrest. Seeing the fallout of prior economics crises people begin to worry at the prospect a recession and what it could mean for the nation in general. But let’s not be dramatic; the United States currently has the most robust economy in the world– for now.

Early in his administration, President Biden promised to pass the Build Back Better Bill (BBB), a piece of legislation reminiscent of his campaign slogan. The bill promised improvement on various issues such as access to public health, clean energy, and Medicare costs– all key issues in President Biden's agenda. Even with Democratic control of the chamber, the bill was struck down on the Senate floor over excessive spending concerns. In response, Biden helped draft the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), in an effort to address the nation's economic woes. The IRA follows the same blueprint as Build Back Better but focuses on the economy, climate change, and healthcare, accompanied by less spending. Further analysis, however, reveals that the Inflation Reduction Act will have a negligible effect on inflation while assisting greatly in climate reform.

THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT

Pluses, Problems, and Policy

by Cameron Doherty

In recent years, the Coronavirus Pandemic wreaked havoc on the US economy and left us facing an inflationary crisis, with rates hovering around 8.5 percent. The Oxford Dictionary defines inflation as “a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.” When published in excess, the United States Dollar (USD), as printed by the United States Mint, becomes more commonplace in the market and, therefore, less valuable.

nationwide. Inflation results from a domino effect in which the PPI determines the CPI, which changes the GDP. A higher CPI means fewer people can spend money which negatively impacts GDP and vice versa. GDP is represented by a GDP deflator which is the ratio of the value of goods produced to the market value of those products.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The value decrease of the USD means that manufacturers must pay more to import goods, stores pay more to stock their shelves, and consumers pay more to make up for the difference. The most apparent price difference occurs when comparing the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Producer Price Index (PPI). CPI is the price that the consumer pays and PPI is the price that it takes to make the item. The differing price indexes impact the United States' gross domestic profit (GDP), which is the amount of money being spent by consumers

1JosephBidenranontheslogan BuildBackBetter duringhis2020presidentialcampaign

A nation's economic stability is typically determined by its GDP, meaning a drop in GDP creates an international image of economic decline for the United States. Early in his administration, President Biden promised to pass the Build Back Better Bill (BBB), a piece of legislation reminiscent of his campaign slogan. The bill promised improvement on various issues such as access to public health, clean energy, and Medicare costs– all key issues in President Biden's agenda. Even with Democratic control of the chamber, the bill was struck down on the Senate floor over excessive spending concerns. In response, Biden helped draft the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), in an effort to address the nation's economic woes. The IRA follows the same blueprint as Build Back Better but focuses on the economy, climate change, and healthcare, accompanied by less spending. The truth, however, is that the Inflation Reduction Act will have a negligible effect on inflation while assisting greatly in climate reform.

The Politics of Inflation

Of course, any issue regarding the economy in the United States becomes the forefront of the political scope. The heightened focus comes from the major role the economy plays in the everyday life

2AccessedOctober23rd,2022,inflationnoun-Definition,pictures,pronunciationandusagenotes|OxfordAdvancedLearner'sDictionaryatOxfordLearnersDictionaries com

3JosephBidenranontheslogan“BuildBackBetter”duringhis2020presidentialcampaign

of all Americans universally, giving leeway to parties to use its importance as political ammo. Republican pundits argue that the act is a waste of money and will increase inflation over time. Conversely, Democratic pundits claim that the IRA is a great way to boost the economy and push for climate reform.

Conservatives predominantly point to Biden and his believed to be reckless spending policy as the cause of inflation. They note his decision to shut down pipelines in the United States and rely more heavily on imported oil rather than domestic oil. Right-leaning political leaders believe this dependence on foreign goods is weighing the most heavily on inflation. Alternatively, Democrats shift the blame toward the conflict in Ukraine. Ever since the outbreak of the war, Putin has shut down the sale of oil to the international community. Biden and many other topranking democrats have described this action as a significant factor in increased oil prices, otherwise known as the “Putin Price Hike.” Furthermore, they point to the previous Trump administration and his economic policy as the reason for sub-par economic growth.

Typically, the Democratic side of the political aisle refers to the income system as an indicator of how to solve inflation. For the income system, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a federal institution that uses a series of brackets determine income tax. From there, each citizen falls within a tax bracket that determines how much of their income is collected by the IRS. Left-leaning thinkers believe that the most appropriate course of action to generate more money in the economy is to “tax the rich,” a common slogan of the democratic party. Alternatively, Republican pundits and politicians propose a system of tax cuts for middle and lower-income families, as well as Fortune 500 corporations. The focus on tax cuts as a form of economic policy is known as “Trickle-Down” or Supply-Side Economics. As popularized by popular President Ronald Reagan (R), it would provide businesses with the “...necessary capital so as to create jobs.” As a result, Republicans believe that tax cuts would put more money into the pockets of

consumers, allowing them to spend more. An increase in spending leads to a rise in GDP and ultimately greater spending power of the US dollar. Regardless of which party's policy is correct, they cannot come to a common consensus. The partisan conflict of ideas is where the problem lies in the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Joe Biden and the IRA

The Biden Administration came into the White House with a vast and distinct set of goals in mind: COVID-19, the Climate crisis, improving the Economy, Racial Equality, Health Care, the Migrant Crisis, and the Restoration of America on the international stage. As a less radical version of Biden’s Build Backer Better Bill, the IRA achieves most of those goals.

President Biden claims that the act will create “good-paying union jobs that will help reduce emissions across every sector of our economy.” He believes creating jobs protected under unions will ensure safe employment for many Americans. More people working creates more cash flow and a general increase in production. He believes his policy will act as a way to “revitalize” American manufacturing and bring it out of its COVID-induced comatose state. Additionally, Biden cites the tax code, the model by which the IRS levies taxes. Lobbying to make the code “fairer by cracking down on millionaires, billionaires, and corporations that evade their obligations, and making sure the largest corporations pay their fair share.” The concept is the platform Biden ran on during the 2020 presidential election, claiming no family making under 400,000 dollars annually will pay a penny in taxes. Additionally, this proposal aligns with democratic beliefs, with notable representatives like Alexandria OcasioCortez, calling for this action for years.

Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act will follow in the footsteps of former President Barack Obama, under whom Joe Biden was Vice President. President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act during his administration, greatly decreasing healthcare costs. In a similar light, Biden is looking to cut prescription drug prices “...by phasing in a cap for out-

4Anexperiencedpersoninagivenareathatislookedtoasareferenceforpublicopinion

of-pocket costs and establishing a 35 dollar cap for a month’s supply of insulin,” while also extending health insurance premium subsidies for individuals protected under the Affordable Care Act.

Coverage

Media coverage has mixed opinions relating to the Inflation Reduction Act, with polarized opinions perpetuating party lines. Left-leaning outlets, such as CNN, have primarily highlighted the positives of the IRA, while right-leaning outlets, like Fox, focus heavily on the negatives. Both perspectives, however, agree on the need for an improved economy. Due to increased gas prices and food costs, many citizens have begun to notice, thus sending Americans to media outlets on their search for answers. The two parties that dominate the media, however, differ on who is to blame for this price increase. Republican pundits link the blame solely to Biden and his policies around inflation. Outlets like Politico point out the “potential crisis” in the job market awaiting Joe Biden if he continues with his economic policy. Furthermore, nonpartisan outlets like the Economic Policy Institute have analyzed the effect that the exportation of jobs to foreign nations has on American labor. Alternatively, Democrats shift the blame towards the conflict in Ukraine. Most notably, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre citing not only the European conflict but the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic as well: “It is caused by clearly the once in a generation pandemic that we are coming out of and also most recently the war that Putin has started in Ukraine.” Ever since the outbreak of the war, Putin has shut down the sale of oil to the international community. Biden and many other topranking democrats have described this action as a major factor in increased oil prices. Furthermore, they point to the previous Trump administration and his economic policy as the reason for sub-par economic growth.

