Review THE HORACE MANN
Volume XXIV Issue 6 March 2015
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Letter From the Editor
Review THE HORACE MANN
Ikaasa Suri
Editor-in-Chief
Lauren Futter Executive Editor
Jenna Barancik Laszlo Herwitz
Managing Design and Web Directors
W
elcome to third trimester, Horace Mann! I am incredibly proud of the effort and commitment our entire staff has put forth these past six months. As the end of the year draws nearer, I am excited for our editors and writers to continue sharing their enlightening, engaging, and perhaps even provocative points of view. In this final stretch, I hope I speak for the entire staff, especially our seniors, when I say that these next three months will provide a meaningful opportunity to dedicate even more time and energy towards The Review as we make Volume XXIV the best that it can be.
One of the most unique aspects of The Review as a high school publication is the fact that it puts forth a platform to openly voice the opinions of a very diverse group of young writers. A magazine like this provides a rare yet vital opportunity for high school students to exercise their right of free speech on a variety of issues. By definition, the freedom of speech is a matter of expressing opinion and inherently concerned with the perspectives of all peoples. Keeping this in mind, Issue 6 hones in on this concept in a broader sense. In light of Sony’s pulling of The Interview and Charlie Hebdo’s response to the Paris attacks, The Review staff has worked hard to not only interpret the impact of free speech through a variety of media outlets on the world around us, but also consider the implications of free speech versus hate speech and how technology has the ability to distort the ever-evolving phenomenon. Further perpetuating the notion of free speech, I hope that all of you who have an opinion can join us this trimester in writing about the happenings of our world. As our current writers continue to share their opinions, I encourage you all to respectfully speak out for the issues that are important to you and recognize that such a right is not available to everyone around the world. I know I speak on behalf of the entire Review staff when I say that I am extremely grateful to Dr. Kelly, Dr. Delanty, Mr. Donadio, and the rest of the administration for providing all of us the opportunity to voice our opinions and speak our minds. We truly thank you for your incredible support and commitment. With this in mind, write on, read on, and speak on, Horace Mann! Enjoy the issue!
Ikaasa Suri Editor-in-Chief Volume XXIV
2
Matthew Harpe Adam Resheff Brett Silverstein
Managing Content Editors
Emily Kramer
Senior Editor - Domestic
Neil Ahlawat Senior Editor - International
Elizabeth Xiong
Senior Editor - Features
James Megibow Mitchell Troyanovsky Senior Editor - Economics
Alexander Newman Abigail Zuckerman Senior Editor - Science and Technology
Edmund Bannister Charles Cotton James McCarthy Harry Seavey Samantha Stern Senior Contibutors
Ben Alexander Daria Balaeskoul Maria Balaeskoul Gabriel Broshy Daniel Jin Cassandra K-J
Anna Kuritzkes Natasha Moolji Anne Rosenblatt Daniel Rosenblatt Peter Shamamian Eric Stein
Junior Editors
Miranda Bannister Evan Greene Ray Fishman Alex O’Neill
Matthew Parker Aditya Ram Spencer Slagowitz Evy Verbinnen
Associate Editors
Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. For more information, please visit www.hmreview.org.
Table of Contents
4
Restricting Political Donations
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Pro & Con Chris Shaari & Sophie Maltby
page 4
Stephen Phillips
NYPD and Mayor De Blasio: A Broken Relationship
DOMESTIC
Teddy Kaplan
Howl: LGBT Expression and Censorship
page 8
James Chang
How the Secret Service Has Turned Its Back On America Kyra Kill
Jack Vahradian
page 10
16
page 12
Zarina Iman
Ray Fishman
page 14
No “Je Suis Charlie” for Nigeria Zoe Mavrides
Sophia Fikke
page 16
Ananya Kumar-Banerjee
page 24
Palestinian Statehood: An Uncertain Future Krystian Loetscher
page 26
Conflict of Interest Mehr Suri
page 28
Égalité? Regulating Speech in France Equally Daria Balaeskoul & Anna Kuritzkes page 30
The Downfall of 21st Century Media Henry Shapiro
48 ECONOMICS
page 22
Israel Burning: Fiery Anti-Semitic Protests In France Daniel Frackman
page 46
page 20
Foreign Influence on United States Gun Policies Daniel Posner
page 44
Chris Ofili and Free Speech in America
54 SCI-TECH
INTERNATIONAL
page 42
Cartoons and Qaeda
Lexi Kanter
FEATURES
page 40
Separation of Church and State
Lifting Embargos on Cuba
30
page 38
Free Speech: Not Free From Hate
State of the Union Address: False Hope Annie Liu
page 36
Freedom to Screen: The Interview
The Common Core Karen Jiang
page 34
The Future of Russia Eva Steinman
page 48
The Golden Gates Tarnished Alex Karpf
page 50
Oil and Politics Dahlia Kutkrovich
page 52
President Obama and Privacy Protection Emma Forman
page 54
Ship Breaking: An Environmental and Human Rights Issue Sadie Lye
page 56
The Efficiency of Mandatory Quarantines Vaed Prasad
page 58
page 32
3
Domestic
CHRIS SHAARI PRO
THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE CON
SOPHIE MALTBY 4
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV
Domestic
PRO T
he Keystone XL Pipeline, the proposed extension of the Keystone Pipeline, has undergone significant research and debate on both the state and federal level. While many opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline argue that the risk of oil spills and the pipeline’s effect on the surrounding environment is adequate rationale not to build the pipeline, the pros of implementing the pipeline far outweigh the cons. There are four key advantages to the United States for implementing the pipeline. It would create thousands of jobs and boost state and federal economies. Furthermore, the pipeline would reduce
“The pipeline would improve infrastructure in the communities it passes, as well as contribute billions to the annual GDP.”
American reliance on foreign oil and it would replace former forms of oil transport with a safer and more energy efficient solution. This past January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court voted in favor of the proposed pipeline and the House of Representatives voted 266 to 153 in favor of the pipeline. As aforementioned, the Keystone XL Pipeline is the proposed extension of the Keystone Pipeline, an oil pipeline running from Western Canada to refineries in Illinois and Texas. Currently, the Keystone Pipeline project is broken up into four phases, three of which are in operation. The first phase, the Keystone Pipeline, is the largest of the four pipelines. It runs 2,147 miles in comparison to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which runswhi 1,179 miles. The other two phases, the Keystone-Cushing pipeline and the Gulf Coast Extension pipeline, run around 500 miles each. Combined, the Keystone-Cushing Pipeline and original Keystone Pipeline deliver 590,000 barrels from Canada to American refineries daily. The Gulf Coast Extension can deliver 700,000 barrels daily. The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would deliver 830,000 barrels every day. The first key advantage of implementing the Keystone XL Pipeline is job creation. If the project is approved, American men and women will build it and the project will be funded by the private sector. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) says that the
project will support 42,100 jobs. It will employ pipefitters, welders, electricians, and other Americans in the pipeline industry. Their contributions would benefit the economy and would allow them to provide for their families. Delaying the pipeline prevents these much-needed job opportunities from being taken. Even though the jobs created are temporary, they would receive much needed exposure to the industry and create connections with TransCanada. The Keystone XL Pipeline would be an excellent source of economic prosperity for the towns and counties it passes through, as well as the nation as a whole. The Keystone XL Pipeline would provide the counties it passes through with increased tax revenues. The FSEIS predicts seventeen of the 27 counties that it passes through having a more than ten percent tax revenue increase. The ten percent increase could yield incredible infrastructure improvements for the counties. It can help improve infrastructure such as roads, bridges, hospitals, and other facilities to improve the standard of living. Economic prosperity also promises long term benefits for the nation as a whole. On the national level, one report states that the Keystone XL Pipeline would con-
The Keystone Pipeline will inject
The Keystone Pipeline will support
$20 BILLION
42,100 JOBS
into the U.S. March 2015
5
Domestic focus on exporting. TransCanada has made it clear that safety is a top priority in constructing the pipeline, so, contrary to popular belief, the Keystone XL Pipeline is unlikely to spill because it will be one of America’s safest pipelines. TransCanada has reportedly agreed to 59 additional safety conditions above federal regulation for the pipeline. More importantly, TransCanada says, is the confidence it has in the operating and monitoring of the pipeline. To combat spontaneous spills or leaks, the pipeline would have a high number of remotely controlled shut-off valves and increased pipeline inspections. In the case of a spill, the effect on the surroundings will be suppressed by the depth of the pipeline. Furthermore, delaying the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline prompts industry to build rail infrastructure to continue shipping oil to meet demand. Rail infrastructure has proven, on many occasions, to be extremely dangerous. One example of this came on December 8, 2014, when a
train hauling 2 million gallons of oil from North Dakota exploded in a Canadian town. The train had derailed and killed 47 people. Thus, it makes sense to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline because it would be a safer and more energy efficient solution to long distance oil shipment. The question of whether or not to implement the Keystone XL Pipeline has dragged on for nearly seven years. As aforementioned, there are four crucial points supporting the construction of the pipeline. The pipeline will create thousands of American jobs, contributing to their well-being as well as the national economy. It would improve infrastructure in the communities it passes as well as contribute billions to the annual GDP. The pipeline would replace reliance on overseas oil with a safe, reliable source of domestic crude. Finally, the unreliable nature of rail infrastructure to meet the demand for oil can be replaced with the pipeline, a safer and more energy efficient option for long distance oil transport.
According to its website, The Keystone XL pipeline is “good for the economy, and safe for the environment.”. The truth, however, is much on the contrary. Not only will the pipeline actually make the American economy suffer, but it will also have detrimental effects on the already fragile state of the environment. The Keystone XL pipeline is designed to carry up to 830,000 barrels of petroleum
per day from the oil sands of boreal forests in western Canada to oil refineries and ports on the Gulf Coast. About half of the system is already built, including a pipeline that runs east from Alberta and south through North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. The State Department is now reviewing a proposed 1,179-mile addition to the pipeline, the Keystone XL, a shortcut that would start in Hardisty, Alberta, and diagonally bisect Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska The company trying to pursue the construction of the pipeline is TransCanada. The company initially proposed the pipeline in 2005, and applied to the State Department for building permits in 2008. Since that time, the proposed pipeline has grown in controversy, becoming a partisan issue backed by big oil money in Washington. Initially, the project seemed like a no-brainer – it would create American jobs, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore actually decrease our carbon-footprint, right? Actually, the creation of petroleum through extraction of Alberta oil sands is one of the most carbon emitting processes out there. The thick tarlike oil sands, also known as bitumen, are combined with
sand, clay and water in a dense mix. There are two ways in which producers get the sands out of the ground, both damaging to the immediate environment. One method requires large amounts of water and natural gas to pump steam into the sands to extract the oil, which creates toxic environmental runoff. Alternatively, energy companies stripmine the sands and then heat them to release the oil, a practice that has already destroyed many acres of Alberta forest. An environmental review by the State Department concluded that production of oil-sands petroleum creates about17 percent more carbon pollution than production of conventional oil. Moreover, creating the Keystone Pipeline and opening the Tar Sands will negatively impact national and local economies. Experts estimate that the burning of the recoverable tar sands will increase the earth’s temperature by a minimum of 2 degrees Celsius, which, according to NYU Law School’s Environmental Law Center could permanently cut the United States GDP by 2.5%. This is an enormous and unfathomable loss compared to the few temporary jobs that will be created during the only 2 years remaining in the construction of the pipeline.
6
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV
billion to the United State’s GDP. Another report by the CEO of TransCanada, Russ Girling, says the pipeline would contribute $7 billion to the annual GDP. Implementing the Keystone XL Pipeline would also enhance America’s longterm energy security and energy independence. Currently, the United States imports 7-8 millions oil barrels daily. This oil comes primarily from the Persian Gulf, Algeria, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico. By implementing the Keystone XL Pipeline, America would secure access to domestic crude oil. This would decrease our dependence on expensive oil from countries like Venezuela and Russia, who are in constant conflict. This overseas oil would be replaced by secure oil from North Dakota, Montana, and Canada. Domestic oil production offers the United States insurance against unstable foreign sources. Producing oil domestically rather than shipping from overseas sources also decreases the need for importing oil, and allows America to
CON
Domestic Our economy has already suffered enough from the adverse effects of climate change: in the past two years, the vast majority of US counties, sixty seven percent, were affected by at least one of the eleven billion dollar extreme weather events – Superstorm Sandy alone caused an estimate 80% in damage, and recovery is still underway; the drought that affected 80% of US farmland last summer did at least $20 billion in damage to the US economy. Furthermore, the same fossil fuel interests pushing the Keystone pipeline have been cutting, not creating, jobs: Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that period. In 2010 alone, the top five oil companies slashed their global workforce by 4,400 employees; the same year executives paid themselves nearly $220 million. But at least those working in the industry as a whole get paid high wages, right? It turns out that 40 percent of U.S oil-industry jobs consist of minimum-wage work at gas stations. Instead of bankrolling an industry that is laying off workers and threatening our economic future, isn’t it time to take the billions in subsidies going to oil companies and invest instead in a sector that both creates jobs and protects the planet? In 2011, the most recent year for which comprehensive international data is available, the global economy emitted 32.6 billion metric tons of carbon pollution. The United States was responsible for 5.5 billions of that, coming second to China. Within the United States, electric power plants produced 2.8 billion tons of those greenhouse gases, while vehicle tailpipe
The Pipeline COULD PERMANENTLY CUt OUR GDP BY
2.5%
emissions from burning gasoline produced 1.9 billion tons. By comparison, the oil that would be moved through the Keystone Pipeline would add 18.7 million more metric tons of carbon than conventional oil production. While the extra carbon production would technically belong to Canada, we cannot and should not enable TransCanada to pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we all share. Building a sustainable economy, not the Keystone Pipeline, is what is going to create jobs. At a point in history when we know what burning fossil fuels will do— when we know that the carbon dioxide being emitted is unnaturally warming our earth to the point where the polar ice caps are melting and extreme weather is disrupting communities—it is irresponsible for us to continue investing and expanding the fossil fuel market. Our nation is still in need of jobs. Approving the Keystone Pipeline locks our nation into a trajectory of guaranteed job loss and threatens the stability of the US economy; why keep this course when the alternative-energy path is already out-performing other sectors of the economy. The solar energy field is currently creating jobs six times faster than the overall job market. Research by the Solar Foundation shows a 13 percent growth in high-skilled solar jobs spanning installations, sales, marketing, manufacturing and software development – bringing 119,000 jobs into the sector. According to the Political Economy Research Institute at University of Massachusetts Amherst, investment in a green infrastructure program would create nearly four times as many jobs as
THE PIPELINE WOULD
an equal investment in oil and gas. At this point in time, when we know that continuing our use of fossil fuels is damaging our environment beyond repair, we cannot facilitate further destruction to our environment made by the Keystone XL pipeline. There are so many other forms of renewable and clean forms of energy thWat we could turn to – Nuclear Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Hydropower, and Geothermal Energy are all market ready. Moreover, the damage to the environment will hurt our economy, and our job market. The construction of the pipeline will not create American jobs – it will take them away. It will decrease our GDP and it will create more frequent natural disasters that destroy homes and lives. HMR
The construction of the pipeline will not create American jobs – it will take them away. It will decrease our GDP and it will create more frequent natural disasters that destroy homes and lives.
18.7 MILLION TONS OF CARBON TO
ADD
THE ATMOSPHERE March 2015
7
Domestic
NYPD and Mayor de Blasio
Teddy Kaplan
T
he government and the police have the same goal: to protect the inhabitants of their region. The government must make the laws to support the region’s citizens, while the police take the physical actions needed to carry out these laws. So, in order to have a safe city, the police must be on the same page as the government, and vice versa. This is not occurring in New York City, where Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York Police Department (NYPD) are completely out of sync. A long rift has been growing between them, especially since November, when de Blasio seemingly allowed protestors to make comments bashing cops at protests for the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. This rift is inexcusable since it will result in a more crime-filled city, with police officers not doing their duties and scared to act aggressively. On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown robbed a Ferguson, Missouri convenience store. Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer, attempted to arrest Brown,
an 18-year-old black male. During this altercation, Wilson ended up firing his gun and killing Brown. This shooting was met with a significant amount of controversy, as many protestors thought the shooting was racially motivated due to the fact that Brown was black. A similar incident occurred on July 17, 2014, in Staten Island. Police officers believed that Eric Garner, a 43-year-old black man, was selling illegal, untaxed cigarettes outside of a beauty supply store. Officers confronted Garner, and during the process of arresting him, Garner was strangled to death, prompting more outcry against officers. Even more controversy followed on the heels of the decisions to not indict the officers in either case, and many anti-police protests have occurred throughout the country since then. In November, protestors in New York City occupied the West Side Highway and FDR Drive, stopping traffic. This was another example of the rift between de Blasio and the NYPD, as de Blasio told the NYPD to stay back and allow the protests
to continue. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani condemned de Blasio’s handling of the protests, stating that allowing the protests to continue resulted in “police offers punched, police officers spat on…There was a tremendous amount of violence. Not just a little bit.” Through the use of aggressive police policies such as stop-and-frisk, in which police officers can stop anyone that looks suspicious, Giuliani and former mayor Michael Bloomberg heavily reduced the crime rate in New York City. From 1994 to 2013, under Giuliani and Bloomberg, murders went down from 2016 to 648 per year, robbery went down from 86,617 to 27,241 per year, and burglary went down from 164,650 to 56,442 per year. When Giuliani and Bloomberg were working with and supporting the police, it was possible for more effective policing to occur, as is seen with these numbers. Giuliani explains, “What you saw in New York City over the last couple of weeks would never, ever have happened while I was
“A more serious outcome could be that police officers become scared of doing their jobs because of the outcries of police brutality.” 8
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV
Domestic mayor of New York City…[The protesters] would not have been allowed to control the bridge [on which they protested]. People don’t get to take a public bridge from the public.” Giuliani added, “What I blame the mayor for is allowing these protests to get out of control…You’ve got to give people a sense that there’s law, there’s order and that the police are in charge, they’re not in charge. The mayor has switched it.” Included in this was de Blasio’s allowing protesters to continue despite their violent chanting of “What do we want? Dead cops!” Included in de Blasio’s rift with the NYPD are his own son’s relations with the police. De Blasio is married to a black woman, Charlene McCray, so their son, Dante, is half-black. As reported by the Huffington Post, de Blasio publicly stated that he has told Dante to be careful when he interacts with the police because of his race. This sends the bad message that even the mayor does not trust the police, since he is even willing to say so in public. This is definitely a problem, as the mayor should usually be supporting the NYPD, not presenting it as a bad, racist institution. On December 20, 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley murdered Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos while they were sitting in their police car in Brooklyn, New York. Brinsley targeted police officers because he was unhappy that the officers in the Garner and Brown cases were not indicted. At the funerals of Liu and Ramos, police officers exhibited their disapproval of de Blasio’s actions by turning their backs on him as a protest. Additionally, the police have created a virtual work stoppage for multiple weeks to protest their frustration with the mayor. According to the New York Post, arrests were drastically reduced during the week from December 22 to December 28, 2014, while that did not happen during the same period in 2013. Traffic violations were down 94%, Criminal Court summonses down 94%, parking violations down 92%, and overall arrests down 66% in this time. This shows just how important the relations between the government and the police are, with sour relations turning into more people getting away with crime in the city. This stoppage was not because of fewer crimes, but rather because cops were only making arrests when absolutely necessary. They feared for their own safety and also that de Blasio might not support them should a controversial case arise. A police source confirmed this, saying, “This is not a slowdown for slowdown’s sake. Cops are
concerned, after the reaction from City Hall on the Garner case, about de Blasio not backing them.” A very serious longterm outcome could be that police officers will become scared of doing their job because of all the outcries of police brutality. Even after de Blasio’s term as mayor comes to a close, the NYPD might still be scared of cracking down on crime, and will be less likely to stop a murderer or robber from getting away if force is needed to track the criminal down. This will not be good, as the criminals will be able to use force, while cops could face discipline for using force. This could result in many criminals getting away. Furthermore, with all the antipolice protesting going on, many children and teenagers are being told about how brutal the police force is, and therefore might not want to become police officers when they grow up. This would not be good as the talent level of the police force would go down, since many potential officers would choose other careers in order to avoid the stigma that could be associated with the police. De Blasio must resolve these conflicts with the NYPD, and resolve them quickly, or disaster will occur. NBC News suggests that apologizing, seeking outside intervention, getting a new contract for police unions, or changing optics can help do so. As for the first option, apologizing, de Blasio refuses to apologize to the NYPD union. And, even if de Blasio does apologize, the NYPD likely feels so disrespected that apologizing might only be enough to get the ball rolling. All of the issues between de Blasio and the NYPD have been well-documented, and they are real issues, so apologizing would definitely be a good starting move for de Blasio, but more work would be needed to successfully restore the relations. Seeking outside intervention from an outside peacemaker is a good option on top of apologizing. An option such as Bill Clinton, who is not biased to either side, could work, but the former President declined to do so. Another option might be Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has supported both
March 2015
www.hamodia.com
wsides in the past. As governor, a productive New York City is a goal that Cuomo would be interested in. According to NBC News, Cuomo talked about restoring relations between the sides during his inaugural address. However, Phil Walzak, de Blasio’s spokesman, says, “What is really needed is for the dialogue between the two sides to continue.” One possibility is to have the sides agree on a new contract. While the police unions agreeing on a new contract would not instantly restore de Blasio’s relations with the NYPD, the dialogue could greatly improve them over time. NBC News says that all five police unions have had expired contracts since 2010, and getting new contracts could result in better relations. Coming to an agreement on a new contract could lead to more agreements in the future, as it would restore the conversation between the sides, as Walzak said. A new contract also shows the public that the two sides can agree on something, with more hopefully on the way. The final way NBC News suggests restoring the relations is to change optics. A politician changing optics involves changing the public perception of an issue. De Blasio can do this by continuing to talk to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton. This would work in restoring the faith of the public that the NYPD can work with de Blasio. It would also then allow the NYPD to work without as much criticism and doubt from the public, allowing them to crack down on more criminals. Right now, NYPD relations with de Blasio are very shaky, but there are certainly some actions that could move this relationship in the right direction. HMR
9
Domestic
How the Secret Service Has Turned its Back on America
O
n September 19th, 2014, an armed man jumped the White House fence, ran across the Great Lawn, and passed through the unlocked front doors without being stopped by the Secret Service. The intruder, Omar J. Gonzalez, wielded a knife and was able to overpower a Secret Service agent before running through the ceremonial East Room and finally being tackled and arrested. It was later revealed that Gonzalez had made it much further into the building than was originally thought—almost reaching the private quarters of President Obama and his family. The intrusion follows many similar incidents involving the Secret Service, which during Gonzalez’s intrusion failed to respond quickly and actively to the situation. The issue brings up the worry that possible threats to government officials can now be acted upon, as well as the concern of how the most safe-guarded house in all of the country can so easily be penetrated by pedestrians—all because of the irresponsible behavior of the Secret Service.
The United States Secret Service, established in 1865, is tasked with protecting the President and other government officials, including the Vice President and members of the House of Representatives. The agency is mandated by Congress to carry out dual missions: protecting national and visiting foreign leaders, and conducting criminal investigations. The agency is accountable for the protection and security of the President everywhere he goes. Until recently, the Secret Service reliably and dutifully fulfiled their tasks. It was only in the past half decade that the Secret Service has been lacking in the skills needed to protect the most valuable home and person in the country. The first signs of uneasiness within the Secret Service started in 2009 when the President’s state dinner was crashed. On November 24th, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, then a married couple aspiring to be featured on the reality TV show, “The Real Housewives of D.C.,” were able to get past the Secret Service checkpoints for the President’s first state dinner without being
10
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV
on the guest list. The couple was photographed meeting the president and Vice President Joe Biden, among other governmental officials. The couple was finally arrested, but that did not settle the issue that they were able to pass several Secret Service agents and meet the president and vice president before being suspected. If the couple instead were members of a terrorist group or were carrying weapons, the situation could have grown into something much worse. On November 11th, 2011, shots were fired through windows on the South Side of the White House with a semiautomatic weapon, causing over $100,000 in damage and a massive manhunt to search for the suspect. It took four days for police to find the man, who had managed to escape to Pennsylvania before being arrested by police. The shots fired reached the Private Headquarters of the President, and the weapon used to fire those shots was left in the man’s car, abandoned after he had escaped. The man, 21 year old Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, acted on information given to him
Domestic
Kyra Hill from Pennsylvania agents of the Secret Service. Ortega-Hernandez has had a history of trouble associated with the law and aberrant behavior. In April 2012, scandal swarmed around the Secret Service while the behavior and activity of the agents were questioned in Brazil during the Summit of the Americas. Nearly two dozen Secret Service agents were disciplined or fired as part of the scandal, which began when Secret Service agents brought prostitutes into their hotel in Cartagena, Colombia, ahead of the President’s trip. The agents were accused of carousing with female foreign nationals at the hotel before Obama’s arrival. The scandal permanently blemished the agency for the agents’ inappropriate behavior and raised questions of whether the agents were qualified to protect the president. The most recent incident, though, seems to be the most personal. Armed with a knife, Omar J. Gonzalez was able to jump the fence of the White House, sprint 70 yards across the Great Lawn, enter the unlocked front door, overpower a Secret Service
agent, and run into the ceremonial East Room, near the president’s private headquarters. He was eventually tackled as he tried to enter the Green Room, a parlor used for receptions and teas. The White House is the most private and safe-guarded home in America, and yet it was easily broken into. Then on January 18th, 2015, the Secret Service reported that shots had been fired outside Vice President Joe Biden’s home. It is unclear whether the house was struck by gunfire. U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on January 19th, sent a letter to Joseph Clancy, acting director of the Secret Service, asking for more information on the similar, 2011 incident, which involved shots fired at the White House. The Secret Service came under criticism for its handling of that incident, which went unnoticed for four days until the damage was discovered. The Secret Service has lost control of its quality and has lost sight of what its main goal should be—protecting the President
March 2015
and other officials. Although America is divided into multiple parties of different political views, the President and other government officials, as leaders of the country, are in need of the most protection. Because of inappropriate behavior and its lagging response to issues, the Secret Service has failed to adequately fulfill its responsibility. In an attempt to reform itself, the agency has removed high placement officials and will be creating new rules and guidelines for properly handling situations. After approximately six years, the Secret Service has come to realize the faults that lie in the agency. If the most protected man in the country can be so easily reached because of lacking security, what does that mean for other members of our society? And what chance does this give for radicals who desire to hurt the government or the President himself? The Secret Service cannot afford to lack in quality when it comes to security without drastic consequences that can affect not only the President and other officials, but all Americans. HMR
11
Domestic
THE COMMON C RE O
ver the past few decades, the United States’ education ranking has sunk lower and power, sending up red flag warnings that American students are consistently falling behind their international counterparts. Six years ago, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) sought out to reform American education, creating a new set of standards known today as the Common Core. There was no question that reform was necessary, and Common Core was an ambitious solution—but perhaps too ambitious. Although the standards stemmed from good intentions and solid principles, the process of implementing them in schools has elicited much criticism from many fronts, including politicians, teachers, and parents. While resistance to change is understandable, and often necessary for improvement, Common Core should be commended as a valiant effort; it was the one solution that stood up as the education system fell. When the NGA and the CCSSO convened in 2009, state education standards were widely regarded as, simply put, a complete mess. Large disparities existed from state to state, so much that “proficient” in one could equate to “below basic” in another. To level out these differences, the two organizations aimed to create clear, consistent, and rigorous standards that were to be put in place across
12
all states that adopted the Common Core. But these standards were only final goals delineating what students should know by the end of each grade; subsequently, they did not encompass curricula, leaving those decisions to states and school districts. Although the Common Core effort was entirely lead by states, the standards were highly encouraged by the federal government. In 2009, President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced an educational contest known as Race to the Top (RTTT). Funded by the ED Recovery Act, this $4.35 billion program is a “race” that rewards education funding to states and schools that
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV
KAREN JIANG have satisfied certain performance-based standards, including adopting Common Core, raising test scores, and improving teacher and principal effectiveness. The falling rankings of the education system also showed that American students had been graduating high school unprepared for college and modern employment. Mathematics ratings had fallen far behind nations including China and South Korea, leaving students in the dust as their counterparts on the other side of the world surged ahead. Common Core tried to equalize the playing field by raising expectations for all American students, implementing standards based on critical thinking in an attempt to elim-
Domestic inate rote memorization, a technique that unfortunately prevails in classrooms across the nation. The standards also emphasize the importance of collaborative and reflective learning. For example, English classes were previously comprised of reading a book and writing a general response, whereas the Common Core promotes techniques such as picking out specific passages to deeply analyze. On paper, Common Core sounds like a plan that is too good to be true. Its intentions are positive and its means seem effective, so why is the media ranting about Common Core’s created havoc, including crying children, frustrated parents, and political dissent? For one, given the multiple success stories, the negative reactions are exaggerated. In 2010, Kentucky became the first state to implement Common Core standards, offering new English and math curricula in local school districts. Three years later, Time magazine reported overwhelmingly positive results: test scores went up by two percentage points on Common Core exams, graduation rates increased from 80 percent to 86 percent, and the percentage of college or career ready students increased from 34 percent to 54 percent. According to studies conducted by Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Kentucky’s old education standards hovered around a “D,” while the new standards received a B+ in English and an A- in math. Despite this jump, several onlookers have expressed mixed feelings, stating that the pace of improvement is not fast enough and that success varies from district to district. This fluctuation in success is largely due to one of Common Core’s major issues: how can teachers be prepared to teach by the new standards? Because the standards have raised the bar significantly, Common Core tests at the end of each year are substantially more difficult as well. Due to RTTT, public schools receive increased funding based on increased performance, so teachers are evaluated using their students’ test scores. Thus, heightened standards coupled with the RTTT race have prompted many teachers to “teach to the test.” As shown through numerous studies and first-hand experiences, teaching to the test is provides a fairly unproductive, inefficient method of learning. It limits academic freedom and innovative teaching, stripping away years of experience and replacing creativity with rigidity. Much like the opposi-
tion against Advanced Placement classes in independent schools, the Common Core test is becoming a constricting endall-be-all goal. According to students, it essentially takes the “fun” out of school. From a political standpoint, New York Times columnist David Brooks writes that Common Core standards are “being attacked on the right because they are common and on the left because they are core.” Republicans berate the standards by describing them as a federal takeover of schools. However, this accusation cannot be possible considering that Common Core was a state led effort. Furthermore, Common Core doesn’t restrict curricula, so localists still preserve what is taught and how it is taught. On the opposite side of Congress, Democrats have complained that the standards are too difficult. Teachers’ unions have expressed great discomfort in a so-called “top-down straightjacket” that they have been forced into. The problems with Common Core’s implementation can be seen most clearly not from the federal level, state level, or local districts, but simply in the American household. Parents have reported stories of their children crying over math homework, because the cerebral, multistep problem solving processes are too complex for their children to handle at such young ages. At times, however, it seems as if the problem resides in the gap between the two generations. Having learned simplistic, “plug and chug” methods in school, parents are having difficulty comprehending the new techniques and are subsequently unable to assist their children with homework. This creates a frustrating household dynamic between a confused child and even more confused parents. The American home can be viewed as a microcosm of the larger learning environment, one that is now marked by misunderstanding and homework battles. Change is always met with resistance, and the wave of opposition that followed Common Core’s introduction is understandable. It will be a long process before American education rankings rise considerably; schools need time to properly implement new standards, teachers and students need time to adapt, and Common Core creators need time to tweak the standards. That is not to say, however, that Common Core was a failure -- it was a mass-experiment with positive inten-
March 2015
tions but considerable flaws. This was the one solution that rose up to face a worsening educational disaster, and it should be applauded for so ambitiously attempting to fix the issue face front. The road to education reform will be long and tainted with frustration, but at least Common Core has built a road for us, albeit muddy. It is up to Americans to trudge along or even sprint forward; after all, those on the other side of the world are speeding ahead on decades-old highways. We cannot just sit in their dust, shoot down every new set of standards, and wait until a flawless reform rocket arrives to save us, because it’s not coming. HMR
GRADUATION RATES INCREASED FROM 80 TO 86 PERCENT CAREER-READY STUDENTS INCREASED FROM 34 TO 54 PERCENT 13
Domestic
hen Obama first won the presidential election in 2008, the country was excited, and his first term produced positive results. When Obama passed nationwide health care, the country was ecstatic; only to see their excitement diminish within a couple of years, as Obama’s policies became more and more unreliable and unrealistic. As one of the highest spending presidents, the country is falling deeper into debt, and doubt, wondering why so much money is being wasted on policies that barely work. President Obama’s State of the Union address on January 20 once again called for an ambitious agenda for the country. Taking credit for the improving economy, he demanding that his Republican rivals support an expensive plan focused on increasing the fortunes of the middle class. Obama once again declared that, “the shadow of crisis has passed.” He requested that Congress make community college free for the majority of students, enrich tax credits for education and child care, and impose more taxation on the upper class as well as the country’s large financial institutions. Claiming that our country has risen from economic recession into a flexible future that is up to us to decide, the president emphasized how profit and success should not just be focused on the upper class, but be equally spread among the American population. With his optimistic and enterprising
agenda, Obama is evidently trying to bring change to the country—but will his policies really work? In the past, Obama’s ideas have mostly failed or been of little help to the country at large. Nationwide health care was viewed as a great salvation when it was first passed, but today barely works. Having spent so much government money on the program, today’s economic condition seems to prove that Obamacare has backfired. Since the program only covers low-income individuals, small businesses are failing because instead of receiving the government’s care and nurture, they have been forced to turn full time workers into part time workers, with Obamacare also encumbering low income workers with high deductible policies they cannot understand, nor afford. Additionally, the wealthy, even the upper-middle class, has to pay more taxes with their insurance, and even though they’re not paying enough money to go bankrupt, the main problem is that no one wants to pay unnecessary taxes that fund plans which, frankly, don’t work. This being one of the main problems with Obamacare, it isn’t surprising that people have become skeptics of the president’s ideas. Additionally, Obama has pushed for increasingly expensive plans, and throughout his presidency has continued to refuse to cut government spending. Each year, Obama he has increased the government budget: his current budget proposes spending $46.5 trillion over the next few years, which is why Obama has been named one of the highest spending presidents. Some may argue that Obama has nonetheless improved the economy greatly. Obama’s presidency has, fortunately, increased the number of jobs by nearly 2 million, with the unemployment rate only being at 5.6%. The stock market is doing extraordinarily well, so why is everyone so upset with Obama? The reason being, no one wants to see a president’s continuously ignorant policies pile on top of each other, and eventually fall over. Additionally, these numbers do not reflect the increase in those not seeking employment. It is also covered up by Obama’s overspending and general policy failures. Domestically, Obama can brag that America is number one in oil and gas productions, and he can also claim that wages are rising—but only at a measly 0.4%—while making small policy changes that are basically the same as his old ones. Even Democrats remained silent when he spoke about trade promotion authority and free trade agreements during
14
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS: FALSE HOPE W
Annie Liu
his speech. Obama’s words on foreign affairs were not well-received either. His policies of unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan have squandered victories and made a mockery of the sacrifices of soldiers who gave their lives to control territory that ISIS now rules without a fight. He has already spent an unnecessary amount of government spending on drones to combat terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Having launched over 390 drone attacks in the Middle East throughout his drone campaign of five years so far, Obama’s drones have killed roughly 4,400 civilians—more than the number of people killed on 9/11— but a mere few of these killed were actual ISIS militia Unsurprisingly, the president is increasingly losing support from both Republicans and Democrats. America, he said, is “stopping [the Islamic State’s] advance,” is “opposing Russian aggression,” is ending a Cuba policy “long past its expiration date,” and “is at work with respect to Iran.” But is he really stopping ISIS? Does he truly believe that justice is being served through the deaths of almost 4000 innocent people? He insists the United State is advancing “not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.”—unfortunately, it is not with much in the way of results. In his decisions, many have noticed how Obama’s idealist visions have been blind to the issues they themselves have raised. He may claim that everything’s alright now, and it may be somewhat true— at least for the low-income families of America—but otherwise, especially in the US’ foreign affairs, there is no real evidence of things starting to look up. Obama is an idealist and an optimist, perhaps not in a good way. Focused on plans mainly for the poor, and looking for equality in wealth, he is a hypocrite, with his extremely high expenditure on plans that hurt the country more than they help
OBAMA IS AN IDEALIST AND AN OPTIMIST, PERHAPS NOT IN A GOOD WAY.”