In addition, Republicans are beginning to take note of the massive spending that is present in the rest of the bill. Biden promises billions of dollars in health care and climate reform, while simultaneously attempting to combat inflation. Such concerns have many people pointing the finger at Biden for

5InFebruaryof2022,Russia,underthecontrolofPresidentVladimirPutin,invadedthesovereignnationofUkraineinhopesofAnnexingtheterritory Intheprocess,PutincutoffvitalsupplylinesofoilfromRussiatotheworld

6March10th,2022“BidenBlames PutinsPriceHike forInflationSpike ”https://thehill com/homenews/administration/597675-biden-blames-putins-price-hike-for-high-inflation/

7September13th,2021 AOCwears‘TaxtheRichdresstoMetGala AOCwears TaxtheRich dresstoMetGala(nypost com)

8April14th,2009 PresidentReaganaddressestheNationontheEconomy

Economy:PresidentReagansAddresstotheNationontheEconomy2/5/81-YouTube [13:57-14:04]

9April22,2022 FactSheet:PresidentBidensetsonCleanEnergyTechnologies

FACTSHEET:PresidentBidenSets2030GreenhouseGasPollutionReductionTargetAimedatCreatingGood-PayingUnionJobsandSecuringU S LeadershiponCleanEnergyTechnologies|TheWhiteHouse Page1 10February24th,2022 TheBiden-HarrisPlantoRevitalizeAmericanManufacturing TheBiden-HarrisPlantoRevitalizeAmericanManufacturingandSecureCriticalSupplyChainsin2022|TheWhiteHouse Page1 11January28th,2023 TheLaborMarketMessAwaitingJoeBiden https://www politico com/news/2020/11/25/biden-labor-market-jobs-440498 12June17th,2022

concerns regarding a recession. ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood, explicitly told CNBC, “we are in a recession.”

Conversely, President Biden’s Treasury Secretary argues that she “sees no sign of a recession.” Joe Biden himself cites a strong labor market and the addition of a record number of jobs in 2022 alone as a sign of a strong economy. Regardless, economists appear to have come to a consensus that the United States is either in, or approaching, a recession.

Political Implications

With an approval rating hovering around 42 percent, President Biden finds difficulty in striking a chord with voters. The catalyst for his lack of popularity predominantly comes from increasing inflation numbers. Edison Polling suggests that nearly a third of voters believe that inflation is the most critical issue when voting. In 2021, the Census Bureau found that the median household income was approximately 70,700 dollars, statistically similar to the house hold income in 2020, however, with a noticeable increase in income inequality.

In spite of voter concerns, the democratic party made out well in the 2022 midterm elections, overcoming promises of a “red wave.” Republican pickups were few and far between, giving President Biden the best midterm outcome of any president since President Bush in 2002. Biden was successful despite the general publics' lack of faith in his ability to reduce inflation. The night, however, was not entirely free of concern for the Democrat Party.

The state which saw the biggest pickup for Joe Biden was Pennsylvania, who did not have a single seat flip in the House and saw Lt. Governor John Fetterman (D) defeat Mehmet Oz for the vacant senate seat by a margin of over 200,000. Conversely, Democrats lost big in Florida, having Republicans pick up three seats in the House of Representatives and seeing the Senate, Governor, and Attorney General races all decided by a margin of about 1.5 million. Florida is a state that Joe Biden lost by a margin of only 350,000 in 2020. It has become a Republican

stronghold and most likely lost its status as a swing state. The cause of these mixed results comes primarily from fluctuating gas prices nationally. The cost of crude oil peaked at almost 120 dollars a barrel in June 2022, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Such increases have many voters experiencing significant financial problems at the pump.

Furthermore, average American households continue to struggle to budget for food. With the CPI rising, essential goods, such as bread, meat, and cheeses, are rising. The public economic strife reflects poorly on the Biden administration's economic policy, leaving voters split regarding trusting the IRA to reduce inflation. However, his success on election night has Joe Biden looking towards 2024.

closing of North American oil pipelines while supporting European pipelines. Either way, Joe Biden will need to find a way to garner support if he hopes to keep his reelection dreams alive.

According to Pew Research Center, some of the top issues among voters are the economy, health care, and energy policy, all of which the IRA addresses. A good place for Joe Biden to start is by clarifying what the bill says. At a point in time when the American people are swarmed with multiple sources of information, all reporting contradicting facts, it is difficult to know what the contents of the bill actually are.

IRA by the Numbers

The Inflation Reduction Act is a whopping 700-plus pages long and has a budget of 669 billion dollars. So the question remains, where is that money going? The bill plans to invest 300 billion into deficit reduction and 369 billion into clean energy investments, such as solar panels and windmill fields.

Floating the idea of a potential bid for re-election in two years, this rewriting of the political map could spell trouble for President Biden. The most likely matchups for the presidency are either Biden and Florida governor Ron Desantis (R) or a rematch against Former President Donald Trump. Both have been equally critical of Biden's handling of inflation. During a speech in early June, Governor Desantis said that if he could change the course of history, he “would just do the opposite of what Biden has done.”

Former President Trump told Fox News that the “biggest fear” for inflation is “no energy,” further claiming “we have no oil.” Trump continues by reiterating the republican belief that the lack of domestic energy independence is due to Biden’s

Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act will make the largest amendment to the Clean Air Act of 1963 since 1990 by “reinforcing the Environmental Protection Agency’s long-standing responsibility to address climate pollution while giving the agency new tools and new funding to protect communities,” according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Senate Democrats agree that the IRA will “reduce carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030” and further President Biden's goal to cut emissions in half by 2030. The IRA will also create millions of jobs in clean energy and manufacturing, allowing the United States to reassert itself into the clean energy market.

Source: sendstory co

Source: Created by Author using Information from Inflation Reduction Act One Page Summary

Of the 369 billion dollars towards climate reform, the bill will allocate more than 200 billion dollars toward clean energy tax credits. For instance, promoting renewable resources such as solar and wind power as an alternative to fossil fuels. The White House believes this change will result in a net positive in terms of fuel costs for the average American household. Furthermore, 60 billion dollars will be put towards combating pollution in affected communities with an additional 21 billion dollars to support farmers, cut emissions, and ramp up food production.

On the other hand, the Inflation Reduction Act focuses on reducing the deficit. The deficit references the recent historical trend of the U.S. going over budget and putting the nation further in debt. Senate Democrats estimate 739 billion in revenue from the new IRA tax policy, relatively 15 percent of the United States annual budget. The primary source of income comes from the minimum 15 percent corporate tax rate projected to bring in 313 billion annually. According to Forbes, part of the tax reform is the further funding of the IRS, which will receive an additional 80 billion dollars in funding. The White House believes this increased funding will allow the organization to prospectively bring in 124 billion dollars over the next 100 years. Senate Democrats estimate 300 billion dollars in deficit reduction.

In terms of health care, the Inflation Reduction Act will offer an extension of 64 billion dollars to the Affordable Care Act, focusing on prescription drug costs. Pricing reform surrounding pharmaceuticals is said to bring in approximately 288 billion dollars by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The Biden administration also plans to negotiate further drug reform through 2025.

The problem, however, lies with inflation. Early studies suggest the Inflation Reduction Act could, contrary to its namesake, have little to no effect on inflation in the coming years. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, there is “low confidence” the IRA will affect inflation, as Forbes reported. The CBO estimates the act will affect inflation by a margin of

0.1 percent in either direction, positively or negatively. Conversely, the CBO believes the bill will reduce the deficit by approximately 100 billion dollars over the next ten years, roughly 4 percent of the current deficit spending.

Where to Go From Here

The Inflation Reduction Act has become the crowning achievement of the Biden administration. In every way, the IRA fully encompasses Joe Biden's Build Back Better agenda. From the economy to climate change, the IRA is undoubtedly the most influential piece of legislation passed by this administration. The bill, however, is not perfect and, despite its best intentions, will do little to assist the average American family in the battle against inflation. While the IRA may not necessarily make inflation rates increase, it certainly will not reduce them, as the name implies. In spite of this, the bill heavily emphasizes climate reform, placing billions of dollars to improve the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the atmosphere. Additionally, the IRA aims to create jobs in achieving this green agenda while decreasing drug prices for the average American family.

The problems surrounding the Inflation Reduction Act lie not just within its policy. Due to the array of differing coverage surrounding the state of the economy, it is no wonder that the average American has no idea what the IRA actually says. The mainstream media has become polarized into a partisan divide with little bi-partisan consensus. It has reached a point where the American people need the facts, absent the opinions of media personalities. They need a way to look past the partisan divide and create independent conclusions. Looking at a congressional approval rating of 18 percent as of May 2022, according to Gallup, and an equally poor presidential approval rating, the country needs to find a way to rebound politically. Joe Biden can start by playing off of his successes in the midterm elections and becoming a voice of clarity in a sea of information. He needs to find a way to report the facts as they are laid out and give the American people confidence again. Not only is the office of the Presidency on the line, but the faith we place in the government as well.

Bibliography

Bivens, Joshe. “Trade, Jobs, and Wages.” Economic Policy Institute, May 6, 2008. https://www.epi.org/publication/ib244/ CBS Miami. “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Rips into Biden on Inflation, Gas Prices.” CBS News. CBS Interactive, June 16, 2022.

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-gov-ron-desantis-blames-biden-high-gas-prices-inflation/ Chen, Shawna. “Treasury Secretary Yellen Says She Doesn't See Signs of Recession in near Future.” Axios, October 28, 2022. https://www.axios.com/2022/10/28/recession-janet-yellen-economic-growth

“CNBC Transcript: Ark Invest Founder & CEO Cathie Wood Speaks with CNBC's ‘TechCheck’ Today.” CNBC. CNBC, August 19, 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/cnbc-transcript-ark-invest-founder-ceo-cathie-wood-speaks-with-cnbcs-techcheck today.html

Gallup. “Presidential Approval Ratings -- Joe Biden.” Gallup.com. Gallup, January 25, 2023. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329384/presidential-approval-ratings-joe-biden.aspx

Gangitano, Alex. “Biden Blames 'Putin's Price Hike' for Inflation Spike.” The Hill. The Hill, March 10, 2022. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597675-biden-blames-putins-price-hike-for-high-inflation/

Kollar, Jessica Semega and Melissa. “Increase in Income Inequality Driven by Real Declines in Income at the Bottom.” Census.gov. United States Census Bureau, September 13, 2022. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/09/income-inequality increased.html

Mann, Thomas E. “The 2002 U.S. Midterm Elections.” Brookings. Brookings, July 28, 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the 2002-u-s-midterm-elections/

Murdock, Deroy. “The Inflation Reduction Act Will Ramp up Inflation, Oppress Americans and Make Them Sick and Poor.” Fox News. FOX News Network, December 3, 2022. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/inflation-reduction-act-ramp-up-inflation-oppress americans-sick-poor

Qiu, Linda. “Republicans Wrongly Blame Biden for Rising Gas Prices.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 9, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/us/politics/fact-check-republicans-biden-gas.html

Rainy, Rebecca. “The Labor Market Mess Awaiting Joe Biden.” POLITICO. Politico. Accessed January 25, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/25/biden-labor-market-jobs-440498

Senate Democrats. “Fact Sheet: The Inflation Reduction Act Supports Workers and Families.” The White House. The United States Government, September 20, 2022. https://www.democrats.senate.gov/about-senate-dems/dpcc/press-releases/fact-sheet-the inflation-reduction-act-is-already-unleashing-a-new-generation-of-american-manufacturing

Senate Democrats. “Summary: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 - Senate.” Senate Democrats, September 2, 2022.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/inflation_reduction_act_one_page_summary.pdf

Sobel, Adam. “Opinion: The Inflation Reduction Act Is a Huge Victory in This Existential Fight.” CNN. Cable News Network, August 13, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/opinions/climate-victory-inflation-reduction-act-sobel/index.html

The White House. “By the Numbers: The Inflation Reduction Act.” The United States Government, August 15, 2022.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/15/by-the-numbers-the-inflation-reduction-act/ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Cushing, OK WTI spot price fob (dollars per barrel). U.S. Government, January 25, 2023.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/RWTCD.htm

United States Congress. “Fact Sheet: The Inflation Reduction Act Is Already Unleashing a New Generation of American Manufacturing: Senate Democratic Leadership.” FACT SHEET: The Inflation Reduction Act ... | The Senate Democratic Caucus. Senate Democrats, September 2, 2022.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/19/fact-sheet-the inflation-reduction-act-supports-workers-and-families/

Walker, James. “Republicans Lay Ground for Battle in Congress over Biden Stimulus Plan.” Newsweek. Newsweek, January 15, 2021.

https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-attack-joe-biden-stimulus-plan-1561884

PROTESTS IN IRAN

As the preeminent superpower of the world, the US should use its power to protect human rights across the world.

Mahsa Amini was an Iranian woman of Kurdish descent who died of a supposed heart attack while under the custody of the morality police for the high crime of failing to wear a hijab. News of Amini’s death in September quickly went viral, leading to one of the largest waves of protestors in the short history of the Islamic Republic. Thousands of women and men have taken to the streets to express their outrage directly at the Iranian regime and conservative Sharia clerks. Immediately, these protests turned violent, and as of November 26th, Iranian police have killed over 448 people, including 63 children. These protests have spread to all regions of the country and represent people from all social classes.

To grant the Iranian people a haven from the current violence, the United States ought to designate the Islamic Republic of Iran as a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) eligible country. TPS is an immigration status that allows someone from a temporarily unstable country to seek refuge in the US. Though Iran has been a repressive country since the Iranian Revolution, this amount of statesponsored violence implores American involvement. Despite the desire for liberal democracy, protestors will be hardpressed to change the authoritarian regime in Iran. In the end, granting TPS to Iranian citizens is preferable to any other foreign policy strategy, including further sanctions or regime change, and should be prioritized above any other immigration-related measure.

1JonGambrell Analysis:IranProtestsPersist,BecomingThreatforTehran

A Peaceful American Response by

Though Iran is no stranger to protests, this specific movement has defied expectations with its ability to unite people across the country over women’s rights.

As explained by Mehdi Khalaji, the Libitzky Family Fellow at The Washington Institute, the purpose of these protests, “is neither economic nor an isolated political decision.” Yet, interestingly enough, the majority student-led movement was recently joined by oil refinery workers, a sharp change from previous movements which struggled to reach consensus amongst the people. While chanting a slogan that translates to, “Women, Life, Freedom,” protestors are targeting their outrage at the Iranian regime over the death of Amini. This movement is unique in its focus on the misogynistic policy within the country rather than economics or the broader political system.

As the movement began to fan out from Tehran, the Iranian regime grew impatient with the constant protests. On October 29th, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Chief (IRGC) came out and said that “this is the last day of protests,” implying that a more violent crackdown is on the horizon. Looking back on this, it has become self-evident that the Iranian regime has been unable to control the protests within the country. The IRG is a hybrid between a second army and a paramilitary association in Iran, whose sole purpose is the defense of the Iranian regime. Though the IRG can be used externally, this would be the

Tyler Matsumoto

equivalent of the President mobilizing the Marine Corps against American citizens.

As the protests continued to spiral out of control, the Iranian regime turned to a new tactic, charging protestors with a crime called ‘Corruption on Earth.’ This criminal charge is a kind of catch-all for anyone that directly opposes the Iranian regime and usually results in a death sentence. To intimidate the protestors, on December 8th, the Iranian regime executed a protestor by hanging him from a crane. Based on their actions, it is clear that the Iranian regime is beginning to fear for its survival as it employs nearly every strategy in its arsenal including killing peaceful protestors to restore its grip on power.

https://apnewscom/article/iran-middle-east-dubai-united-arab-emirates-tehran-fe1de90567e51ad6207fae5d2db56944 2KristendeGrootandFiroozehKashani-Sabet IranProtests,Explained”PennToday UniversityofPennsylvania,September29,2022 https://penntodayupennedu/news/iran-protests-explained

3TomPerryetal, EventsinIransinceMahsaAmini'sArrestandDeathinCustody”Reuters Reuters,December12,2022 https://wwwreuterscom/world/middle-east/events-iran-since-mahsa-aminis-arrest-death-custody-2022-10-05/ 4MehdiKhalaji “HowIransProtestsDifferfromPastMovements”TheWashingtonInstitute TheWashingtonInstitute,September28,2022 https://wwwwashingtoninstituteorg/policy-analysis/how-irans-protests-differ-past-movements

5FarnazFassihiandJaneArraf “ProtestsinIranSpread IncludingtoOilSector despiteViolentCrackdown”TheNewYorkTimes TheNewYorkTimes October12 2022 https://wwwnytimescom/2022/10/12/world/middleeast/iran-women-protestsstrikehtml