Domestic
it. Then, in his speeches, he regularly uses flowery language to try and win the country over with his rhetoric. But his claims are empty. Never interested in bipartisanship, he proposes policies that can and will never be passed. Sometimes, it seems they are only intended to be rejected to create a weapon against the Republicans. Is it possible that the president has yet to realize that if he wants big tax increases, he must achieve unified support in Congress? Saying “we stand united” with the marchers in Paris but not joining them himself isn’t shaping unified action against the jihadists whose cause he refuses to name. Overall, Obama needs to be more realistic, and actually face the problems that he glosses over with words. Currently, the situation in the Capitol seems to be Obama vs. the Republicans. Having been accused of passing his executive action on immigration without the consent of Congress, Obama is battling a lawsuit against him by Republicans representing more than 25 states. The states contend that “unilateral suspension of the nation’s immigration laws is unlawful” and that only the court’s “immediate intervention can protect the [states] from dramatic
and irreparable injuries.” Although some 30 Democrat mayors, including Bill DeBlasio, support Obama’s efforts to save over 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation, and although it is true that immigration laws are in need of big fixes, the country is undeniably stuck in a battle which divides it into two. Generally, it seems as if Obama doesn’t care about what the Republicans want or think. During his speech, Obama also brought up cutting the tax benefits of 529 college savings plan, an idea critics pounced on. 529 plans are a popular college savings plans used by millions of American families, a benefit which allows them to draw money tax-free out of savings plans. The administration has attempted to cover up the elimination of the tax break by saying it is a way to redirect more money to middle class families, saying that 70 percent of account balances are held by households making more than $200,000 a year. But the average deposit in these plans is only twenty thousand dollars – not the realm of the superrich.: “People don’t care that a wealthy person might also own a 529 plan. People care that they own a 529 plan, and that Obama is seeking to tax it out of practical
March 2015
existence,” Ryan Ellis, tax policy director for the conservative think tank Americans for Tax Reform, wrote in Forbes this week. He isn’t wrong. Obama has continuously increased taxes for the upper class and big companies and corporations, and 529 plans isn’t the first tax benefit he has cut. But transferring wealth to the poor is not a solution to America’s problems. Growing the economy so that all boats rise along with it is the necessary solution. Although he is evidently working for equal income throughout American wealth classes, Obama seems to only be focusing on low-income families, and failing to put the rest of the population into the picture. Because of this, many of his policies, including Obamacare, have failed to benefit the whole population. Most of the country has become sick and tired of this overly expensive, overly ambitious, overly idealist, overly taxing, and overly headstrong president. Most people just wish for his second term to be over already. In spite of the few, but important, contributions Obama has made, the rest of his plans barely work and have mostly backfired. When our president says it’s “time to turn the page”, it won’t be surprising if most people have trouble doing so. HMR
15
International
www.chicagotribune.com
16
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
International
NO “JE SUIS CHARLIE” FOR FOR NIGERIA
s.f
ew g.n
lo yb nd bo r
THE INJUSTICE DONE TO THE PEOPLE OF BAGA, NIGERIA ZOE MAVRIDES
www.usnews.com
March 2015
17
International
“It is clear that the inherent cause of this blatant disregard of such a devastating phenomenon goes past the logistical level and is grounded on the basis of western civilization in the status quo.” 18
A
fter the death of 17 French citizens at the hands of Islamic extremists, media all over the world reported on the incident and its political implications. As France mourned, leaders of several countries joined 3.7 million people marching against Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. In the interim, Nigeria suffered one of the bloodiest massacres in its history, an event largely overshadowed by the Charlie Hebdo incident. Over 2,000 people perished at the hands of the Boko Haram terrorist group in the town of Baga in the northeastern region of Nigeria. As reports of the massacre trickled through the media, this horrible event was almost entirely lost among those who focused on Paris. According to BBC, Max Abraham, a terrorist analyst, tweeted: “It’s shameful how the 2K people killed in Boko Haram’s biggest massacre get almost no media coverage.” Is the fact that the media has failed to systematically report what is happening in Nigeria a sign that the world and media values Western lives above African lives? Are we passively accepting that the world has a double standard in terms of reacting to violence in third world countries and in Western countries? It’s unavoidable to find radical differences between the world’s reaction to the French and Nigerian massacres. Through further analysis these differences can sadly be explained by a mix of logistical issues, political negligence and widespread desensitization to African suffering. It is shocking to understand the extent of the violence occurring in Nigeria. Boko Haram, founded in 2002, promotes a version of the Islam that forbids Muslims from taking part in or being associated with Western society, which includes democratic elections, wearing shirts and pants, and secular education. Even though Nigeria’s president is Muslim, his association with western practices makes his government undesirable, and, therefore, a target of Boko Haram. Lately, Boko Haram has broadened its tactics, staging attacks in northern and central Nigeria. Before the recent massacre in Baga, the group made headlines with the kidnapping of 200 schoolgirls from the Chibok town in Borno. In a display of extreme cruelty, explosives strapped to a girl who was 10-years-old were detonated, killing at least 20 people. However, the massacre of Baga has been described by Amnesty International as the terror
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
group’s “deadliest massacre” to date, and local defense groups said they had given up counting the bodies left lying on the streets. In 2013, amid fears of links with other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, the U.S. designated Boko Haram a terrorist organization. Why has the world forgotten Nigeria? Jeremy Diamond from CNN theorizes why the media and the world reacted differently to the tragedies of Paris and Baga. First, Diamond points out, the attack on Charlie Hebdo was mostly symbolic, attacking what Western societies value as one of their prime tenets: freedom of expression. As a result, the social media reaction was immediate and explosive, quickly coining the hashtag “Je suis Charlie” as a slogan that spread virulently among the world. Secondly, the French government reacted immediately, calling for a show of unity. In the meantime, “Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan had concerns more pressing than issuing a rallying cry of defiance in the face of attacks that again sought to undermine his country’s very sovereignty.” Paradoxically, Jonathan issued a statement condemning the attack on Charlie Hebdo and expressing Nigeria’s “full solidarity” with the people of France, while failing to do the same for the victims of terrorism in his own country. This was an attempt to minimize the magnitude of the massacre for the upcoming presidential elections. Diamond concludes that the world’s reaction had a visceral component to it. Western media and American intelligence see ISIS, not Boko Haram, as a threat, and therefore the public fears a “Paris-like” attack more than they do fear a “Baga-like” attack. Finally, according to J. Peter Pham, director of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council, the world had become desensitized to bad news coming from Africa: “There’s a sense that ‘That’s Africa, bad things happen. This is Paris; it’s a Western country. This shouldn’t happen,’” Pham explained. “We’re conditioned by years of reports coming out of Africa to expect this type of thing in Africa.” It is shocking to believe that the world would be dismissive and desensitized by human tragedy, regardless of where it comes from. Beyond how the West feels about the tragedy in Nigeria, there are apparent logistical issues that make reporting about the massacre at Boko Haram more challenging than reporting about the Paris
International
timemagazine.com
attack. Boko Haram has targeted journalists in northern Nigeria, and in effect, making it unsafe for journalists to cover news in the region. There are limitations in terms of communication and Internet access in the areas where the Boko Haram operates. The lack of Internet access results in the absence of an online community able to share news, photos, and video reports of news as it unfolds. This contrasts with the response to the Paris attack, as social media immediately mobilized, fueled by photos and reports posted on the Internet for the world to see. While these deterrents may play a significant role in the scarce coverage, it is clear that the inherent cause of this blatant disregard of such a devastating phenomenon goes past the logistical level, and is grounded at the basis of western civilization in the status quo. Even though the social media reaction to the events in Baga has been consider-
ably delayed compared to the response to the “Je suis Charlie” movement, some have taken to social media to ask for the world’s response. Using a number of hashtags including “BagaTogether”, “weareallbaga”, and “pray4baga”, Nigerians and others are making their plea known to the world. As consumers of information, Americans should be aware of what is happening in our world, and, therefore, should demand media to provide equal coverage to events regardless of the nationality of the parties involved or affected. In fact, the world has the moral obligation to make sure that small-scale genocides like the one that occurred in Baga do not occur again. This can only happen if the western world understands the extent of the cruelty and depravity demonstrated by Boko Haram. Only then will the international community be able to demonstrate its outrage and support the fight
against Boko Haram by forcing the Nigerian government to protect its civilian population, especially women and children. In order to take the next steps towards improvement, many may ask the following question: how can western nations influence Nigeria to fight against terror? As of 2012, Nigeria received approximately $338 million in U.S. aid and substantial non-monetary aid in the form of training and intelligence. Despite the recent Nigerian government’s rejection of U.S. offers for anti-terrorism training, economic sanctions that condition aid in fighting Boko Haram with vigor and commitment, should be considered by our government. Diplomatic measures by Western nations that reject political maneuvering and posturing should be put in place in order to guarantee the protection of the innocent people of Nigeria. HMR
#Pray4baga #n’oublionspasBaga
#Weareallbaga #JeSuisBaga
#StopponsBokoHaram #IamNigeria March 2015
19
International
Lifting Embargos on Cuba Lexi Kanter
T
he Republic of Cuba. With its crumbling Spanish baroque buildings and vintage cars, it is a country that is seemingly frozen in time. Cellular communications within the country are still rare and expensive, and the majority of the population does not have access to Wi-Fi or mainstream media. Although it is only 90 miles off the coast of Key West at the tip of Florida, Cuba has remained a Caribbean island largely inaccessible to most Americans due to stringent travel restrictions. As a result of the strained relations between the two nations, the U.S. government has banned the importation of Cuban products. In addition, the Cuban government has restricted the establishment of American businesses on the island. However, major changes will occur due to President Obama’s recent announcement calling for the restoration of for-
eign relations between the U.S. and Cuba. The origin of the hostile and “tumultuous relationship” between the United States and Cuba, as described by the Council of Foreign Relations, lies in the Cold War. In 1959, Fidel Castro and a group of revolutionaries seized power in Havana, overthrowing Fulgencio Batista. As the Castro regime increased trade and strengthened relations with the Soviet Union, the United States responded by economically sanctioning Cuba. What began as a restriction of Cuban sugar imports escaladed to a ban on virtually all exports to Cuba and a full economic embargo under John F. Kennedy. By 1961, the two nations had severed all diplomatic ties, and the U.S. began conducting covert operation in an attempt to overthrow the Castro Regime, most famously the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. This disastrous political misstep fueled
20
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
Cuban mistrust of the U.S., further aggravated diplomatic relations, and resulted in an agreement between Cuba and the Soviet Union allowing the construction of a missile base on the island. After learning about the plans in October of 1992, U.S. ships implemented a naval quarantine around the island as part of a fourteen-day standoff. The conflict ended when Cuba agreed to dismantle the missile sites and the United States promised not to invade the island. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States’ policy towards Cuba began incorporating diplomatic and economic isolation. This policy continued throughout the Cold War, collapse of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of new relations between the U.S. and other communist countries, such as China. President Obama has long pushed for better relations with Cuba. In 2009, short-
International
http://nicktyrone.com/normalisation-cuba-us-relations-long-long-overdue/
ly after he won the 2008 election, Obama repealed restrictions set by former President George W. Bush. This rescinding enabled U.S. telecommunication companies to provide cellular and satellite service in Cuba and allowed U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba under license for educational purposes. Relations continued to improve slowly until Cuba arrested Alan Gross, a member of the U.S. Agency for International Development, for attempting to bring cellphones and satellite equipment to Cuba’s Jewish community. In exchange for Gross’ release, Raul Castro, Fidel Castro’s brother and successor, demanded that the U.S. release the Cuban Five, a group of Cuban intelligence officers that had been arrested in Miami in 1998. Also, Cuba had been designated as a supporter of terrorism by the U.S. State Department in 1982 due to its role as a
safe haven for member of terrorist organizations such as the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). This past December, President Obama announced his plan for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. This announcement succeeded 18 months of talks facilitated by Pope Francis and a prisoner swap, which included the release of three members of the Cuban Five. Obama called this new resolution an effort to “cut loose the shackles of the past” and said that it would end a “rigid [and] outdated approach that for decades has failed to advance our interests.” Obama also stated, “These 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked…it’s time for a new approach.” As part of the agreement, the United States will ease restrictions on re-
March 2015
mittances, travel, and banking. Americans will be able to use credit and debit cards in Cuba and import up to $400 worth of goods including alcohol and tobacco products. Cuba will allow more Internet access and release fifty-three Cubans that U.S. identifies as political prisoners. However, regardless of Obama’s desire to lift it, the embargo will likely continue because its removal requires congressional action. Generally, the American public favors the establishment of new relations between the United States and Cuba. According to the Washington Post–ABC News poll, 74 percent of participants support ending the travel ban. Nearly six in ten Americans approve of re-establishing relations with Cuba, as reported by a New York Times poll conducted in October. Additionally, a June 2014 Florida International University poll indicated that a majority of Cuban Americans support improving diplomatic ties and ending the embargo. Naturally, not everybody endorses the President’s decision. Numerous leading Republican figures, including Speaker John A. Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell, and Senator Marco Rubio, have voiced their opposition. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called it a “very, very bad deal,” while potential 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush said it “undermines the quest for a free and democratic Cuba.” Although Americans are excited about new travel prospects, not all Cubans are looking forward to the change. Emma Young, a sixteen year old who grew up in Cuba, said that although she acknowledges the change’s positive impact, for example new jobs and industries, she fears that Cuba will not have the same atmosphere. Even though new cars and the latest cell phones are useful, she says she will miss the feeling of “winding back the clock and showing up in a completely different time period.” It will be interesting to see how Cuba and the United States proceed with this restoration process over the next few years. Reestablishing relations scarred by years of animosity and neglect will not be easy. Trust between the two nations must be rebuilt before any major changes can take place. The international community will need to function as a facilitator of discussions. Hopefully, the reinstatement of positive relations between the U.S. and Cuba signifies the beginning of an international push for a more democratic Cuba. This could be an exciting opportunity for the people of Cuba, certainly one that should not be wasted. HMR
21
International
Foreign Influence on United States Gun Policies
Daniel Posner
A
merica is flooded with guns with more than 300 million in the United States by most estimates. Despite increased incidents of gun violence that target innocent victims, the U.S. has done little to control gun ownership or use. In recent years, as these incidents have become more frequent and tragic, the debate about gun control in the US has intensified. Too often the victims of gun violence are children or college students. While these weigh heavily on all of us, very little has been done to actually control this growing wave of violence. After each new incident of gun violence, we renew the debate about whether and how to control access to these lethal weapons. On one side of the public debate are groups like “the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” and “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.” On the other side, most prominently is the Na-
tional Rifle Association (NRA), America’s most powerful pro-gun lobbying organization. The NRA was founded in 1871. Its founders were military officers who had served in the Union Army during the Civil War. They observed that Union soldiers had fired more than 1000 bullets for every Confederate soldier they hit, a reflection of the poor training they had received. So they founded the NRA to teach marksmanship, and over the years they built local gun clubs around the country to teach these skills. For its first 100 years, the NRA supported various laws aimed at controlling the purchase and use of guns, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. In the mid 1970s, the NRA began to oppose gun control measures and expand its political influence. And as it has grown, it has played an increasingly effective role in cutting back gun con-
22
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
trol measures and allowing the spread of more lethal weapons. When we think of the NRA, most of us assume it is an American institution, supported by American gun-owners who want to prevent new laws that restrict gun ownership. But there is another side of the story that is only beginning to come to light. The NRA is a rich and successful lobbying organization that obtains a growing and substantial portion of its annual operating funds from gun dealers and manufacturers, including large European gun manufacturing firms, like Italy’s Beretta and Austria’s Glock. It was not always this way. “Unlike organizations which start out controlled by industry and created by industry, like lobbying groups for coal or oil, [the NRA] really started out as a grassroots organization and became an industry organization,” said William Vizzard, a former agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-
International
“The hidden aspect of this story is the role of foreign gun companies that are not permitted to sell their guns in their own countries and are making tremendous profits by selling their guns in the United States.” arms who’s now a professor of criminal justice at California State University in Sacramento. According to a 2013 article in Mother Jones magazine, the NRA now receives 46% of its corporate donations from foreign gun manufacturing companies like Berreta, the world’s oldest gun manufacturing firm from Italy, Glock from Austria, Sig Arms from Germany, and Browning from Belgium. These and other foreign gun manufacturers are the beneficiaries of lax gun control laws in the United States. In 2009, 3.9 million guns were imported into the United States, accounting for 43% of the new guns available that year to Americans. This number was 16 times more than we exported to the rest of the world that year. These European gun manufacturers know that their businesses are not sustainable without a strong US market. The nations from which we are importing these millions of guns, like Italy, Austria, Germany, and Belgium have far more restrictive gun control laws than those of the United States. Therefore, foreign manufacturers are becoming substantially richer by America’s laissez faire gun
market. The NRA protects their ability to sell these millions of guns and in turn benefits greatly from the millions of dollars they contribute to support the NRA’s lobbying arm. In 2012, Glock contributed $115,000 to the NRA. This isn’t surprising as 67% of the guns made in Austria are exported to America. Reportedly Beretta has contributed more than $2 million to the NRA. These and other contributions by foreign gun manufacturers are helping the NRA influence Congressional elections and are promoting the NRAs opposition to gun control, where the United States stands far behind its allies. Every time a mass shooting takes place in a mall, school, or theater, the entire world watches in bewilderment as the U.S. continues to ignore these violent tragedies and allows the further proliferation of unregulated guns. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment provides for the right of an individual to possess a weapon. This was the first such decision by the Supreme Court and it clearly reinforces the NRA’s efforts to undermine those who advocate for stricter gun con-
trol. The hidden aspect of this story is the role of foreign gun companies, who are not permitted to sell their guns in their own countries and are making tremendous profits by selling their guns in the United States. Furthermore, they are funding and supporting highly controversial public policies that affect American public safety. It is time for us to consider regulating and restricting the lobbying contributions being made by these foreign gun manufacturers. It is wrong for European governments who so strongly support strict gun control laws in their own countries to allow commercial firms in their countries to influence an opposite result in the US. We should pass legislation that would prevent these foreign companies from making financial contributions to the U.S. pro-gun lobby. European companies whose own governments greatly restrict their ability to sell guns to their own citizens should not finance the proliferation of gun violence in the US. In today’s globalized world, eradicating gun violence is a challenge that we all must assume responsibility to address. HMR
washingtonpost.com
March 2015
23
International
ISRAEL
BURNING Daniel Frackman
A
www.
FIERY ANTI-SEMITIC PROTESTS IN FRANCE
nti-Semitism has been a serious problem throughout the world ever since the creation of the state of Israel. Recently, anti-Semitism has run rampant throughout Europe, especially France. France has witnessed multiple protests, marches, and hate-crimes against Jewish people and culture. However, after the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks, the French government has called for the protection of Jewish schools and synagogues, a righteous act that calls begs the question, “Why now?” I have loved France and French culture my whole life. I do not know whether it is because of the food or the language, both of which I whole-heartedly participate in, or just my natural instinct to explore different cultures. I have visited France twice, both times were when I was younger and did not have the same grasp on current events that I do now. Now, my interest is not for just
any current event, but those that concern Jews, Jewish culture, and Israel, three very important aspects of this world that do not seem to reach people unless they are looking for information on those subjects themselves. I do not mean to say that I am only interested in news that has to do with Jews; in fact, I have a large range of interests that span multiple topics. The truth is, however, that Jewish issues have a special place in my heart for two reasons, the first being that I could not be more proud to be apart of the Jewish community and to have two places to call my home, New York and Israel. The second reason is actually why I am writing this article, and that is the sheer amount of hatred towards Jews found throughout the world. Before anyone stops reading this due to my “radical” views, I would just like to clarify that I am not saying that everyone is an anti-Semite; however, the truth is that
24
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
many people are anti-Semitic and that it would not be hard for me to find someone in every country in the world who calls themself anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, because of my new appreciation for the aforementioned world news, that love I once had for all things French has been declining at an exponential rate. I find myself reading an article about a march through the streets of Paris or a hate-crime against Jews almost everyday, and frankly, it makes me sick. Two main instances over the past few years have really resonated with me: the murders at a Jewish school in Toulouse and protestors shouting anti-Jewish chants. In March 2012, Mohammed Merah, a French Islamist, murdered three children and their teacher at a Jewish school in Toulouse. This was a horrid act that I still have trouble finding the words to describe. The three children were all under the age of ten, not to mention
International the fact that the teacher killed was a Rabbi, a Jewish religious figure. In early 2014, a large mass of Parisians were marching through Paris streets while shouting, “Jew, France is not yours,” on the day before the International Holocaust Remembrance Day no less. These are prime examples of the growing anti-Semitism throughout France, but, unfortunately, these are just two of many similar instances. In 2012, there were other notable attacks against Jews. For three consecutive weeks starting in May of that year, there was an assault on Jews each Shabbos, and each attack was accompanied with severe anti-Semitic insults. As I said before, I find an article about anti-Jewish protests all the time, and each time I wonder what the French government’s response will be. For the most part, when a case like the ones mentioned above or any similar received international attention, the French government along with Christian and Islamic figures denounced the actions of the culprits. I actually felt some relief when I would hear about the condemning of anti-Semitic attacks; however, recently I have realized that a simple speech or blurb in a newspaper does not do much with preventing such actions happening again. So more and more I wondered, why there was no real action taken against crimes like these. The truth was, I had no answer. I did not understand why no physical action was taken. When I heard about the terrible shooting at Sandy Hook here in America, there was a cry for the passing of gun control laws to prevent shootings like that ever to happen again, and even though there was not a successful bill passed, Congress still tried. On the other hand, after Toulouse, in France, there was no significant bill in the French Parliament. The only reason for the lack of legislative action that I could think of was that the victims in France were Jewish. My first reaction to this thought was denial. I did not believe that the French government was as anti-Semitic as some of its citizens. So I chose not to believe
that it was blatant anti-Semitism, and especially since the French government had spoken out against anti-Jewish attacks, I could not see it possible. Then, the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks occurred. The murder of the editors of the French publication as well as the subsequent attack on a kosher supermarket was extremely tragic; however, these attacks resulted in a very good thing. Finally, after years of anti-Semitism in France, the French government took action. France is stepping up to fulfill the duty of any government, protecting its people. According to a New York Times article written by the Editorial Board, “Prime Minister Manuel Valls has promised that all French citizens can count on government protection of their places of worship. On Monday, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced that 10,000 military troops would be deployed to protect ‘sensitive sites’ throughout France. In addition, 4,700 police officers will protect Jewish schools and synagogues.” This is a wonderful response to the recent shootings and a great way to protect French Jews; however, I believe that France is too late. I would like to bring up the question I posed at the beginning of this article, “why now?” It is entirely possible that after the recent attacks the French government has finally said enough, but it is also possible that the reason for this commitment of protection is the amount of publicity the Charlie Hebdo attacks have generated. After the murders, millions of people marched through Paris in protest, not to mention many other gatherings throughout the world. The murders in Toulouse did not get as much media attention as these attacks have. A big part of the response toward the Charlie Hebdo murders has been in protest of the attack of freedom of speech, a fundamental liberty. Theoretically, if the only shooting that occurred was at the kosher supermarket, I am not sure that the French government would have sent the police officers to protect Jewish schools and
synagogues. I do not mean to say that France would not have responded, but I do not believe that the response would have been as large, and I surely do not think that millions of millions of people would have marched in protest of the attack. I would quickly like to note that the attacks in January were religiously motivated to some extent. In 2008, Chérif Kouachi, one of the gunmen involved in the Charlie Hebdo murders, gave a testimony at a court hearing, in which he stated that he wanted to “vandalize Jewish stores in Paris,” “burn synagogues,” and “terrorize the Jews.” So, therefore, please do not claim that there was not anti-Semitic intent. Obviously, when comparing the deaths of the four people in the kosher supermarket to the deaths of all 17 people who were killed in the span of two days, the bigger tragedy would be the deaths of the greater amount of people. It is hard to discuss issues like this when I bring up a theoretical scenario given the fact that no one could know for sure what the response would have been. Therefore, I have no issue with saying that the French government finally decided that this would be the last time a terror attack that has some religious aspects to it happens without precautions taken beforehand. I applaud France’s recent actions to protect all its citizens from religiously based attacks, and I hope it will reinforce French Jews’ sense of security. Furthermore, with the large amount of French Jews emigrating from France, around 7,000 in 2014, France is loosing a significant minority of its population. France has the largest Jewish population out of any European country, and, according to Prime Minister Manuel Valls, “France without Jews is not France.” So, after years of large-scale anti-Semitic protests and assaults, the French government has not only pledged to protect its Jewish citizens but also declared that Jews are a vital part of the French community. Only the future will tell how serious France really is. HMR
“PARISIANS WERE MARCHING WHILE SHOUTING, ‘JEW, FRANCE IS NOT YOURS,’ ON THE DAY BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY.” March 2015
25
International
Palestinian Statehood An Uncertain Future Krystian Loetscher
L
ate last year, the people of Palestine were denied statehood by failing to achieve the necessary 9 votes in the United Nations Security Council. Despite an overwhelming vote in their favor by the larger body of nations in United Nations General Assembly, and an eight to two majority vote in the Security Council, the resolution did not pass. The now tabled resolution included the right for Palestinian people to self-determine. It also required that all Israeli occupants and forces in the Palestinian territories to leave those areas by 2017. Foreign Affairs reported that three permanent UN Security Council members, including France, China and Russia, all voted for Palestinian Statehood, while the United States was
the only one to vote “no”. Inevitably, even if the resolution had reached the nine required votes that were needed to pass, the United States would have executed its veto power to prevent it from passing. Now, the main question that this boils down to is: Who has the right to deny or allow statehood? The simple answer would be the U.N and all the members who vote on the issue. However, when issues like this come up, one could question where the authority lies in granting statehood of a people. Should the United States and other powerful global players have this type of authority? And if so, who gave it to them? Another key question is whether or not granting statehood to Palestine would have major, detrimental effects on a glob-
26
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
al scale. Jordan’s ambassador, Dina Kawar, explains that the U.N. council “bears both the legal and the moral responsibilities to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is the crux of the conflict in the Middle East.” One factor to consider is the potential result of the resolution passing in comparison to the result of it not passing. After analyzing which outcome would have greater benefits as a whole, we see that Palestinian statehood should be granted. Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian representative to the U.N., explains the dangers of ignoring this resolution quite well; he argues that putting off a prevalent issue like this one will only cause further suffering for Palestinians. The Palestinian people have a right to statehood just as the
International Israeli people do. The State of Palestine is, in fact, already recognized by over 134 nations. This conflict has come to a matter of entitlement. Since a great majority of U.N. members already treat Palestine as a state, it would appear that there is no sufficient reason to believe that the U.N.’s assignment of statehood would pose any significant, new threats. In other words, the instability that
If Palestine were to be introduced to global markets, trade with others would help to further the current state’s wealth and quality of life of its citizens. Additionally, if Palestine were to become a state, it would not severely hurt the standing of Israel. As many people put it, this issue has a lot of symbolic value. With the provocations of Israeli settlements in Palestine, igniting the flames that fuel Hamas, it seems
the Los Angeles Times reports that 68% of American Jews voted for Palestinian statehood versus 19% who disapproved of the two state-solution. While there are concerns about granting statehood to a country like Palestine, the main arguments in favor of statehood outweigh the harms. The U.N.’s responsibility is to make sure that these types of resolutions don’t severely impact global
“While there are concerns about granting statehood to a country like Palestine, the main arguments in favor of statehood outweigh the harms.” many argue exists in Palestine would not be magnified by it becoming a state. The opposing side argues that recognizing Palestine as a state would give power to Hamas, a recognized terrorist faction, who controls one area of Palestine, the Gaza strip. The truth about Hamas is that they are a desperate leader for a desperate people. Similar to how Netanyahu’s approval rating plummeted following his agreement to the cease-fire at a time of conflict, the Palestinians ran to a figure who ensured they would fight back. But at this point, even the common citizen is in opposition to Hamas and their wrong-doings; a Pew poll in June of 2014 shows that only about a third of Palestinians supported Hamas. Their approval shot up following that poll as Sharif Nashashibi of Aljazeera explains, “[the approval rating’s] resurgence is due to Israel’s devastation of Gaza, not despite it. Netanyahu has achieved the opposite of what he intended: instead of weakening Hamas, he has greatly empowered it.” If Palestine were not in such a dire situation, and if they were a state that democratically elected a leader without foreign threats, it is empirically shown to be highly unlikely that they would support a faction such as Hamas. Therefore, they would most probably give its support to the more moderate Fattah. A leading question to consider is if Palestine isn’t a state, then what exactly is it? Is it a territory? Granting the Palestinian people statehood would open a whole new world to the people of this area and help to enhance its standing on a international level. Becoming a state increases its ability to interact with other countries and follow a current trend of global community.