6SeymaBayramandDibaMohtasham “IransProtestersFindInspirationinaKurdishRevolutionarySlogan”NPR NPR,October27,2022 https://wwwnprorg/2022/10/27/1131436766/kurdish-roots-iran-protest-slogan

7MoazAbd-AlzizandMichaelGeorgy “IransGuardsHeadWarnsProtesters: TodayIsLastDayofRiots Reuters ThomsonReuters,October29,2022 https://wwwreuterscom/world/middle-east/irans-guards-head-tells-protesters-today-is-last-day-riots2022-10-29/ 8MiriamBerger “HowIransUniversitiesHaveBecometheCenterofaNationalUprising TheWashingtonPost WPCompany,November4,2022 https://wwwwashingtonpostcom/world/2022/11/04/iran-protests-students-hijab-amini/ 9JonGambrell IranExecution:ManPubliclyHangedfromCraneamidProtests TheHill TheHill,December12,2022 https://thehillcom/homenews/ap/ap-international/ap-second-iranian-detainee-executed-over-alleged-protest-crime/

Source: AFP via Getty Images

Historical Background

Following the 1979 Revolution, the Iranian government has been seen as a conservative theocracy but to fully understand Iranian society one must look beyond the authoritarian regime. Before the revolution itself, various reasons led to the Iranian people wanting to remove the Shah, including an economic downturn and the Shah’s support from the US. Revolutionaries were not united in their political beliefs; they only collaborated to expel the unpopular Shah. However, the regime that emerged post-revolution was only composed of a small faction that believed in the most strict interpretations of Islam, in turn creating a government that infringes on basic human rights.

While abridging a wide range of personal freedoms, one of the areas the new regime focused its cracked down on was women’s rights. The primary cause of this issue is the low level of representation women have in parliament and government as a whole. Especially related to issues in family law, women are not treated equally to men: women can only divorce their spouse if they can prove he is infertile or a drug addict, women need their spouses' permission to travel, and most relevant to the current protests, women are required to wear the hijab. Before the Revolution, women were treated relatively well but are now treated as second-class citizens.

Throughout the last fifty years, Iranian women have been at the heart of a movement to create a more modern and progressive Iran. Though feminism has been an ever-present voice within Iran, the 1980 War with Iraq presented an opportunity for women to move into spheres traditionally dominated by men. Similar to the 2nd wave of feminism within the US, which followed WWII, women played important roles in the homefront, leading to greater political influence. In 1990, women were elected to parliament in record numbers and also played a key role in getting Khatami, a reformer, elected as President. Though Khatami later shifted to become more conservative, this showcased a wider movement of liberalism within Iran. Women reached 50% of university students and the divorce rate

even increased. Today, women continue to be at the forefront of the push for a more liberal Iran, as shown through this current round of protests. However, despite their growing influence within Iranian politics, women have continued to be subjugated by the government, which refuses to protect any basic civil liberties.

Iranian Governmental Structure

Though this movement has been effective at getting western media attention, the protestors will struggle to enact longterm change within Iran. The Iranian regime is unique, even amongst other Islamic Republics in that it directly incorporates conservative religious figures into the highest levels of government. For context, Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia has a monarchy that supports Islam but does not directly include religious clerks within its government. Within Iranian governance, the most powerful executive figure is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who serves for life with “the final say on all political and religious matters”

and command of the armed forces. As shown in the diagram above, Khamenei has almost no formal checks on his power. But out of all his powers, the most important one is that Khamenei can dictate how much power the president has, as shown when he withdrew support of President Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy a few years ago. Though he is powerful, the Supreme Leader of Iran is not the only person supporting the conservative religious element in the Iranian government.

Despite the number of elected political leaders in Iran, including the president and parliament, these figures require ascent from the unelected Guardian Council. The Guardian Council combines six experts in Sharia law and six Islamic clerks who act “as a check on Iran’s democratic institutions.” Ironically, the Guardian Council must give its approval to all candidates running for parliament and president, meaning that the Guardian Council can select the exact leaders they are supposed to check. In the most recent presidential election, for instance, the Guardian Council only sanctioned seven out of six hundred registered candidates, preventing even a former president and a former speaker of parliament from running for office. This undemocratic, highly religious element of Iranian governance does not represent the people.

10ValentineMMoghadam WomenintheIslamicRepublicofIran:LegalStatus SocialPositions ”WilsonCenter WoodrowWilsonInternationalCenterforScholars AccessedDecember16 2022 https://wwwwilsoncenterorg/sites/default/files/media/documents/event/ValentineMoghadamFinalpdf

11ibid

12MajidMohammadi “IranianWomenandtheCivilRightsMovementinIran:FeminismInteracted”JournalofInternationalWomensStudies-BridgewaterStateUniversity BridgewaterStateUniversity,September2007 https://vcbridgewedu/cgi/viewcontentcgi? article 1285&context jiws

13Moghadam “WomenintheIslamicRepublicofIran:LegalStatus SocialPositions ”

14ibid

15Mohammadi IranianWomenandtheCivilRightsMovementinIran:FeminismInteracted”

16“Appendix:Iran’sGovernmentandCurrentPoliticalDivisions”CenterforAmericanProgress

Source: Center for American Progress

Consequently, it should be no surprise why the most recent presidential election had a decrease in turnout of roughly 25% compared to even the previous election. Even amongst elected offices, the Guardian Council and the most religious elements within the Iranian government can assert their will. The president-elect, Ebrahim Raisi, is noted for “his black turban [which] distinguishes him as a seyyed, or a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.” Though technically Raisi served as head of the country’s Sharia law-based judiciary, Raisi was probably approved because of his religious qualifications instead of his political expertise. Voters were only allowed to select which hardliner they wanted to back and were unable to truly express their will. Iran’s fusion of dictatorship with religion supports an illiberal political system that fails to respect basic human rights, including freedom of religion.

As shown through the structure of Iran’s government, any successful revolution necessitates a fundamental change in the balance of power between democratically elected offices and religious leaders. This is not a regime that can be changed quickly or easily, but given the violent crackdown against Iranian protestors, American intervention is necessary to prevent more suffering and loss of life. Of the many options on the table, the one the US should pursue is allowing Iranian citizens to seek safe harbor within the US. And the most effective way to help as many people as quickly as possible is TPS.

Preferable Immigration Plan

The US Citizenship and Immigration Service defines TPS as a “[designation] of a foreign country due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country's nationals from returning safely.” The list of eligible countries includes some that have been ravaged by war, like Afghanistan and Ukraine, and economically unstable countries, like Venezuela and Honduras. But one of the main reasons TPS is the best plan is within the name itself - temporary. TPS is not a permanent status, the hope is that a majority of these recipients can one day return home to a

peaceful and dignified way of life. Yet simultaneously, TPS allows a pathway to asylum if conditions do not improve within one’s home country. And TPS grants work eligibility, allowing immigrants to support themselves while in the US.

TPS is not only the best strategy because of its benefits but for being a feasible plan. Glancing at the long list of visa categories, there is not a single one that Iranians could qualify for en mass. On the other hand, the main requirement for TPS is simply to be from an affected country. Due to the recent violence within Iran, specifically the recent escalation of executing protestors, the US should help as many Iranians as soon as possiblewithin days or weeks, not months or years. Luckily, the TPS process is straightforward compared to other visas with decades-long waiting lists. In conclusion, TPS will have a massive impact on saving Iranian civilians. At the same time, it will not impact the current backlog of cases that prevents DHS and other relevant departments from operating effectively.

have not achieved their original goal of forfeiture of Iran’s nuclear program, let alone a peaceful transition to democracy. Therefore to avoid causing more pain and suffering to the Iranian people, the US should avoid leading western nations in another round of sanctions which would put more pressure on the weakened Iranian economy.

The US should also not pursue regime change, given our history of failing to stabilize countries we invade. Instead of peaceful transitions to democracy, Borzou Daragahi, a journalist who focuses on the Middle East states, “Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have generally resulted in ongoing failures that gave space for militant groups and insurgencies.” Even assuming broad political support, the US does not have the necessary resources to facilitate a smooth transition to liberal democracy that protects the ideals of personal freedom and liberty.