the main reason for suppressing Palestinian statehood derives from the fear of the Hamas faction. However, this coalition is something that would likely diminish if stability were brought to the area. Richard Ottoway, chairman of Britain’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee, explains this point as he says, “But its land grabs in the West Bank are an outrageous provocation. So I could not oppose this symbolic vote.” There would be an immense decline in the hatred that the Palestinians feel towards Israel; similarly, many Israelites have expressed their displeasure in the conflict and support of a more stable leadership in Palestine. For the aforementioned reasons, Palestinians that are experiencing the unequal conflict feel the need to run to their flag, and turn many moderates to extremists. There are divisions among the Israeli society on the topic. A study by
issues. Many are asking the question of why aren’t we granting Palestine its statehood. This question becomes especially prevalent as we see the majority of permanent U.N. members and other rotating members voting in majority for the resolution along with the fact that there is a lack of sufficient reasoning on the side of the United States to deny statehood. Although this is true, the matter is in no way a mere black and white case of right and wrong. A logical weighing mechanism as mentioned above are necessary for cases like this that require one to think about whether the costs outweigh the benefits or the latter. The general consensus has been pro integration of Palestine as a state and the benefits are quite clear. It is possible that a new resolution that eases the worries of the United States as an “imbalance” could possibly pass in the future. HMR
www.global-gateways.com
March 2015
27
International
Conflict of Interest The Poisonous Relationship Between the United States and Saudi Arabia Mehr Suri
W
ith the recent rise in media attention towards human right’s violations in particular Islamic nations, a glaring stigma has been placed on the religion as a whole. Nonetheless, Saudi Arabia, a country that follows identical religious ordinances to that of the continuously berated nations of Iran or Iraq, and has been dubbed a “sickening home for women”, ranking 6th for the rate of women who are genitally mutilated, has subtly slipped through the cracks of the vile media attacks directed towards Islamic nations. This is, in large part, due to the economic ties forged between the United States and Saudi Arabia following their mutual attack on Communistic principles in 1933. There-
after, the United States has remained silent during times of domestic unrest in the Middle East region. It has allowed Saudi Arabia to proceed with measures generally condemned by the US and its “peacefully democratic approach”, with the US simply demanding a large sum of oil produce in return for their silence. In fact, Saudi Arabia makes up 22% of our oil imports, creating a large incentive to, at any cost, sustain relations with the nation and its government. Therefore, as an isolated piece of legislation, one may conclude that the United States government would choose oil and revenue over protecting the livelihoods of those in the oppressed nation of Saudi Arabia. During his first State of the Union Ad-
28
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
dress as President of the United States, George W. Bush once stated, regarding our nation’s foreign policy, “America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman.” However, atrocities that contradict every word of his statement still occur today, most of which have been centralized within Saudi Arabian borders. Raif Badawi, for example, is a Saudi Arabian writer and activist who created the website “Free Saudi” to encourage debate on religious and political matters in Saudi Arabia. In 2012, Badawi was arrested and sentenced
International
“the Saudi Arabian government has been able hold the United States’ loyalty hostage by incentivizing the US government with covert knowledge of the unstable nations in the region.” to ten years in prison in addition to 1,000 lashes in the center of Jiddah Square for criticizing the codified doctrine of Islam as interpreted by the Saudi government. Currently, Raif has received two sets of 50 flogs, and is set to receive his third set soon, yet neither the Saudi government nor the U.S. government has made a statement about these actions. This particular situation is comparable to the human rights violations that were precursors to the Egyptian Revolution, in which the rebel forces overtook President Hosni Mubarak. During this period of time, President Obama excessively expressed his deep concern with the region through a myriad of mediums, most notably in February of 2011, when he held a press conference to specifically address the American public’s sentiment to these human right’s violations. Furthermore, in an attempt to force the Egyptian government to stop these inhumane acts, the United States government not only threatened but also enforced multiple economic sanctions prohibiting US investors from subsidizing their funds in Egyptian markets, all the way to placing an embargo on any sale of petroleum or petroleum products. As Saudi Arabia makes up almost a fourth of all US imports of petroleum and oil, the latter sanction placed upon Egypt seems particularly applicable to Saudi Arabia. But, since Saudi Arabia has such high numbers of imports, while Egypt is a miniscule 2%, attempting to combat Saudi Arabia’s mistreatment of their citizens through sanctions on petroleum is too hazardous, as they run the risk of severing economic ties with the Middle Eastern state. This, therefore, proves that the US thinks with greed rather than sympathy. Not only does the United States fear that their oil revenue will suddenly disappear following a statement condemning the Saudi government’s actions, but also
the US is hesitant due to the possibility of losing their single ally in the Middle East region. With multiple unstable nations in the region, an aid in understanding those nations’ plans of action can be very useful. However, recognizing the fear of losing this aid, the Saudi Arabian government has been able hold the United States’ loyalty hostage by incentivizing the US government with covert knowledge of the unstable nations present in the region, such as Iran or Iraq. Just last year, the National Security Agency significantly expanded its cooperative relationship with the Saudi Ministry of Interior, one of the world’s most repressive and abusive government agencies due to its reportedly abusive techniques. In general, U.S. support for the Saudi regime is long-standing; however, this particularly bold move is part of the Obama Administration’s attempt to forge increasingly close ties with the Saudi regime. And even when asked whether the NSA takes human rights records into account before collaborating with foreign security agencies, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated, “Yes. We cannot comment on specific intelligence matters but, as a general principle, human rights considerations inform our decisions on intelligence sharing with foreign governments.” As we have seen countless examples contradict this response, from Raif Badawi to Saudi human rights lawyer and activist Waleed Abu al-Khair, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison by the “terrorist court” on charges of undermining the state and insulting the judiciary, the United States still upholds that they have been nearsighted in establishing foreign policy with Saudi Arabia. In fact, not only are these covert relations an ignominy to those who were physically abused by the decree of the land, but also this correspondence has led to U.S. citizens’ being put in harm’s way. This is
March 2015
due to the Saudi’s reported supplying of weapons and training to ISIS, the radicalist, unofficial, Islamic state responsible for a myriad of American and British executions. This, therefore, suggests that the Saudi theocracy condones the eventual total subjugation of all Western democracies to their will and way of life and other various morbid beliefs of the organization. And, as allies of Saudi Arabia, we, therefore, condone the very same actions, in accordance to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s statement claiming, “… human rights considerations inform our decisions on intelligence sharing with foreign governments.” Thus, this statement implies that even though the U.S. government has considered all the downfalls to forming a bilateral relationship with the Saudi government, including the indirect support of a terroristic organization that strikes fear into every U.S. citizen and humans right’s violations that would be punishable by prolonged jail time here in the U.S., President Obama and his associates believe that this is all negligible as long as the U.S. receives oil and an ear into the Middle Eastern World. At this point, as diplomatic tides have shifted within Saudi borders, the U.S. should move to adjust its policy accordingly. With the recent passing of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the U.S. finally has a chance to escape this relationship. King Salman, brother and successor of the late King, has already forged a systematic divide in foreign policy towards the U.S., and it is up to the Obama Administration to take that next step in severing it altogether. Even though oil and insight into the events taking place in the Middle East are important to our nation’s economy and safety, protecting and upholding the livelihoods and morals of not only U.S. citizens but also men and women around the world, is much more important. HMR
29
Features
Egalité? Regulating Speech in France Equally Anna Kuritzkes and Daria Balaeskoul
T
he January 7th shooting at the offices of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo will go down in history as an infamous and tragic example of terrorism, an abhorrent attack that cost twelve innocent people their lives. In the aftermath of the attack, millions defended the right to free speech, rallying around the ideology of Voltaire and the slogan often attributed to him, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” French laws, however, do not adhere to Voltaire’s idea of complete free speech. In most of Western Europe and in France in particular, there are a number of laws that penalize hate speech, yet the interpreta-
tion of these laws is heavily influenced by history. That is to say that in France, the legacy of Hitler and the Vichy Regime means that expressions that communicate anti-Semitic and Fascist sentiments are barred, whereas utterances that target other religious groups are accepted as the legacy of Voltaire. In this way, free speech in France is paradoxical. While in the United States, freedom of speech is understood in the context of the First Amendment and limited only when it directly inspires danger (to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater,”) in France, lawmakers find no qualms with regulating
expression. Indeed, France is among the strictest regulators of free speech in the European Union, having codified legislation that forbids communication meant to incite discrimination against any person or group. The interpretation of this law, however, has, due to France’s history and political climate, been mainly used to challenge anti-Semitic sentiments. That’s not to say that no-one in France has been found guilty by a court of law for making statements intended to encourage the discrimination of other religious groups—in 2008 French actress, Brigitte Bardot, was convicted for having written a hateful letter to the French government with regards to the Muslim festival Eid-al-Kabi—still,
“By deeming it legally acceptable to make jibes at certain religious groups and not others, the French government is undoubtedly violating its sacred doctrine of secularism.” 30
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
n
Features such instances remain uncommon. Charlie Hebdo was, in a sense, an equal-offender, caricaturing both the Prophet and the Pope to poke fun at religion in general. Despite the fact that these cartoons are incredibly offensive, the weekly newspaper has the right to publish cartoons of Muhammad. However, the fact that Charlie Hebdo can freely publish anti-Muslim cartoons while French authorities have banned the anti-Semitic comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala’s performances is an injustice. Using regulations to prevent people from making anti-Semitic statements would not necessarily be so bad if anti-Muslim statements were regarded with the same hostility and were also viewed as criminal in the eyes of the law. However, if this were the case, then France would not be a nation of free speech at all. The idea of free speech inherently implies that there is a disjunction between what the law allows and what society accepts— people have the legal right to make hateful statements but that does not make these statements socially acceptable. In France, this disjunction does not exist. The majority has dictated that deriding Muslims is acceptable, whereas Holocaust denial is not. Currently in France, free speech that is regulated to reflect public opinion in this way marginalizes the minority, in this case Muslims, who are not protected under the law. As a result, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala could be sentenced to 7 years in prison for his anti-Semitic hate speech in the aftermath of the attack. (M’bala M’bala posted “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” on his Facebook page, melding the “I am Charlie” slogan with the last name of a gunman who participated in the attacks. M’bala M’bala
was charged with “condoning terrorism.”) While M’bala M’bala’s post was incredibly insensitive, offensive, and immoral, his ignorance cannot be considered criminal if the French government intends to protect the right of free speech. Indeed, the threat to free speech comes not only from extremists but also from governments that use stringent laws to regulate it That’s not to mention that the laws that regulate freedom of expression in France, by interdicting mostly anti-Semitic statements, are in direct conflict with the French principle of laïcité. One of the foundational blocks for the French Constitution, laïcité, or secularism, is meant to ensure that the French government does not give preferential treatment to any religious group. Nevertheless, by deeming it legally acceptable to make jibes at certain religious groups and not others, the French government is undoubtedly violating its sacred doctrine of secularism as well as the fundamental principle of equality before the law. Laïcité extends beyond the notion of separation of church and state; in France, secularism is venerated and public displays of religiosity are frowned upon. This principle has conflicted with the opinions of France’s growing Muslim population, who wish to be able to display their religion through their dress (specifically, through women wearing burqas and niqabs). In 2010, France passed a law that prevented individuals from covering their faces in public, directly targeting muslim women. Furthermore, the mayor of the French town Sargé-lès-Le-Mans allowed schools to serve lunches with pork, which the 15 Muslim children in the school district could not eat, and told upset parents:
March 2015
“It’s pork or nothing.” Laïceté in French society has caused many secular French people to regard using tax dollars for Halal lunch options as a waste, whereas many Muslims see this treatment as discrimination. The free speech regulations that exist in France are not the only laws that marginalize the nation’s Muslim population. Legislation combined with anti-immigrant sentiment in France has caused the Muslim population to be isolated from the rest of the country. The Charlie Hebdo attacks underscore the importance of unregulated free speech. Government regulation of speech is essentially government protection of one idea over another. The government should not have the right to regulate speech unless that speech would directly incite danger. Complete freedom of speech is integral because it is the only way to guarantee that a single group is not discriminated against in the media based upon ethnicity, race, and religion, since any broad laws that are meant to thwart discrimination are liable to a slanted interpretation. If free speech in France was unregulated and, by extension, the discrimination against the Muslim minority decreased (at least de jure), the tensions regarding free speech and the publication of anti-Muslim cartoons would subside in tandem. This is not to say that changing the law to prevent discrimination can prevent acts of terror like the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The point of extending free speech would not be to yield to the desires of extremists in order to prevent future attacks, but rather the goal would be to reduce tensions between the Muslim and non-Muslim populations in France so that all groups can benefit from Voltaire’s legacy. HMR
31
Features
The Downfall of 21st Century Media Henry Shapiro
O
ver the past few centuries, technology has caused a rapid increase in our access to information. The recent tech boom has allowed us to have an almost infinite amount of information at our fingertips and media groups are able to inform us of breaking news almost instantaneously. While this increase in technology has allowed us to greatly expand our access to information, it has also left us wondering what pieces of information we can trust. News groups who desperately want to be the first to break a story have started to report on false leads with little to no fact-checking, resulting in factually incorrect reports on breaking news stories –sometimes even in false accusations of rape and sexual abuse. This proliferation of news outlets has caused pundits to be come more biased, leaving the news-consumer drowning in an exponentially increasing outflow of information that has been distorted by both sides of the political spectrum. In the days of the media, it was significantly harder to print and distribute information, so individuals had to be more selective on the stories and information they reported. This limited the readers’ ability to fact-check and narrowed one’s view of events, but it forced us to focus in on key issues without being distracted by a huge outflow of information. As technology has improved, however, our access to information has progressively increased, allowing us to acquire more knowledge and gain a wider perspective on how to interpret this information. With the ability to report information at faster speeds, media groups have fought to be the first one to break the latest piece of news. This has caused many mainstream media sources to shift their focus to speed rather than quality; thus the accuracy of reporting has suffered a serious deterioration. This can take many
forms. In April 2013, for example, the New York Post ran a front-page picture of two innocent men whom they wrongfully accused of being responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings. More recently, false reports of Ebola cases have become almost universal among the top news organizations. For every real new story, it now seems there are more and more factual errors reported that cause unnecessary public alarm. This caused the number of Americans who trust media sources to decline from 54% in 1989 to 29% in 2009. Although the often shoddy media coverage of breaking news is problematic, to an extent it is somewhat understandable. Facts will always become blurred during an unfolding crisis while viewers’ eagerness to hear the facts increase. Media sources often have to try to be the first to break a story; otherwise, their viewership will go down. The media’s integrity has truly come into question as a result of some recent reports that made accusations with almost no fact checking. First, New York Magazine reported a seemingly impossible story about a high school student, Mohammad Islam, who took a small investment and turned it into $72
32
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
chkp.org
million from trading stocks. The story talked about his NYC apartment, BMW, and plans of starting a hedge fund right out of school, none of which turned out to be true. In fact, Mohammad didn’t make any money off the stock market and only traded through a virtual stock trading game at his school. The fact that New York magazine did a profile on someone whose entire story was false leads us to question how far journalistic integrity has declined over the past few years. Around the same time, Rolling Stone Magazine released an article that told the story of a University of Virginia student who claimed that she was gang-raped during a party one of the university’s fraternities. Shortly after its publication, however, the story fell apart and it was revealed that Rolling Stone did very little to validate this girl’s story. This type of false reporting not only discredits the entire industry but also has the dangerous potential to destroy lives and futures. Another source of factually incorrect information is the political bias from both sides of the spectrum. For example, let’s compare Fox News and MSNBC, which most people see as the classic right- and left-leaning news groups. When comparing the tone of coverage on the 2012 election, Fox News’ comments about president Obama were negative 46% of the time, positive only 6% of the time, and neutral the rest. On the other hand, MSNBC’s comments when discussing Mitt Romney were negative 71% of the time while only positive 3% of the time. It is no coincidence that 40% of Fox News viewers identify as Republicans, and only
“The accuracy of reporting has seen a serious deterioration.”
Features 22% identify as Democrats, while MSNBC’s viewership consists of 58% Democrats and 16% Republicans. There isn’t necessarily a problem with getting news from sources that align with your political views, but it becomes problematic when you only get news from biased sources and when those sources’ bias grow too strong. As this evidence shows, both Fox News and MSNBC, in their coverage of the 2012 election, selectively chose which stories to air and how to display them based not on importance but instead on confirming the biases of their viewers. When individuals only receive news from a biased source, their understanding of issues narrows, and they begin to perceive ideologies as facts, causing their political views to polarize. This increase major media bias correlates with the increasing political polarization within the U.S. The Pew Research Center has conducted a 20-year study of political polarization in the American public from 1994 to 2014. In the study, individuals who identify as either Democrats or Republicans were asked ques-
“We are left drowning in an exponentially increasing outflow of information that has been distorted by both sides of the political spectrum.” tions on political issues, and their views were ranked as either strictly conservative, strictly liberal, or somewhere in between. In 1994, 64% of Republicans held strictly conservative views, and 70% of Democrats had consistently liberal views. From 1994 to 2014, political views polarized, and in 2014, 92% of Republicans had strictly conservative beliefs, while 94% of Democrats had strictly liberal beliefs. Obviously, media and technology haven’t been the only causes of polarization. There are a lot of factors that contributed to the growing political polarization, but the media has undoubtedly played a large role in it. When we become so exposed to bias and ideologically driven reporting, we accept the margin of error created by bias as a norm. We turn every small,
insignificant story into a way of moving our agenda forward and begin to replace factually backed arguments with ideologically driven rhetoric. The 113th Congress tied for the most ideologically divided and unproductive Congress of all time, and we must realize the importance of addressing the issues of political polarization and media bias. What makes this issue so problematic is that it isn’t an issue the government can solve. It’s not the government’s responsibility to determine that a news source is too biased or doesn’t fact-check well enough, or that we accept too much sensationalist nonsense as fact. It is our job to determine what we watch, what we listen to, and what we accept as objective and fact-based information. HMR
quietmike.org
March 2015
33
Features
Restricting Political Donations
A Blatant Violation of the First Amendment
Stephen Phillips he First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects some of the most fundamental rights of a free society, such as freedom of speech. Like many passages in the Constitution, however, the exact meaning of the First Amendment and the activities it was intended to protect are slightly ambiguous. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) banned corporations from funding “electioneering communications,” such as television advertisements that reference candidates. In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission court case, the nonprofit conservative organization Citizens United sued the Federal Elec-
T
tion Commission (FEC) for blocking a political T.V. ad it wanted to run under the BCRA political television ads. Citizens United was defeated in the US District Court for Washington, D.C. It appealed to the Supreme Court, however, which ruled 5-4 in favor of the organization in 2010. The Court found that political advertising was a form of speech protected under the First Amendment, and that corporations could not be limited in their political donations. However, it maintained that they could not donate directly to candidates and that all spending on political activity had to be disclosed to the FEC. Citizens United and the more recent ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Elec-
34
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
tion Commission, which allows unlimited political donations by individuals but limits the amount given to each candidate, affirm that the United States is committed to upholding all of the values of free speech. The objective of the First Amendment is to prevent the federal government from interfering in the expression of social, political, economic, or religious views, which is exactly what limits on campaign finance do. Political donations are an expression of support for a candidate. An individual has the right to hand out fliers on a street corner praising one candidate and criticizing another because of free speech. The same goes for political donations: citizens’ giving their own money to a candidate of
t n t t
Features
“IF WE EXPECT COMPANIES TO PAY TAXES, IS IT NOT HYPOCRITICAL TO TURN AROUND AND LIMIT THE WAY THEY AFFECT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM? THEY EITHER HAVE TO BE A FULL PARTY TO THE CONSTITUTION OR BE EXCLUDED FROM IT (AND THE TAX SYSTEM) COMPLETELY.” their choice who shares their views or values is an expression of free speech and a hallmark of an open electoral process. The same rights are extended to corporations because businesses, as collections of citizens, should be equally protected under the First Amendment. Just as a union enjoys the right of free speech, so too does a corporation. Limitations on donations to campaigns undermine the First Amendment by allowing the federal government to pick and choose what constitutes free speech and to introduce restrictive limits on the electoral process. Furthermore, for-profit corporations pay taxes to the federal government, and thus any limit on their political activity cannot be logically justified. If we expect companies to pay taxes, is it not hypocritical to turn around and limit the way they affect the political system? They either have to be a full party to the Constitution or be excluded from it (and the tax system) completely. There is no grey area in between. Citizens United simply gave corporations the rights to which they were already entitled as taxpaying organizations. Some critics of open campaign finance claim that business’ contributions will give an unfair advantage to Republicans, a conclusion which follows from the idea that the GOP has a special relationship with corporations unlike the one maintained by Democrats. However, Republicans captured only 59% of business contributions in both the 2012 and 2014 election cycles. While significantly lower in total magnitude, Democrats received 89% of labor donations, 53% of
“ideological” donations, and 53% of contributions not falling into one of these categories in the 2014 elections. Going back to the 2006-midterm elections, four years before the Citizens United decision, we see very similar donation patterns. 56% of business donations went to Republicans and 44% to Democrats. We can next consider political organizations legally independent of candidates or parties. The Citizens United decision and the related Speechnow.org v. FEC case led to the creation of “independent-expenditure only committees,” now commonly know as super PACs (political action committees). These groups’ activities consist not of donating directly to candidates but rather spending on ads or other materials to support a politician or party platform. Any individual or corporation is allowed to donate an unlimited amount to any super PAC, which in turn is allowed to spend an unlimited amount on any election. However, there are two key limitations on super PACs: they cannot coordinate with campaigns and they must disclose the origins of all donations. The 2012 presidential election provides a glimpse into how Citizens United and super PAC donations affect the political landscape. According to the nonpartisan Center for Representative Politics, in the election, Barack Obama, the Democratic National Party, and outside contributors like super PACs expended $1.11 billion. For those same criteria, Mitt Romney and the Republicans spent $1.24 billion. Outside contributions on behalf of Romney were more than triple those spent on Obama, but the Obama cam-
March 2015
paign itself expended around a quarter of a billion dollars more than its counterpart, thus evening out the spending. Both campaigns received the vast majority of their money from large contributions. Obama received $21.6 million from the education industry, including $1.2 million from the University of California (his top donor) and Harvard University (his fifth-highest donor). His campaign’s second and third largest contributors were Microsoft and Google, respectively. Romney also received significant funding from large corporations, but his top five donors were all banks and thus weren’t tax exempt. Perhaps the more concerning trend in campaign finance is that putting more money into politics actually has an effect on voters. At the end of the day, campaigns and donors pour money into elections because they know that it is effective. Both presidential candidates in 2012 devoted more than half of their money to media buys, combining to spend around $700 million. Are citizens truly convinced by television ads and other media, or do they give undecided voters just a small push at exactly the right time? That question is impossible to answer, but largescale media efforts are now a permanent feature of the campaign landscape. Restricting political donations from corporations is simply an unnecessary encroachment on free speech and a hypocritical attack on tax-paying entities. Without changing the way voters think, the campaign system will remain exactly the same, no matter how much money goes into it. HMR
35
Features
I
n our modern world, where tolerance is lauded and the Constitution is habitually preached, it should come as a surprise that overwhelming discrimination against LGBT people still exists. It should shock us to hear that an unjust war is being waged against self-expression of all kinds. Even in the 21st Century, our society still struggles with the understanding that freedom of speech and the press is not a privilege, but an undeniable human right. Despite significant steps made for LGBT rights in general, our reluctance to honestly address anti-LGBT censorship has barely budged since the 14th century. The consequences of our inaction may hurt us worse than we could possibly know. A study by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) reported that only 39% to 44% of all LGBT students in the United States whose school computers had Internet access said that they could access LGBT-related websites. In other words, more than half of LGBT students in this country are denied access
to anti-bullying resources or websites about civil rights by their own schools. At the same time, the schools’ censorship system did not ban access to comparable websites attacking LGBT people for lacking family values. Similar figures may very feasibly apply to art, literature, film, and just about any form of “free speech” or expression regarding sexuality. Famous titles such as I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, The Color Purple, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and even Tango Makes Three commonly make the list of most-challenged books based on their “promotion” of homosexuality. Indisputably, there has always been controversy and censorship against LGBT work. Government and religious leadership as well as other self-appointed judges of moral authority have tirelessly campaigned to silence forms of expression they find distasteful. Sculpture and art have been modified, books have been rewritten, and the mere idea of sexuality has been declared inappropriately lewd and lustful. It is a theme common
36
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
to almost all of recorded history: there was the confiscation by governmental agencies of art such as the homoerotic paintings of D. H. Lawrence, the destruction and prosecution of “degenerate art” by the Nazis in Hitler-era Germany, the prohibition of Radclyffe Hall’s The Well of Loneliness, and even the covering of genitalia using fig-leaves of 14th century Renaissance masterpieces. Throughout the entire mid-1900s, Hollywood’s Motion Picture Production Code restricted any positive depictions of homosexuality in movies. Every time suppressions of voice like these are carried out, the idea that being LGBT is inherently shameful is reinforced. Society becomes unwilling to hold onto or interpret and perhaps appreciate “obscene” material. In “Memoirs vs. Massachusetts,” The Supreme Court defined obscenity as “anything patently offensive, appealing to prurient interest, and of no redeeming social value.” It was not until 1956, when Allen Ginsberg’s anthology Howl and Other Poems was published that the status quo
Features
Howl: LGBT Expression and Censorship James Chang finally broke free from itself. The work was expectedly chastised for containing sexual, explicit language, which both he and his publisher viciously condemned. A landmark obscenity trial subsequently took place. In his final verdict, the judge concluded “An author should be real in treating his subject, and be allowed to express his thoughts and ideas in his own words... The freedoms of speech and press are inherent in a nation of free people, and must be protected if we are to remain free. I conclude that the book Howl and Other Poems does have some redeeming social importance, and I find the book is not obscene.” If there truly is freedom of speech, press, or expression in our country today, we cannot be forced to reduce our vocabulary to innocuous euphemisms or redesign art to pointless, please-all images devoid of any true identity. Censorship of LGBT material is a pressing issue in our country today that is often overlooked when we think about acceptance of the group in general. Yes, it is true that mem-
bers of the LGBT have significantly more rights than they did a few decades ago. In terms of public perception, we have made huge, admirable strides in integrating the LGBT individuals into the community. The problem with continuing on our current track is that while everyone claims that they don’t openly discriminate against LGBT, that doesn’t necessarily translate to a welcoming environment. The idea of a man having sex with another man, or a woman loving another woman, instinctively evokes uncomfortable sentiments. It is an uncomfortable feeling and an uncomfortable discussion, but it’s one we have to have. Of course, it is tempting for LGBT advocates to ridicule countries like Singapore, whose National Library Board habitually outlaws books as benign as Tango Makes Three. However, the true risks of censorship hit closer to home when you look at Canada, a liberal democracy comparable to the United States with a similar history of gay rights and near-total legal equality for LGBT citizens. In 1992,
March 2015
however, an Ontario court permitted the censorship of all gay and lesbian magazines, holding that the representation of gay sex is inherently “degrading and dehumanizing” and that same-sex intimacy is inherently devoid of “any real meaningful human relationship.” Gay rights groups challenged the ruling, but they eventually ran out of money and gave up their legal battle against their own government. The law remains in effect today. Once the government takes the first amendment power from the people to censor literature and arts, it will use it unreservedly. This is how it has and always will occur. From children’s books to Hollywood movies to Renaissance art, a nation and its government once empowered with LGBT rights immediately sets its sights on censorship. Anything that makes us vaguely uncomfortable, vaguely embarrassed, will inevitably be expurgated. Laugh at Singapore, shrug at Canada, but know that when Allen Ginsberg wrote Howl, it was really a howl of pain. HMR
37
Features
Jack Vahradian
Freedom to Screen
The
INTERVIEW R
ecently, Sony decided to pull “The Interview” from theaters due to an anonymous threat that stated that the group would carry out “9/11 scale attacks on any theater that plays the movie.” Many individuals criticized this decision, including President Obama, who stated, “We can’t have a society where some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship in the United States. If they hacked Sony over a silly movie, imagine what they will do when they see a documentary they don’t like, or a news report.” While President Obama’s statement is true, he overlooks another serious ramification of the
movie’s being pulled. Sony’s response to North Korea’s threats has shown that organizations or groups can censor American media through fear of intimidation. This sets a terrible precedent. In the future, if a dictator or a group of extremists is offended by a specific movie or documentary, they will likely attempt to censor the item in a manner similar to the North Korean government. For these reasons, Sony took the wrong course of action by pulling their movie from theaters, even though there might have been some benefits from doing so. While many believe that Sony was
38
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
aware that the threats were from North Korea, the actual situation was much more complex than that. On November 24th, a full month before the expected Christmas release date for “The Interview,” an anonymous group hacked Sony’s entire network, locking all of its employees out, and stealing large amounts of private data. Emails from Sony executives and salary and performance data about Sony employees were leaked for the entire world to view. As the release date for the Interview approached, the same anonymous group threatened any movie theater that was going to play the movie. It was later discovered that the
Features hackers were working for North Korea. Contrary to popular belief, the identity of the group that violated Sony’s privacy was unknown at the time. Sony decided to pull the movie due to the fact that many theaters refused to play the movie out of the fear of being attacked, and due to Sony’s fear that they would be hacked again if they allowed the movie to be played. These are understandable, as having to deal with multiple massive digital security breaches and not being able to show the movie in any theaters would cause Sony Pictures to lose a vast amount of money. Although Sony did not lose as much money by pulling the movie, it allowed Kim Jong Un and North Korea to effectively and temporarily suppress the First Amendment. Since Sony is such a large-scale company, most of the criticism regarding this incident was directed at it. However, the individual theaters that stated that they would refuse to show “The Interview” are just as much to blame as Sony itself. By refusing to show the movie, they essentially removed any economic upside for Sony’s releasing the film on its planned date, which seems to be the primary factor in Sony’s decision of whether or not to pull the movie. If there was in fact a high safety risk for an individual theater, then refusing to show the movie would be absolutely justified. Furthermore, there was no credible threat present to the individual theaters, as the group issuing the threat was very unlikely to be powerful enough to even attack a small number, if any, movie theaters. However, the risk for individual movie theaters would be
extremely low if the majority decided to play the movie. According to the National Association of Theater Owners, there are over 40,000 movie theaters in the US. But since the vast majority of theaters refused to play the movie on the small risk of being attacked, the risk would increase dramatically for the few remaining theaters. These theaters then either refused to play the movie due to the increased risk. The remaining theaters had no chance to play the movie, as Sony didn’t release it to theaters after most refused to show the movie.\. According to The Washington Post, “The challenge that movie studios face is real because they have to balance freedom of expression with safety and commerce.” However, if we look at the safety and commerce risk of allowing the movie to be played as described above, and the degree to which free speech is attacked, which in this case, would be allowing foreign despotic dictator to censor our freedom of expression if the theater decides not to play the movie, it is clear that protection of freedom of express needs to be weighted more heavily than the slim chance of a attack and financial loss. Since these two goals are mutually exclusive, and protecting freedom of expression should be Sony and the theater’s top priority, both should have chosen to play the movie. Although it may not seem like the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and press, protects movies, but it does due to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is similar to freedom of speech, except it allows any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting any information
or opinions through any medium. While this freedom is not explicitly given, it consists of freedom of speech and freedom of press, which are both freedoms given by the Constitution. This means that all of the freedoms guaranteed under freedom of expression are already protected in the US. Since movies are a medium to distribute information or opinions, they are protected under the First Amendment. While Sony’s decision to pull “The Interview” from theaters was poor judgment, they partially redeemed themselves by releasing the movie online at a later date, despite threats from the hackers stating they would release more sensitive data. They ended up not releasing more data, demonstrating that any extreme group who wants to censor a movie will bluff and still achieve their desired results. This will further shows the effectiveness of threats in suppressing media, as the group trying to suppress the media won’t necessarily have to carry out an attack to censor the media they are targeting. The decision to not play “The Interview” was one that gave other terrorist or extreme groups the green light to use fear to suppress the media. Both Sony and movie theaters are to blame for the movies’ getting pulled, as the theater’s decision to not show the movie increased the risk of an attack for other theaters, and was one of the primary causes of Sony’s decision to pull the movie. While the decision to pull the movie from theaters may have benefitted Sony and the theaters economically, it harmed freedom of expression and the power of the First Amendment. HMR
“The decision to not play “The Interview” was one that gave other terrorist or extreme groups the green light to use fear to suppress the media.” March 2015
39
Features
Free Speech Not Free From Hate ZARINA IMAN
I
n light of recent events, specifically the Charlie Hedbo incidents, it has become increasingly important to ask ourselves what constitutes free speech and hate speech. The definition of free speech seems quite simple; freedom of speech is the right to express beliefs without government interference or punishment. According to the UN, free speech is a human right to which all people are entitled. However, people often abuse this right and use it to
justify hateful ideology. Those who use free speech to spread their prejudiced opinions often believe that their ideas cannot be reprimanded or questioned, though this is entirely not the case. Free speech laws protect the right of people to speak their minds, but do not protect people from others’ reactions. Thus, when intolerant ideas that are not classified as hate speech are expressed the public often reacts. The exact definition of hate speech varies, but it is most often
40
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
characterized as speech that promotes violence and prejudice against a person or peoples, due to sexuality, gender, race, religion, disability or ethnicity. The extent to which a government condemns hate speech and protects free speech is differs from country to country, and while we in the United States have enjoyed a considerable amount of free speech, those in other countries have not been as fortunate. In the America free speech is a First Amendment right in the Constitution.