Additionally, though regime changes have the potential to end in catastrophe,

Source: World Bank

Alternatives

American-led sanctions have proven highly effective at weakening the Iranian regime as illustrated by a steep decline in GDP around 2018. However, sanctions have had the adverse side-effect of preventing gravely ill Iranian citizens from importing foreign medical supplies. It is abundantly clear that although sanctions have weakened the Iranian regime, they

this issue is amplified because Iran is in the process of building a nuclear bomb. Though Iran has been previously unsuccessful in constructing a weapon, radioactive materials could easily fall into the hands of other nations or non-state actors. For example, a hostile actor could utilize a dirty weapon, a conventional bomb that utilizes nuclear byproducts, with the potential to spew dangerous levels of

org CatoInstitute,October6,2022 https://www cato org/briefing-paper/processing-backlogs-us-immigration-systemdescribing-scale-problem

Iran:SanctionsThreateningHealth ”HumanRightsWatch HumanRightsWatch,October28,2020 https://www hrw org/news/2019/10/29/iran-sanctions-threatening-health 27Daragahi,Borzou “FantasiesofRegimeCollapseinIranComewithoutaPlan ”AtlanticCouncil AtlanticCouncil,February21,2020

without-a-plan/

radiation into the air. Therefore, a collapse of the Iranian regime would require American boots on the ground to secure all Iranian nuclear sites. Based on previous failures of American involvement in the Middle East, regime change in Iran is a scenario we need to avoid at all costs.

Conclusion

To help as many people as quickly as possible, the US should designate Iran as a TPS-eligible country. Following the 1979 Revolution, Iran was transformed forever as it adopted a regime centered around the strictest interpretation of Islam. While numerous attempts at liberalizing the country have been made, no movement has been successful in transforming the Iranian regime to represent the will of the people. The Iranian government is nearimpossible to change due to the level of influence unelected religious leaders have over policy through the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader. However, after the death of Mahsa Amini, people from around the country have been united in their focus on increasing women’s rights within the country. These protests have led to the deaths of hundreds and the arrest of thousands. The level of violence propagated by the Iranian regime, specifically the recent development of executing prisoners necessitates the US to support the people of Iran. Instead of increasing sanctions or looking for violent regime change, the US should allow innocent Iranian citizens to come to the US. Regardless of whether the protests fail, the government is able to regain the status quo, or even if Tehran falls, innocent civilians across the country will continue to remain in imminent danger. Therefore, the US should do its part to address human rights abuses in Iran by providing a safe haven for innocent civilians.

Bibliography

Abd-Alziz, Moaz, and Michael Georgy. “Iran's Guards Head Warns Protesters: 'Today Is Last Day of Riots'.” Edited by Frances Kerry, Christina Fincher, and Chris Reese. Reuters. Thomson Reuters, October 29, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/middleeast/irans-guards-head-tells-protesters-today-is-last-day-riots-2022-10-29/.

“Appendix: Iran’s Government and Current Political Divisions.” Center for American Progress. Center for American Progress. Accessed December 15, 2022. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/04/pdf/iran_report_appendix.pdf.

Bayram, Seyma, and Diba Mohtasham. “Iran's Protesters Find Inspiration in a Kurdish Revolutionary Slogan.” NPR. NPR, October 27, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/27/1131436766/kurdish-roots-iran-protest-slogan.

Berger, Miriam. “How Iran's Universities Have Become the Center of a National Uprising.” The Washington Post. WP Company, November 4, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/04/iran-protests-students-hijab-amini/.

Brier, David J. “Processing Backlogs in the U.S. Immigration System: Describing the Scale of the Problem.” Cato.org. Cato Institute, October 6, 2022. https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/processing-backlogs-us-immigration-system-describing-scale-problem. Daragahi, Borzou. “Fantasies of Regime Collapse in Iran Come without a Plan.” Atlantic Council. Atlantic Council, February 21, 2020. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/fantasies-of-regime-collapse-in-iran-come-without-a-plan/.

de Groot, Kristen, and Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet. “Iran Protests, Explained.” Penn Today. University of Pennsylvania, September 29, 2022. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/iran-protests-explained.

“Directory of Visa Categories.” Travel.State.Gov. US State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs. Accessed December 16, 2022. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html.

Fassihi, Farnaz, and Jane Arraf. “Protests in Iran Spread, Including to Oil Sector, despite Violent Crackdown.” The New York Times. The New York Times, October 12, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/world/middleeast/iran-women-protests-strike.html.

Gambrell, Jon. “Analysis: Iran Protests Persist, Becoming Threat for Tehran.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, October 7, 2022.

https://apnews.com/article/iran-middle-east-dubai-united-arab-emirates-tehran-fe1de90567e51ad6207fae5d2db56944.

Gambrell, Jon. “Iran Execution: Man Publicly Hanged from Crane amid Protests.” The Hill. The Hill, December 12, 2022.

https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-international/ap-second-iranian-detainee-executed-over-alleged-protest-crime/.

“GDP Growth (Annual %) - Iran, Islamic Rep.” The World Bank. The World Bank. Accessed December 15, 2022.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2020&locations=IR&start=2004.

“Iran: Sanctions Threatening Health.” Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, October 28, 2020.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/10/29/iran-sanctions-threatening-health.

Khalaji, Mehdi. “How Iran's Protests Differ from Past Movements.” The Washington Institute. The Washington Institute, September 28, 2022. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-irans-protests-differ-past-movements.

Moghadam, Valentine M. “Women in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Legal Status, Social Positions ...” Wilson Center. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Accessed December 16, 2022.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/event/ValentineMoghadamFinal.pdf.

Mohammadi, Majid. “Iranian Women and the Civil Rights Movement in Iran: Feminism Interacted.” Journal of International Women's Studies - Bridgewater State University. Bridgewater State University, September 2007.

https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1285&context=jiws.

Nada, Garrett. “What You Need to Know About Iran’s Election and New President.” United States Institute of Peace. United States Institute of Peace, June 22, 2021. https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/06/what-you-need-know-about-irans-election-and-new president.

Perry, Tom, and Dominic Evans. “Events in Iran since Mahsa Amini's Arrest and Death in Custody.”

Edited by Mark Heinrich, Philippa Fletcher, and Ros Russell. Reuters. Reuters, December 12, 2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/events-iran-since mahsa-aminis-arrest-death-custody-2022-10-05/.

Bibliography

Rubin, Michael. “If Iran Collapses, Does US Have Plans to Secure Its Nuclear Materials?” AEI. American Enterprise Institute, September 12, 2022. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/if-iran-collapses-does-us-have-plans-to-secure-its-nuclearmaterials%ef%bf%bc/.

“Temporary Protected Status.” USCIS. USCIS, December 12, 2022. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF BREXIT ON THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT

by Sean Tonra

For many today, it is difficult to imagine significant conflict and terrorism on the doorstep of a major western nation. In modern history, 9/11, January 6th, and the 2015 Paris Attacks are all rare examples of major political violence and terrorism in the west. However, there was the tragic period known as The Troubles not too long ago — an ethno-nationalist conflict within the United Kingdom, specifically Northern Ireland, lasting from the late 1960s to 1998. Categorized as a “low-level war,” this period saw bombings in major cities, the assassination of prominent political figures, the deployment of British forces, and paramilitary fighting –this all lasted until 1998. So, for those learning about this for the first time, how did the Troubles end? The end of this conflict came after the introduction of arguably the most significant treaty for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in modern times, the Good Friday Agreement. Before diving into the specifics of the treaty, it is imperative to know what the situation is like today.

Since the Good Friday Agreement, there has been a stable peace in the area, primarily due to a soft border existing between the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland, in addition to what can be called a European Identity from the European Union shared by the two nations. However, it is important to note that Northern Ireland is part of the U.K., which in 2015 voted to leave the E.U. This has caused a significant international dilemma that has the potential to turn into a full-on crisis. With this article, I aim to analyze not only what the Good Friday Agreement is, but what the status of it is in today’s

political environment. Furthermore, I intend to examine what is being done to address the core issues of the original conflict, such as the border and what the next steps and potential outcomes are for not only the island of Ireland and the U.K., but the E.U., United States, and the entirety of the western world.