Features However, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are times, places, and circumstances, under which free speech can be restricted. Any speech that is obscene, encourages lawless action, or incites violence towards others may be justly regulated. Untruths told to harm someone or their reputation may also be seen as illegal as they are slanderous. Commercial forms of free expression and speech are also subject to review. The most protected forms of speech are political speech, and expressive conduct/symbolic speech. While free speech is usually perceived as something that is vocalized, expressive conduct and symbolic speech encompasses acts that are meant to convey an opinion or assertion. These acts include creating or destroying something, wearing symbolic clothing, body language, messages written in code, and even mathematical or scientific formulae. Free speech restrictions in the America can be placed into two broad categories. The first is content neutral and the second is content based. Content neutral laws apply to all forms of expression. Although these laws are normally simple, such as forbidding of loudspeakers in a public space to avoid noise pollution, if the law truly impacts the the message it may be overturned. Content based regulations must pass the three prongs of strict scrutiny before being used in a court case. Regulations based on content must be a compelling government interest, meaning that it is absolutely necessary, the law must be narrowly tailored to thoroughly address the situation, and it must be the least restrictive means of achieving the interest. Due to the large number of stipulations restrictive speech laws face, many actions and statements that are truly outrageous are not viewed as hate speech. For example, when Albert Snyder father of the late soldier, Matthew Snyder, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing his son’s funeral and causing emotional distress, the church was found innocent. The Supreme Court ruled that though the signs and actions of the church were seen as disgusting it was well within their rights. This firm protection of free speech in America may be viewed as patriotic, yet it still permits prejudiced and hateful behavior throughout the nation. Although French laws place more boundaries on free speech than in America, these laws allow for double standards
to be created. The Pleven Act of 1972 forbids any incitement to hatred, prejudice, slander, and racial insults. The Gayosset Act of 1990 criminalizes any racial, Anti-Semitic, and xenophobic activities, including Holocaust denial. The Law of December 2004 prevents bans all hatred against people, for their sexuality, gender, or disability. These laws do not need there to be an impending threat of violence to
stop bullets”, the organization lost. The case was filed in the French city of Alsace-Moselle, a town with strict laws that bars any blasphemy against Christianity or Judaism, but not Islam. The late Stephane Charbonnier, Charlie Hebdo editorial director, who was a victim in the January 7 massacre, stated “We know in advance that the trial will not go through because Islam is not in the code.” By se-
“There is no way to force someone to stop thinking discriminatory thoughts, though there is a way to prevent them from expressing those thoughts...” necessitate legal action. Considering that France’s laws prevent offensive ‘opinions’ from being stated, these laws seem like a step in the right direction, but in practice, these laws do not prevent disrespectful opinions, but instead allows governmental authority to choose which perpetrators they would like to prosecute. The quite recent events surrounding Charlie Hebdo fully illuminate this hypocrisy. The horrific massacre at the Charlie Hebdo headquarters by Islamic extremists, resulting in the death of 12 people was deemed by French President Francois Hollande “an attack on freedom.” While some may view this incident as attacking freedom of expression, a little less than a year ago a French law was created to ban Muslim women from wearing a burqa and niqab. Though there were small protests, the law still stands and is thought to be upholding French values. A more relevant case proves the contradictory actions of the French government on their speech laws. In 2009 Maurice Sinet, a former cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo, was fired when he refused to apologize for an Anti-Semitic cartoon. This is the right course of action any employer should take when handling a prejudiced worker, but in 2012 when a cartoon spread was published placing the Prophet Muhammad in degrading positions nothing was done. Even French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius disapproved of the images. The double standards continue; and in 2013 when a Muslim organization took Charlie Hebdo to court for a headline that read, “The Koran is shit—it doesn’t
March 2015
lectively prosecuting hate speech cases, France has given satirical magazines like Charlie Hebdo, the freedom to berate certain groups of individuals without any consequence. This has resulted in public violence that hate speech laws try adamantly to prevent. With no supervision, Charlie Hebdo has managed to insult 1.6 billion Muslims through immature satirical images that serve not true purpose. To cease from offending individuals free speech laws must be greatly reformed both in France and America. Laws must be updated to include all members of society; there is no reason why a group of people should not be “in the code.” The enforcement of speech laws must also be relentless to avoid any hypocritical lapses in prosecution. Finally, the laws themselves must be strict. There is no way to force someone to stop thinking discriminatory thoughts, though there is a way to prevent them from expressing those thoughts, and causing unneeded controversy. Although the French standard of prosecution is not one to follow, French free speech laws are the type of laws that need to be enforced throughout the world. They do not prevent people from speaking against a government or organization, they simply prevent people from expressing antiquated intolerant opinions about other people. If these reforms are made there will be many who claim their freedom of expression is being violated, but what needs to be considered is that these laws stop people from expressing bigoted opinions and nothing else. HMR
41
Features
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
I
t’s 2016, and the presidential race is surrounded by tension. Both the Democrats and Republicans have each selected their respective nominees at their respective conventions, yet no one candidate has emerged as a clear frontrunner. Just weeks before Election Day, the third and final debate between the two candidates is held, and after a series of questions from the moderator, a few audience members are allowed to chime in with their own inquiries. One decides to ask both the candidates, “Do you personally believe in the existence of a God?” The first candidate replies, “Yes, I do. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and of Christianity,” a response which the audience quickly cheers. The second candidate hesitates, and then says, “Well, in my personal life, I have never found any evidence for the existence of such a being, and thus, I do not believe in a God.” The audience is silent. In the next nationwide poll, the latter candidate finds himself trailing by a double-digit lead, and on the first Tuesday in November, he loses the election by an overwhelming margin, winning only his home state by a few hundred votes. While this scenario may seem quixotic and far-fetched, especially when considering the incontrovertible progress that has been made in terms of equal rights for all demographics
in the United States, it is unfortunately quite probable, and the sentiments of the America populace only serve to confirm this. A 2012 poll instituted by Gallop suggested that a mere 54% of the population would consider voting for a “well-qualified” atheist who was nominated by their party. In addition to this number being shockingly low, it also represents the lowest percentage of a demographic group for whom Americans would consider voting. Homosexuals, Blacks, Women, Jews, Mormons, Hispanics, Catholics, and Muslims all received a higher percentage. Considering all of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States coming politicians and the media, and considering that many Americans have felt animosity towards all Muslims after 9/11 and the rise of extremists groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram, it is even more astounding that more Americans would vote for a Muslim than they would an atheist. This unfounded prejudice against atheists is not just present in the general populace, however. While campaigning for the 1988 Presidential Election during an outdoor news conference near Chicago O’Hare airport, President H.W. Bush answered a question from American Atheists reporter Robert I. Sherman. The question asked the then-campaigning Bush if he believed that atheists
42
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
should be considered equal citizens and patriots to theists. Bush responded by saying that “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” While Bush’s comments are clearly egregious and offensive, perhaps the most remarkable event that transpired was Bush’s winning the presidency in a landslide election, which showed that Americans all across the United States clearly did not care about the citizenship rights of a wrongfully targeted group. If Bush had instead targeted a different demographic in his quote, such as blacks for example, it is a pretty safe assumption to make that he would have lost the election. To make matters even worse regarding atheists and politics, there have only been two openly atheist politicians who have been elected to a major office: Pete Stark, a member of the House of Representatives and Culbert Olsen, a Governor. What these two politicians also have in common is that they were both elected in California, one of America’s more liberal and atheist friendly states. In the recently elected House of Representatives, out of a total of 535 members, only 1, a democrat from Arizona identified as unaffiliated. None identified as Atheist or Agnostic. The lack of non-religious politicians shows two abysmal
Features facts concerning American politics: Americans refuse to elect openly Atheists candidate, and any non-religious politician who wishes to win an election must lie about his or her views. Eight American states also have laws that ban an openly atheist candidate from holding any form of public office. In one of these states, North Carolina, where Cecil Bothwell, an openly atheist candidate won a city council position, political opponents attempted to use this narrow-minded law to remove him from power. While they were ultimately unsuccessful in their efforts, the zealous efforts of local politicians to disregard atheists in political matters can only be described as appalling. If any of these eight states had a law that prevented any other demographic from being elected, it would have immediately been addressed and overturned. More so, if any politician had come out in support of such a law, he or she would have suffered severe consequences such as censorship. The fact of the matter in America is that while we have made leaps and bounds in gaining rights for other minorities, we have unfortunately decided to ignore atheists in this respect, particularly with political representation. While certainly one can argue that rampant and widespread discrimination against Atheists is not seen in our everyday life, as it was and is for so many other minorities, this paradox is only made possible by the
9-10%
of People in the USA do not believe in a god
By Ray Fishman
fact that it is impossible to know whether or not an individual is in fact an Atheist. For this reason, and many others, an enormous amount of so-called “Closet Atheists” have trouble expressing their beliefs publically. This obviously extends to politicians as well. But like every other minority group, the discrimination against atheists, particularly within politics, is without any sort of justification. The fact that the majority of Americans believe that a candidate’s religious background has anything to do with how well he or she can carry out political responsibilities only shows just how deeply engrained a hatred of Atheism is in America and in American culture. In fact, the offices of religion and politics are supposed to act completely separately, meaning that a candidate’s religious background should have no influence on his political opinions. However, almost every day we see in political debates or on the news candidates using religious text to justify a particular belief, or substantiate a certain claim. Often, politicians refer to America as a “Christian Nation,” when this statement in fact has no grounds in the Constitution or in every day life. In fact, if any politician could be trusted to not use religion to determine his or her beliefs, and to be equally neutral towards all forms of religious or non-religious beliefs, it would be an Atheist. In fact, recent studies, included one conducted by the Pew Research Center, concluded that individuals raised in secular households and who did not believe God were less vengeful, less racist, less militaristic, less authoritarian, and more tolerant than their religious counterparts. Atheists also tended to be more accepting of women’s and gay’s rights, and constituted a mere 0.5% of the country’s prison population. The study also concluded that in countries where the secular population is high, such as Japan,
0
Politicians in House of Representatives willing to affiliate themselves with Atheism
March 2015
New Zealand, Sweden, Iceland, Belgium, and Denmark, the crime rate is extremely low and the standard of living extremely high. Based on these studies, it is safe to assume that raising a child in a secular environment does not have any true detriments, and that secular people are no different from anybody else from a purely humanistic standpoint. This assumption, however, is one that has been continually ignored by both the American populace and American politicians. As if Atheists had some sort of secret political agenda, anti-Atheism propaganda is continually accepted as a norm in American society, and thus, Atheists are discriminated against for simply holding a belief that is backed up by a large amount of scientific evidence and for not believing in something that is primarily founded in faith alone. In addition, many religions preach against Atheism, and leave no room for non-believers or for the questioning of religious doctrine. Therefore, many Americans, especially those at a young age who are most susceptible to indoctrination, are inclined to despise Atheism and atheists, and are less inclined to leave room for rational thought. This trend is particularly prevalent in the United States. In the majority of other developed countries, such as in those that were mentioned above, the acceptance of Atheism is much higher. Recently in Greece, an openly atheist candidate was elected as Prime Minister, an event unfathomable in the United States. The culpability for the culture of hate towards atheists as well as their extraordinarily low level of political representation can only be placed upon us. The only way to rid ourselves of these chauvinistic and bigoted ideals is to change the way in which we view Atheists. We cannot tell our future generation that atheists are different and lesser than religious people based on preconceived and culturally intertwined notions; we must tell them instead what the statistics and science tell us. That is, that atheists are people of great moral integrity and a well-founded belief system, and that they are perfectly suitable for political representation. HMR
46%
Of Americans say they would not consider voting for a “well-qualified” Atheist 43
Features
CARTOONS AND QAEDA: BY SOPHIA FIKKE
F
reedom of speech and press, the 1st Amendment of our constitution, defines many aspects of American culture today. Without it, we would not have newspapers, magazines, blogs, television programs, cartoons, or any media presenting the diverse beliefs of the public. This, in my opinion, is what distinguishes our society. The more knowledge people have and the more they are exposed to different perspectives, the better background they have to form their own ideas. This type of information sharing is what leads to development. Thus, Americans are fortunate to live in a society that allows for freedom of speech and press. In the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, Al Qaeda targeted the French satirical magazine’s headquarters, killing 11 employees and 5 innocent bystanders, and injuring 22 others. In light of this disturbing atrocity, the importance of this amendment dawned on me. Charlie Hebdo was besieged for its depictions of Mohammed, which is forbidden by the Islamic scripture, the Quran. As a result, I realized that, simply because the American government has instituted these freedoms,
it doesn’t automatically mean that all groups, domestic or international, respect these freedoms. As a result, it has become the job of the government to protect the American right to personal freedoms. By no means was the Charlie Hebdo incident the fault of the US government, however our government should respond to the offenders, just as citizens have responded through protest among other tactics. In fact, Americans have looked back in history for references of similar situations to paint a fuller picture of our current disagreements over freedom of press, with Al Qaeda specifically. One such event in our history that could be seen as a precursor or foreshadowing of the Charlie Hebdo attack is the disappearance of Molly Norris, a cartoonist for a Seattle-based magazine. Norris was inspired by Comedy Central censoring South Park, a popular television show, by omitting any depiction of Mohammed. She drew some of her own interpretations of Mohammed as a teacup, a domino, a pasta box, a spool of thread, a cherry, and a purse with a dog’s face on it. She went on to display these on social media, and
44
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
create an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” on Facebook. The event would accumulate 71,000 members before Norris took it down in fear, as Muslims took strong offense to this violation of their ethical belief system. Additionally, Al Qaeda leaders put a bounty on Norris’, forcing her to go into hiding in order to protect herself. She has yet to resurface since the incident in 2010. Al Qaeda must be held accountable for their rash actions against an innocent woman who was just exercising her First Amendment right by publishing her drawings and opinions. Americans are not living under sharia law, or Muslim moral code, as the definition of what is allowed, so Norris was within her rights to depict Mohammed. Al Qaeda may not have shared Norris’ opinion or accepted that drawing, but that doesn’t, in the American justice system, give a person justification for a death threat. On the other side of this argument is Anwar Al Alwaki, an associate of Al Qaeda, who wrote in a magazine that is published to inspire young Muslims to become future members of Al Qaeda, “(Norris) should be taken as a prime tar-
Features
DEFENDING FREE SPEECH get of assassination…This campaign is not a practice of freedom of speech, but is a nationwide mass movement of Americans…(who are) going out of their way to offend Muslims worldwide.” Another Muslim who was offended argued that Americans shame some media services for attacking certain groups, yet encourage media to spread hatred towards the Muslim community. In my opinion, Islamic extremist groups’ interpretations of passages of the Quran as calls to terrorism, and their corresponding violent actions have caused Americans to develop a correlation between Muslims as a whole and terrorism. This intellectual and emotional connection is reflected in Americans’ indifference towards, and even encouragement of, negative media attention about Muslims. Is it morally correct to develop a judgment about an entire group and punish them because of the actions of a portion of the group? No. We cannot broadly brushstroke the stereotype of terrorist across the whole Muslim community. In doing so, we would limit acceptance of diversity in our society, which is the
very reason we have freedom of speech, to embrace this diversity in ideas. While Americans may not accept some Muslim extremists impositions of their ideas, that shouldn’t determine our ability to attain global understanding with Muslims more broadly. As such, Norris was completely within her writes to draw Mohammed and create the Facebook group. What people shouldn’t have done was become members of the group to use it as a vehicle to pick apart Muslims as a community. Effectively, there is a very fine line to walk, one between standing up for your rights and being disrespectful and inconsiderate of other people. However, as long as people maintain their sense of morality while discussing ideas as charged as religious ones, this disrespectfulness will be avoided. Under no circumstance, however, are Al Qaeda’s actions moral. Their existence not only threatens people in the United States, like Norris, but people around the world, like the ones that work at Charlie Hebdo. In effect people have more justification for directing their anger at Al Qaeda than at the entire Muslim community.