To restate, the Good Friday Agreement, or the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement, signifies the end of the conflict on the island of Ireland known as The Troubles. The conflict left a massive wound on the Irish people as 3,720 people were killed and approximately 47,541 people were injured. Furthermore, over the 30 years of fighting, the parties involved oversaw 36,923 shootings and 16,209 bombings, with civilians being the primary victims overall. The scar for many within the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where many identified as Catholics, came from a sense of oppression by the U.K. government, which was historically Protestant. This difference led to massive resistance within Northern Ireland, where Catholics, identified as

nationalists, sought their withdrawal from the British Monarchy. These individuals joined with the Republic of Ireland, which had gained independence after the Irish War of Independence between 1919 and 1921. However, it is important to note that this disdain and troubled relationship between Irish Catholics and Protestants of the U.K. stretches back as early as the 17th century. So with all this foundation of oppression, the time before and during The Troubles saw a Northern Ireland controlled by the U.K., supported by unionists, sharing a border with the Republic of Ireland, who were nationalist. Unionists were those who supported staying in the U.K., while nationalists were in favor of a united Ireland devoid of British control. The core issue here is how the border was operated. Throughout the conflict, the border was considered a hard border. This categorization included security checkpoints for people and goods, border walls separating neighbors, friends, and families, and forcing people of the same identity and communal bond to live in separate nations from each other. This hard border laid the foundation for the formation of resistance groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to carry out many of the aforementioned attacks toward the British government and unionist supporters in the north.

With centuries of conflict before The Troubles to keep in mind, the Good Friday Agreement began with a Declaration of Support stating the following:

1DavidMcKittrick,SeamusKelters,BrianFeeney,ChrisThorntonandDavidMcVea,LostLives,Edinburgh:MainstreamPublishing,2007,1552

2ConflictArchiveontheInternet(CAIN),RUC/PSNIstatistics:TableNI-SEC-05:Personsinjured(number)duetothesecuritysituationinNorthernIreland(only),1969to2003 Availableathttp://cain ulster ac uk/ni/security htm#05 NumberislimitedtoinjuriesinNorthernIreland

3ConflictArchiveontheInternet(CAIN),RUC/PSNIstatistics:TableNI-SEC-06:Securityrelatedincidents(number)inNorthernIreland(only),shootings,bombings,andincendiaries,1969to2003 Availableat http://cain ulster ac uk/ni/security htm#06 NumberislimitedtoshootingsinNorthernIreland

4“WhatYouNeedtoKnowAbouttheTroubles” ImperialWarMuseum https://www iwm org uk/history/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-troubles

5SiobhánOGrady “TheGoodFridayAgreementendeddecadesofconflict IrelandworriesBrexitcouldunravelit ”TheWashingtonPost January31,2019

1. We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning.

Source: Contact Press Images

2. The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering…we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.

3. We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands.

4. We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose…

5. We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations. However, we will endeavour to strive in every practical way towards reconciliation and rapprochement within the framework of democratic and agreed arrangements…

This declaration lays out a bold and clear purpose for all parties involved in the negotiation. It recognizes the bond between the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (RoI) existing beyond the national borders set between the U.K. and the RoI. The two nations had to have an “interlocking and interdependent” relationship from which peace could be born. Therefore, mutual respect and willingness to work with one another would become foundational to their relationship. This part, in particular, speaks for the need to share power among the unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement created a democratically elected Assembly to be “inclusive in its membership, capable of exercising executive and legislative authority, and subject to safeguards to protect the rights and interests of all sides of the community.” This fundamental agreement promoted both sides of the conflict by giving them a proper voice and official power, giving a more independent sense within Northern Ireland despite still being under British rule.

Another institution formed was the North/South Ministerial Council. It was, …established to bring together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, to develop consultation, cooperation and action within the island of Irelandincluding through implementation on an all-island and cross-border basis - on matters of mutual interest.

It aimed to unify the official powers between Northern Ireland and the RoI to maintain a sense of unity based on national and religious identity, referring to the Catholics and Protestants. The North/South Ministerial Council was a new innovation, an institution that represented a core philosophy of the agreement: communication means peace. Communication is crucial to maintain peace among conflicting groups with opposing goals. It allows the mutual interest of all parties to unite and find a path to peace, even after centuries of conflict. The creation of these institutions was designed to provide a positive gain for all parties involved. Catholics and Nationalists were able to be part of their own government that would better represent their interests via the Assembly and the Ministerial Council. These new institutions gave a place for Catholics to implement their values and beliefs, not just the British. This gain would be the same for the unionists in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the British were also able to walk away from this conflict without losing total influence over Northern Ireland.

With the aforementioned strides made by the Good Friday Agreement, among the most significant was how the deal affected the hard border. The agreement managed to ease, or soften, the border between the U.K., Northern Ireland, and the RoI. The border was previously in a state of heightened security. The UK deployed its armed forces to combat terrorist and paramilitary troops that would target either civilian or government locations, personnel, and other relics of the UK, including symbols of Protestantism. This heightened security around the border was also a symbol, representing the forced division between many families and friends at the hands of the UK. To say it was the cause of much of the tension during the period of The Troubles would be an understatement. Thus, the hard border and heightened security had to be dismantled entirely if true peace was to ensue after the peace agreement. For this to occur, an entire section of the agreement was dedicated to security. This particular section laid out objectives the British government had to abide by to create a sense of normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland. This included:

(i) the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society;

(ii) the removal of security installations;

(iii) the removal of emergency powers in Northern Ireland; and

(iv) other measures appropriate to and compatible with a normal peaceful society.

Returning back to normal security arrangements made the situation in Northern Ireland much less tense. Freedom of movement became much more evident, allowing families and friends to reunite without the dangers of security checkpoints and armed forces present. Whether we are talking about people or goods, the eased restrictions for travel made the idea of separation among Irish Catholics who lived in the RoI or the U.K. irrelevant, as people could finally go from place to place in the two nations with ease. This became a cornerstone of peace on the island of Ireland. Furthermore, this development is crucial to the coexistence of the RoI and Northern Ireland under the U.K. However, today, this free movement is threatened and, if it ceases to exist, can erase much of the progress made in the U.K.-Ireland

Source: University College London

relationship since 1998 when the agreement was signed.

In 2015, the world was shocked by the results of the referendum vote in the U.K. that led to what is colloquially known as “Brexit.” The U.K. leaving the European Union (EU), represents many important things. Issues on the meaning of a European identity, the unity or lack thereof in the EU, and how the UK will stand on its own, point to much larger issues. However, given the topic of this article, the question is on the effects of Brexit concerning Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the Good Friday Agreement. One of the benefits that came from being an EU member was the freedom of movement among member states. For example, a traveler from France can easily go to Germany without much trouble due to the luxury and convenience provided by the EU passport. For the UK and Ireland, this was very beneficial alongside the context of the Good Friday Agreement. In this sense, the easing of security around the border after the agreement in 1998 paired well with both Ireland and the UK being EU members. This made it easier for people, particularly Irish Catholics, to travel between the two countries. The idea was that an Irish or British identity did not matter because everyone was part of the European identity under the EU. Also included in this agreement was the travel of goods for trade purposes, as the two countries rely on each other for trade. Despite what is seemingly an overall positive, the UK ultimately voted to leave the European Union.

In the aftermath of Brexit, one of the issues that had to be immediately dealt with was the Northern Ireland border. The major concern extended beyond trade. A fear of breaking the Good Friday Agreement and a return to the days of The Troubles was palpable. So, during Brexit negotiations between the EU and the UK officials, there was a conscious understanding to protect the agreement to avoid reverting to chaos and conflict. A temporary solution was put in place, known as the Northern Ireland Protocols during the final withdrawal agreement for Brexit. These protocols are the current status of the border and are recognized as international law. Under them, any inspections and document checks would be conducted between the UK and Northern Ireland, not the RoI and Northern Ireland. Taking place at Northern Ireland’s ports, this prevents the placement of heightened security from occurring on the UK-Ireland border, altogether stopping a new induction of the hard border on the island. Specifically, it does not place a limit on the freedom of movement on the island of Ireland and still allows families and friends throughout to travel freely between the U.K. (Northern Ireland) and the RoI. The protocols also agreed that Northern Ireland would keep following EU rules on product standards, which protected trade goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland from going through different levels of scrutiny, further upholding the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

Summarizing the protocols, it essentially makes an exception to Brexit — that exception being Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the protocols balance the goals of both sides, as the UK gets to withdraw without the concerns of increased likelihood of conflict and tension with the RoI. For the RoI and Northern Ireland, who voted to stay in the EU, it maintains the status quo of the Good Friday Agreement in terms of migration, trade, and, in general, freedom of movement between the two. Diving more into the vote of those in Northern Ireland, there was an interesting split that demonstrates the controversial nature of the protocols. Overwhelmingly, those who identified as Catholics and Nationalists in Northern

Ireland voted to stay in the EU, while those who identified as Protestants and Unionists voted to leave. Either way, the protocols seem to be something everyone can live with, at least temporarily, until the Northern Ireland elections, the next one possibly occurring sometime in 2023.

In May 2022, Sinn Fein, the Irish Nationalist political party, won the most seats in Northern Ireland. However, it was not enough to form a government, so they had to work with the Democratic Unionist Party, or DUP, to govern. The DUP, being frustrated about the Northern Ireland Protocols, saw this as an opportunity. They refused to work with Sinn Fein and a government was never formed. Since then, the people of Northern Ireland have been waiting for a new election to form a government, but the DUP has been holding out. This waiting period, and in turn, the refusal to form a government, is partly because of bureaucratic mistakes on the part of the British government. Due to the protest by the DUP, and the sense of the Northern Ireland Protocols being temporary to begin with, it has forced the UK government, European Union, and the RoI to come to a temporary agreement.

With the DUP issue now in the minds of all parties, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson sought to renegotiate the Northern Ireland Protocols. For Johnson, the protocols disturbed the balance set by the Good Friday Agreement as the EU implemented them too harshly than was intended. The reality, however, was this was not harsh as it essentially upheld the agreement. However, for Johnson and his fellow Brexit supporters, the fact that Northern Ireland was being treated as if it was in the EU still was too much. Johnson continued to worry members of the EU and the RoI, especially in light of promises made by Johnson when he stated, “There will be no border down the Irish Sea… over my dead body.” The negotiations were then thrown into a potential breakdown due to the introduction of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. Introduced by then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss in June of 2022, most likely inspired by the DUP protest, the bill would disapply parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Brexit Withdrawal

10MatthewWard StatisticsonUKtradewithIreland HouseofCommonsLibrary December14,2022 https://commonslibrary parliament uk/research-briefings/cbp-8173/

11TomEdgington “Brexit:WhatistheNorthernIrelandProtocol?” BBC January10,2022 https://www bbc com/news/explainers-53724381

12GregorAisch,AdamPearce,andKarlRussell “HowBritainVotedintheE U Referendum” NewYorkTimes June24,2016 https://www nytimes com/interactive/2016/06/24/world/europe/how-britain-voted-brexit-referendum html

13JohnGarry TheEUreferendumVoteinNorthernIreland:Implicationsforourunderstandingofcitizens politicalviewsandbehavior NorthernIrelandAssembly

14MarkLandler EfforttoSetVotetoFormNorthernIrelandGovernmentHitsaSnag” NewYorkTimes October28,2022 https://www nytimes com/2022/10/28/world/europe/northern-ireland-sinn-fein-election html

15RealityCheckTeam “NorthernIrelandProtocol:WhatdidBorisJohnsonsay?” BBC June14,2022 https://www bbc com/news/58001530

Agreement in domestic law, empower UK Ministers to disapply more parts in the future, and put new arrangements in place without the EU’s input or consent. The introduction of this bill tarnished the trust of fair play for the many involved. Boris Johnson then resigned as prime minister and Liz Truss replaced him.

For as strong a proponent Johnson was for removing the protocols, and by extension placing a hard border back between the RoI and Northern Ireland, concerns of Truss being as hardlined or worse were voiced. With Truss being the person who introduced the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, a fog of distrust carried over her when it came to these negotiations. As Anton Spisak, a senior fellow at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, puts it,

As she entered Downing Street just a few weeks ago, Truss has carried that legacy of mistrust with her, along with the constancy in her position on the Protocol. But now, as the U.K. finds itself in desperate need of repairing relations with the EU, it is time for both parties to come back to the table and negotiate a way out of the impasse.

Fixing the agreement, in Truss’ view, calls for a political solution — a more fundamental overhaul of the treaty, not just technical fixes seeking to reduce checks on goods moving into Northern Ireland from Great Britain. And if the EU refuses to agree to her plans, she warns that her government will implement them through domestic law anyway.

Truss’ solution is equivalent to calls for a hard border, returning to the days before the Good Friday Agreement. This view affected not only how those within the RoI or EU saw her efforts, but also other world leaders.

U.S. President Joseph Biden, during his first meeting with former Prime Minister Truss, emphasized the importance of protecting the Good Friday Agreement. This was done in light of Truss’ support for her bill that would harm the agreement. For Biden, this was a smart move for him not only politically, but also personally. Given his Irish Roots and fondness for its history, this issue is very near to him. Similarly, for most U.S. politicians the Good Friday Agreement is a bipartisan issue. Former US President George W. Bush also pursued its implementation during his presidency. Even under the Trump administration, U.S. special envoy Mick Mulvaney was dispatched to warn the

British government of the risk of creating a hard border “by accident” on the island of Ireland. As a result, any deal viewed as damaging to the Good Friday Agreement could disrupt ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and the UK post-Brexit. However, with Liz Truss having resigned from her role as prime minister, the US, RoI, and EU are watching what current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is doing.

How has Sunak done so far?

Seemingly, the new prime minister has brought in a sense of optimism rather than mistrust. At the British-Irish Council summit, an iteration of the Ministerial Council, Prime Minister Sunak met with Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Micheál Martin and both came out seeing a “window of opportunity.” Pressured by other parties and the ongoing DUP protest in the Northern Ireland government, the two have seemingly felt a renewed sense of necessity to come to an amicable solution to the ordeal they both face. Sunak is quoted after meeting with Martin saying, “What I want to do is find a negotiated solution preferably. I’m pleased with the progress that we’re making in these early days in this job. My focus is to try and find a resolution [and] get the institutions back up and running.” This change of atmosphere has come with overall positive reactions from the likes of Sinn Fein president Mary Lou McDonald who said, “[Mr. Sunak's attendance was] welcome but we need more than a change of mood music…We need clarity and certainty about how the British intend to use the next number of weeks to ensure we will start 2023 with the assembly and executive in place.” This reaction once again presents a more optimistic tone compared to the reactions of former Prime Minister Truss and her involvement with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in the British government. DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson from Northern Ireland was also optimistic but said any outcome of UK-EU negotiations on the protocol must have cross-community support in Northern Ireland. Donaldson said specifically, “If the main aim of both the UK and the EU is to protect the Belfast Agreement then any solution must be built on that key foundation upon which the agreement

itself is based.” So with all this said, what would a good deal look like? The question also bears to answer what a bad deal would look like.

First, it would be helpful to answer the latter question first. This line of thinking would then make clear what lines can not be crossed if a good deal is to be struck. A bad deal, simply put, is a hard border on the island of Ireland. The only parties involved that somewhat want that would be the DUP and unionist allies. That, however, should not dictate the terms of a potential deal. It is clear the people of the RoI do not want a hard border, which, as previously stated, could mean a return to the days of The Troubles. Also, citizens of Northern Ireland do not want a hard border, even some that the DUP represent. How do we know this? The last Northern Ireland elections that took place earlier this year ended up with a historic overall victory for Sinn Fein — the party of Irish Nationalists. While this does not mean Northern Ireland will leave the UK and join the RoI, it also does not mean that most people in Northern Ireland want a hard border. On top of that, it is clear why a hard border would be a negative for Northern Ireland, as they do not want potential conflict. Much of the violence that occurred during The Troubles happened in Northern Ireland. A return to that would be catastrophic for the people, local government and economy, and any sense of a peaceful life. However, expanding on how this type of deal is terrible for others outside the island of Ireland gives more clarity into how disastrous the idea of a hard border would be.

The UK has a great deal of interest in this, if not made clear already. Probably the third most affected by any deal made, besides the RoI and Northern Ireland, the nation and subsequent society can be affected massively. Simply put, a hard border is awful for them too. The regulatory headaches created by any border between the RoI and the UK add costs when it comes to transporting items from the UK to the RoI, which would be within the Eurozone, a currency union of 20 member states of the EU that have adopted the euro as their primary currency and sole legal tender. Furthermore, a hard

16SaraMoranandJoeWilkes TheNorthernIrelandProtocolBillexplained SeneddResearchandWelshParliament September20,2022 https://research senedd wales/research-articles/the-northern-ireland-protocol-bill-explained 17AntonSpisak “DesperatelyseekingasolutiontotheNorthernIrelandProtocol” Politico September29,2022 https://www politico eu/article/desperately-seeking-a-solution-to-the-northern-ireland-protocol

18AlexGangitano BidenstressesprotectingGoodFridayAgreementinfirstmeetingwithTruss” TheHill September21,2022 https://thehill com/homenews/administration/3654250-biden-stresses-protecting-good-friday-agreement-infirst-meeting-with-truss

19JulianBorger “WhyJoeBidenissoinvestedindefendingGoodFridayagreement” TheGuardian June10,2021 https://www theguardian com/us-news/2021/jun/10/why-joe-biden-is-so-invested-in-defending-good-friday-agreement

20Borger WhyJoeBidenissoinvestedindefendingGoodFridayagreement”

21JayneMcCormack “RishiSunak confident ofNIProtocoltalksbreakthrough” BBC November10 2022 https://www bbc com/news/uk-northern-ireland-63576250

22ShawnPogatchnik “SunakseeksnegotiatedsolutiontoBrexittraderowinfirsttalkswithIreland”

23JayneMcCormack RishiSunak confident ofNIProtocoltalksbreakthrough BBC November10,2022

24JayneMcCormack “RishiSunak confident ofNIProtocoltalksbreakthrough” BBC November10,2022

border deal would be seen as unfavorable to other parties like the U.S. and the EU. This would almost certainly affect the ongoing trade negotiations the UK is conducting at the moment. Souring these talks, a trade deal with the U.S. and EU will possibly result in unfavorable terms for the UK. Yet, there is a more concerning threat to the UK if the hard border is put back into place: terrorism. During The Troubles, the British government had to commit numerous military deployments to combat terrorist and paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland, such as the Irish Republican Army, or IRA. This threat of terrorism extended to the British mainland, the most infamous example is the assassination of Lord Louis Mountbatten, a member of the Royal Family. These threats to peace, security, and stability make the possibility of a re-established hard border on the island of Ireland a real threat to the UK. It is why such a deal ending in this outcome would be disastrous for the British, not just the RoI or Northern Ireland. It could very well end up with an armed conflict on the doorstep of the British government and re-ignite the causes for extremist, terrorist, and paramilitary troops to use violent tactics to stop a hard border from separating their families.

The question that remains is what a good deal would look like. First and foremost, it must not fringe the core values and principles of the Good Friday Agreement — a hard border must be avoided to the fullest extent possible. Increasing the amount of checkpoints between the RoI and Northern Ireland would be too reminiscent of the later half of

the 20th century. This avoidance must be done in both an economic and political sense. Avoidance in this case means a deal must uphold the economic outcomes of the Good Friday Agreement, such as the trade relationships each party has, and protect the political institutions created post-agreement. This, in turn, potential negotiated outcome puts forward the idea of a more permanent sense of the Northern Ireland Protocols established post-Brexit. While some can consider this a viable solution as it upholds the essence of the Good Friday Agreement, there is an unfortunate side to it: The DUP in Northern Ireland would not accept this whatsoever. The refusal then means they will continue to hold up the formation of a government in Northern Ireland until they win a big enough coalition over Sinn Fein, which is not very likely. Conversely, Sinn Fein could win a big enough majority where they do not need the DUP, which is also unlikely. This conundrum effectively places the parties involved at a standstill. Now, once again, there is a sense of cautious optimism given the recent meetings between the Irish and British heads of government. However, so far very little has been said on the specific details of what a good deal will look like. All that can be confirmed, for most parties at least, is a good deal would protect and uphold the agreement from the 1990s.

Ultimately, the outcome of the situation all comes down to those in the room where it will happen. Those at the table negotiating what the future will look like for the RoI, UK, Northern Ireland, the EU, and a host of other parties involved in some capacity. A clear line exists for most involved, that being the likes of a Northern Ireland Protocol Bill would be unacceptable. It all then comes down to what the details of a potential deal look like. That this new deal would protect the Good Friday Agreement and is something where all parties are on board. Whatever occurs, one thing simply cannot happen: an absence of agreement. An outcome of nothing gives reason for those in the UK government to push forward with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, creating a straight line back to a world without the Good Friday Agreement where conflict comes right on the doorsteps of London.

Bibliography

Aisch, Gregor, Adam Pearce, and Karl Russell. “How Britain Voted in the E.U. Referendum.” The New York Times. The New York Times, June 24, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/24/world/europe/how-britain-voted-brexit-referendum.html.

Borger, Julian. “Why Joe Biden Is so Invested in Defending Good Friday Agreement.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, June 10, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/10/why-joe-biden-is-so-invested-in-defending-good-friday-agreement. Clancy, Paddy. “Lord Louis Mountbatten's Assassination by the IRA.” British Heritage Travel, December 25, 2022. https://britishheritage.com/history/lord-mountbatten-death.

Edgington, Tom. “Brexit: What Is the Northern Ireland Protocol?” BBC News. BBC, January 10, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53724381.

Gangitano, Alex. “Biden Stresses Protecting Good Friday Agreement in First Meeting with Truss.” The Hill. The Hill, September 21, 2022. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3654250-biden-stresses-protecting-good-friday-agreement-in-first-meetingwith-truss/.

Garry, John. The EU Referendum Vote in Northern Ireland: Implications for Our Understanding of Citizens’ Political Views and Behavior. Nothern Ireland Assembly, n.d. https://www.qub.ac.uk/brexit/Brexitfilestore/Filetoupload,728121,en.pdf.

Landler, Mark. “Effort to Set Vote to Form Northern Ireland Government Hits a Snag.” The New York Times. The New York Times, October 28, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/world/europe/northern-ireland-sinn-fein-election.html.

McCormack, Jayne. “Rishi Sunak 'Confident' of NI Protocol Talks Breakthrough.” BBC News. BBC, November 10, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-63576250.

McKittrick, David, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney, Chris Thorton, and David McVea. Lost Lives. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing, 2007.

Moran, Sara, and Joe Wilkes. “The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill Explained.” Senedd Research and Welsh Parliament, September 20, 2022. https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/the-northern-ireland-protocol-bill-explained/.

The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement. United Nations Peacemaker, n.d.

https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf.

O'Grady, Siobhán. “The Good Friday Agreement Ended Decades of Conflict. Ireland Worries Brexit Could Unravel It.” The Washington Post, January 31, 2019.

Pogatchnik, Shawn. “Sunak Seeks Negotiated Solution to Brexit Trade Row in First Talks with Ireland.” Politico. Politico, November 10, 2022. https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-brexit-trade-tensions-ireland-talks-protocol/.

Reality Check Team. “Northern Ireland Protocol: What Did Boris Johnson Say?” BBC News. BBC, June 14, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/58001530.

“RUC/PSNI Statistics: Table NI-SEC-05: Persons Injured (Number) Due to the Security Situation in Northern Ireland (Only), 1969 to 2003.” Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN). Accessed February 5, 2023. http://cain.ulster.ac.uk/ni/security.htm#05. Spisak, Anton. “Desperately Seeking a Solution to the Northern Ireland Protocol.” Politico. Politico, September 29, 2022. https://www.politico.eu/article/desperately-seeking-a-solution-to-the-northern-ireland-protocol/.

“Table NI-SEC-06: Security Related Incidents (Number) in Northern Ireland (Only), Shootings, Bombings, and Incendiaries, 1969 to 2003.” Conflict Archive on the Internet (CAIN). Accessed February 5, 2023. http://cain.ulster.ac.uk/ni/security.htm#06. Ward, Matthew. “Statistics on UK Trade with Ireland.” House of Commons Library, December 14, 2022. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8173/.

“What You Need to Know About the Troubles.” Imperial War Museum. Accessed February 5, 2023. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-troubles.