March 2015
As a result, brave American soldiers have been inspired to continue fighting on behalf of all people to eliminate Al Qaeda. Yet, to truly win the battle against Al Qaeda is not to kill them, it is to stop them from stripping us, Americans, of our founding principles, some of which are justice and fairness. Conclusively if people allow their anger towards Al Qaeda to manifest into anger towards the Muslim community as a whole, Al Qaeda has successfully robbed us of our moral compass. Molly Norris deserves to come home, as she exercised her rights fairly. She did not actively set out to be offensive. In fact, cartoons like the ones she and Charlie Hebdo published are made about all groups, not just Muslims and are written in jest or in Norris’ case with the purpose of reinforcing our first amendment. In honor of Norris, Charlie Hebdo, and all victims of Al Qaeda, let’s stop making negative generalizations about Muslims as a whole. Instead, let’s take the high road by defending our personal freedoms and exercising our rights and freedoms in a relatively respectful manner. Let’s defeat Al Qaeda the American way: justly. HMR
45
Features
Ananya Kumar-Banerjee
Chris ofili and Free Speech in America
C
Ananya Kumar-Banerjee
hris Ofili is a Turner-prize winning British artist famed for using elephant dung in his work. Today, he holds exhibitions at various museums around the world, including the Tate Modern, Moma and The New Museum on the Lower East Side. Ofili’s most high-profile work, which started his sudden rise to prominence, is The Holy Virgin Mary. The Holy Virgin Mary depicts a black Virgin Mary surrounded by images of collaged female genitalia from pornographic magazines, elephant dung, and snapshots of
blaxploitation. These cut outs were shaped to resemble the cherub and seraph from the three hundred year old Immaculate Conception of Mary. Ofili is in fact a person of Roman Catholic parentage. He has been reported as saying that the elephant dung on the painting “in itself is quite a beautiful object.” The work is considered highly controversial because of it’s “desecrated” depiction of a holy symbol of the Christian “Virgin Mary”. The work, created in 1996, first became a subject of controversy in an exhibition titled
46
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
Sensation in the Brooklyn Museum. In 1999, Rudy Giuliani, the Mayor of New York City, pursued a legal case against the Brooklyn Museum because of the “sick” and “disgusting” work. Giuliani attempted to rescind the 7 million dollars in grant money from the museum, and even threatened it with eviction. Eventually, the head of the museum, Arnold L. Lehman, filed a case against the mayor under the premise of a violation of the First Amendment. The museum eventually won the case, though both Giuliani and New York
Features City citizens protested the decision. The Ofili work continued to be the subject of both physical abuse and media criticism. On September 30th, 1999, an artist named Scott LoBaido was arrested for throwing cow dung at the Brooklyn Museum. LoBaido’s explanation for his action was that Ofili was “Catholic Bashing” and deserved even worse. In December of the same year, Dennis Heiner managed to smear white paint over the piece, despite the thick plexiglass covering. Heiner was charged with second-degree criminal mischief and was assessed a $250 fine. In all of these instances, the judicial system found the offender guilty for their actions. Nevertheless, there have been continued illegal responses to Ofili’s legal expression of opinion through art. Much of what makes America and other First World democracies so special compared to their more minimal, dictatorial counterparts, and even Third World democracies, is the freedom of expression their citizens are given. Unlike tyrannical monarchies in other countries, we raise our citizens to be skeptical and to have their own opinions. We encourage the growth of the youth’s voices in an effort to continue the free history of our country. Chris Ofili’s work should fall in the same category. Legally, he has the right to express himself to his heart’s desire. As shown by the judicial cases he faced, American legislation agrees on this point. What is interesting in these situations is the conflict between the
freedom of expression of the viewer and the audience and the way these differing opinions manifest themselves. In these cases, the viewer felt that the priority of their personal opinion deserved to
Western society, we are taught not only to be skeptical but also that our own opinion is of the highest importance. In many ways the Western education system emphasizes and inspires a type of close-minded superiority
“In the international community, many Western nations – specifically the US – have pushed their opinion as the singular truth in the world. We see this manifest itself in the growth of globalization on the international scale as the Western ideal of life starts to absorb and destroy previously established lifestyles.” be respected, whereas the other individual’s opinion did not deserve the same treatment. Much of this selfish behavior stems from the particularly individualistic approach America has ingrained into its citizens. The trademark of American culture is the emphasis we place on our personal protection and promotion of individual opinions and achievements. The idea is that one’s own personal opinion is reflected through modern politics. In the international community, many Western nations – specifically the US – have pushed their opinion as the singular truth in the world. We see this manifest itself in the growth of globalization on the international scale as the Western ideal of life starts to absorb and destroy previously established lifestyles. As members of the First World and
panjury.com
March 2015
complex in our citizens. In history, it is well known that in the eighteenth century the Western World was dominated by a series of unstable monarchies and oligarchies. In the West, America was the first country to establish a modern “successful” democracy. We were quickly followed by France and eventually England. In the revolutions that brought about these changes, one of the most problematic issues was the obscenity in the magnitude of the class divide. For example, in pre-Revolutionary French society, it was widely believed that a nobleman’s life and opinion were worth more than any common man’s ideas. As a response to this repression, modern democracies have made a point of emphasizing the weight of every individual’s opinion. In America, this emphasis is particularly hefty because we were in fact the purveyors of modern democracy. The combination of our title as the first to bring about successful modern democracy and as people who opposed an oppressive English rule brings about a certain entitlement when it comes to our opinion. Based on the establishments of those who came before us, Westerners, and particularly Americans, feel that their opinion is of the utmost importance. This response to historical events, though essential in the creation of the American character, leads to blindness in citizens that can do more harm than good. In Chris Ofili’s case, people felt their opinion was justified to such an extent that they felt they had the right to destroy an artist’s work. So in the battle to overcome a cultural oppression of opinion, America has managed to create a new system of oppression in which everyone has a voice, but it is now a matter of who screams louder. While legislation can bring everyone to their senses, sometimes it has to come down to justifications in our constitution before people can accept differing views of the world. HMR
47
Economics
THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA EVA STEINMAN
I
n 2014, the Russian ruble declined by an incredible 41%, as a result of the collapse in oil prices, Western economic sanctions, and investor distrust in Russian authorities. The current crisis is similar to the 1998 Russian financial crisis, which was also characterized by a decline in oil prices, a significant drop in the ruble, sharp increases in Russian interest rates, and a meaningful rise in inflation. The 1998 crisis ultimately resulted in a need to restructure Russia’s external debts. As the world enters 2015, bond rating agencies are once again concerned about Russia’s rising inflation and growing economic distress. The primary cause of the current crisis is the dramatic fall in global oil prices.
Oil peaked at over $115 per barrel in June and ended the year at under $58 – a drop of almost half. Russia’s $2 trillion economy is highly dependent on oil and gas exports, which have totaled $3 trillion, cumulatively, since 2000. The country’s leadership has made little effort to reform the economy to reduce this dependency. In fact, oil represents over 70% of the country’s exports, and the Russian government receives approximately 50% of its revenues from the nation’s oil and gas industries. Over the past six months, the rapid decline in oil prices has been caused primarily by a dramatic increase in US oil production (America is now the world’s largest oil producer) combined with the decision by Middle Eastern oil-producing
48
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
countries to maintain their previous levels of production. Further contributing to the ruble crisis has been the impact of Western sanctions against Russia. These sanctions were initiated after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and its continued support of Russian-speaking rebels in Eastern Ukraine. The sanctions, beginning in March, but growing in severity in April, July, and September, mostly focused on selected Russian individuals, large Russian financial institutions, and eventually Russian energy companies. In particular, the sanctions against Russian banks raised concerns about their ability, as well as that of their corporate borrowers, to access “hard currencies” like the dollar
R
Economics and Euro, in order to pay their debts. In retaliation, the Russians announced in August 2014 a total ban on food imports from the US, EU, and other nations. With oil prices plummeting and economic sanctions taking effect, investors began to sell rubles and purchase dollars and Euros. Beginning in July 2014 (after oil prices began their dramatic fall), the ruble began its collapse. While it had previously traded in the range of 35 rubles per dollar, it soon fell to 40, 50, and then 60 rubles to the dollar. On December 11, the Bank of Russia intervened by raising its key interest rate by 1%. It did this in order to attract investors to debt that was held in rubles; however, this small rate increase did not help stop the fall of the ruble. In fact, with the declining value of the ruble, the price of imported goods rose significantly, and Russian consumers engaged in “panic buying.” On December 16, the Bank of Russia once again raised interest rates, this time much more dramatically, by 6.5 percentage points to 17%. The initial reaction among investors to this massive interest rate increase was highly negative, as they viewed this as a panicked move by the Russian government. The value of the ruble initially fell by 20%, which represented the largest drop in the ruble since 1993. It reached a record low of 80.1 rubles to the dollar, before ending the day down 4.5% at 67.9 rubles to the dollar. Meanwhile, the Russian government took additional measures in order to raise the value of the ruble. First, the government used $90 billion in “hard currency” to purchase rubles in the open market. Second, it announced plans for five large state-controlled companies (energy giant Gazprom and four other large exporters) to reduce their “hard currency” holdings, telling them that they must sell their dollars and euros to purchase rubles. Finally, the government encouraged private com-
“It is far from clear how things will turn out for the ruble and the Russian economy.” panies to do the same. The goal of these measures, in combination, was to raise the value of the ruble and to stop the selloff. Over the next few weeks, the interest rate increase as well as the announcement of these other measures seemed to have the desired effect. The ruble traded at 52 rubles to the dollar. However, since the beginning of 2015, the ruble has once again moved down and is now at approximately 65 rubles to the dollar. In other words, the ruble is back to about the same value that it had prior to the massive interest rate increase by the Russian government. There are several reasons why the ruble, after moving up, once again declined. First, the price of oil has fallen even further, dipping below $45 per barrel. Second, the sanctions imposed by Western governments continue to affect the Russian economy. Third, the severe decrease in the value of the ruble has made imports more expensive, resulting in a significant rise in inflation. In December, the official estimate of annual inflation was 11.4%, and most experts agree that it will remain above 10% in 2015. Given these problems, a recent Russian Central Bank study concluded that consumer spending in 2015 may drop 6.5% while business investment may shrink by over 10%. This may lead to defaults and bankruptcy by large and mid-sized
companies. Russian banks are also facing hardships. Extremely high interest rates discourage borrowing and lending by companies, which is the basic business model of banks. In fact, Russian banks are even becoming less trustful of each other. They now lend to one another at a rate of 23.5%. All of these problems have become clear to the international bond rating agencies, which are re-evaluating Russia’s ability as a nation to pay its debts. On January 11, ratings agency Fitch lowered the country’s credit rating to BBB-, which is right above “junk bond” status, while Moody’s did the same on January 18. Standard & Poor’s subsequently cut Russia’s credit rating to “junk bond” status on January 26. These decisions could have an impact on Russia’s cost of borrowing and even its ability to borrow in the future. While the situation appears dark, the Russian government still has options to manage the problems caused by the ruble’s decline. The government can use additional “hard currency” reserves to purchase rubles in the open market and could, announce currency controls to limit the sale of rubles by Russian businesses and citizens. As the world enters 2015, it is far from clear how things will turn out for the ruble and the Russian economy in general. HMR
RUBLE TO DOLLAR 1993-2015 Average: 24.87
December 2014: 72.45
January 2014: 32.94 March 2015
January 2015: 67.95 49
Economics
The Golden Gates Tarnished McDonald’s Current Financial Insolvency and How It Can Be Fixed Alex Karpf
M
cDonalds, the icon of American lifestyle and fast food, is now facing financial problems as a new generation frowns upon the greasy and low quality food. McDonalds is considering tactics to combat its downfall, but the company needs to act promptly, if it hopes to maintain profits. McDonalds is facing problems from all reaches of their international fast food empire and the timing of events has hindered McDonald’s success. In the Asian and African markets, sales dropped four percent because of a food scare triggered by contaminated meat. Japanese customers were even surprised to find plastic and even a tooth in their burgers. In European markets, in which McDonalds garners around 40% of its earnings, McDonald’s shares fell 0.7 percent and earnings were estimated to fall 2.1 percent. In Russia, around 100 chains are in jeopardy of being closed because of alleged hygiene problems. The motive seems to be rooted in American hatred and defiance against
U.S. trade restrictions. Despite the impact of international setbacks, McDonalds’ main problem, however, remains in the U.S. where it struggles to maintain customers and employees. The company’s stock, which has done extremely well in the past decade as it increased from $12 in 2003 to $100 in 2011, is expected by analysts to see shares falling bellow $12. Last quarter sales fell by 3.3% and profit decreased 28%. On December 4th, thousands of fast-food employees protested the minimum wage and their treatment in over 200 cities. These employees, many of whom work for McDonalds, insisted that minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour, which would cripple McDonalds profits. Consumers, unlike employees, aren’t locked into contracts, and don’t want to come back to McDonalds. Instead, people are trading in McDonald’s burgers for two other alternatives. McDonalds is slowly being boxed out of fast food by cheaper and simpler alternatives as well as healthier and
50
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
cleaner chains. People who want to grab a simple meal are finding that Burger King is the better option because their smaller menu allows for less wait time, higher quality food, and less confusion. Younger people, who have grown up in a time period where health is an extreme value, are going to places with slightly higher prices, but much higher quality food. McDonalds, as a media target, has been the poster-child for American obesity and poor health, which is finally infringing upon their sales. Companies like Shake Shack and Chipotle are McDonalds’ main concern because they have grown and cut into McDonald’s portion of multibillion-dollar industry. These companies also have customization options, which pleases consumers who receive exactly what they want in an engaging and entertaining process. After five quarters of unfortunate sales, the fast food giant is realizing that change might be necessary to stay in the competitive restaurant business. They started off by
Economics reorganizing their executive structure, including replacing the CEO’s. The firm was making changes in order to avoid errors similar to the ones that occurred in China, and the company was finding ways to regain their once loyal customers. To do this Don Thompson, their CEO, needs to please the consumers, who he says want, “…more choice, convenience and value in their dining-out experience.” The Giant is trying to follow two fast food paths of success, the Burger King route and the Chipotle route.
provide customers their desired food. Even with all that McDonalds has to improve in their current branches, the company feels confident expanding into Kazakhstan, its 120th market. Considering the financial instability of McDonalds, McDonalds’ incremental changes in the company won’t be enough to reverse its decline. To save itself, McDonalds will need to create major adjustments to the company’s food, service, and health standards, which are currently re-
“The Global commercial domination that McDonald’s has enjoyed may come to a tasty end due to the franchises’ financial woes.” These two paths (simplification and upgrading) seem to naturally conflict with each other but McDonalds hopes to take the most effective aspects of both to create a chain that can appeal to a larger variety of customers. Simplifying will most likely just involve procedural changes, but boosting the image and quality of the company will require marketing genius and money, that McDonalds isn’t earning. In France, stores that are starting to use silverware and china have found that people are throwing them away because they aren’t used to the highend image that McDonalds is trying to create. The problem with this path is that McDonald’s stigma among wealthier clientele will be hard to shed. Even with these barriers, McDonald’s and its new CEO have no choice if the company wants to stay first in the fast food world and continue to attract over 70 million customers a day. To combat their decreased sales, McDonalds is launching a number of initiatives to change its image and improve the experience. Along with the simpler menu, they’re creating an alternative option called, “Create your Taste”, which lets customers individualize their burgers. They have also started experimenting with a new line, McCafés which offer slightly better quality food and a nicer ambience. In France, McCafés offer macaroons, tea, and limited waitress service. McDonalds is shifting its strategy from crowding the menu with a variety of options to offering regional customization. McDonalds plans on appealing to local food tastes in different regions to
pelling customers. McDonald’s decision to simplify and mature the menu seems confusing, and will most likely further reduce the profits of the company. Even though simplifying seems easier, there is too much competition from Burger King, so, to regain share, McDonalds should try to boost its image and quality, even though it may be challenging. This way, they face less competition because the higher-end restaurants are more specialized, so people in the mood for a McDonald’s burger might not be in the mood for a Chipotle burrito or a Subway sandwich. Companies like Shake Shack, who compete with McDonald’s
March 2015
burgers, won’t be able to rival competitively with McDonalds because their distribution, prices, and influence would allow them to outcompete. However, with the state that McDonalds has left America in, many would question if it is even worth saving. McDonalds, since it opened in 1940, has impacted American culture and almost every American has eaten at the chain. Still, it’s hard to tell whether the chain has benefited society. In 1950, around the time when McDonalds was beginning to expand, our country’s obesity rate was 9.7% and by 1990, when McDonalds had grown to all parts of the country, our obesity rate was at 30%. Considering that one in every 8 Americans are in McDonalds at least once a day, it’s likely that the weight increase was linked to McDonald’s expansion. If McDonalds continues on its path of failure, and can’t successfully regain its market share, there would be devastating international effects. Economically, McDonalds is the 90th largest economy in the world as it collects $27 billion in revenue. Unfortunately, the international community depends upon the company, and, if something that large collapsed, business owners, governments, and investors would feel the consequences. McDonald’s also employees almost a million people McDonalds is not only crucial to people’s income, but many people depend on their low budget meals to survive, and its better that people over . Even though we may not like it, McDonald’s is changing, let’s hope it changes for the better. HMR
51
Economics
OIL AND POLITICS DAHLIA KRUTKOVICH
B
eginning their steady decline in July of this past year, oil prices have slowly dropped to the point of crisis for most net-export economies. Yet, in lieu of an over-saturated market and sluggish demand, large producing nations have entered a dangerously high stakes game of chicken: who will be the first to lose market share in an attempt to save face in a failing market by cutting production. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ richer, more diversified nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates will not be the first to blink -the immediate ramifications of the 60% drop barely affect their 800 billion dollar reserves of foreign cash. Instead, as always, OPEC’s poorer nations, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Nigeria and Algeria, have assumed the brunt of damage; the severe nature of which has destabilized their economies and governments, creating some of the greatest civil unrest since their respective revolutions. In a standoff between Russian, American, and Saudi oil, these smaller, less resilient and more reliant countries are not only at the mercy of OPEC’s Saudi-controlled
board, but also risk having their economic futures held as collateral against the oil market. As one of richest and the largest producers in OPEC, Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s nationalized oil and gas company, has historically manipulated its production to ensure secure and favorably high prices. Yet after a similar market environment in the early half of the 1980s, Saudi Arabia’s Oil Ministry heavily cut production in order to stave of further price drops, only to realize their singular control over international prices was minimal: resulting in a nearly irreparable loss in market share and revenue. Aware of these past mistakes and in light of American shale drilling’s immense expansion in the last 18 months, the Saudis have no interest in decreasing production. Moreover, of OPEC’s nine member states, only Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia can feasibly cut production, the other six must maintain full capacity drilling in order to finance social programs, deficits, and generally keep themselves afloat amid an already tepid international economy In the last fiscal year, oil production
52
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
has increased by more than double the original forecasts. This, paired with a stagnant demand for oil from a slow to recover Europe and sluggish China, does not make for an optimistic future. Considering the recent instability in the Middle East, every so often countries go offline in order to quell insurrections, and as one country halts production to tend to its popular uprising, another one comes back with increased extraction rates. As such, in the last five years, the expansion of US shale oil drillers has continued with record high rates without too much fluctuation in the Brent Crude price. Since the 1970s, innovative hydraulic technology and experimental horizontal drilling techniques have allowed the US to access previously tooexpensive-to-bother-with oil trapped in the shale. These culminating factors now put the onus on American producers, whose oil production alters market price the most drastically, to either slash extraction rates or capitulate to a lesser than 50 dollar a gallon benchmark price. Though, as long as barrel prices hover around the high-40s, many shale producers still break even and would possi-
Economics bly grow their number of rigs, creating a higher risk environment for OPEC and its smaller states. A market in which an economic staple such as oil presents extreme prices makes for very clear-cut winners and losers; net consumers being the winners and net producers being the losers, but because oil is so pervasive internationally, the blowback for nations contingent on their production of oil is far harsher than any benefits presented to consumers. Most notably, falling oil prices have already sent the Russian economy into a tailspin and the Venezuelan people into the streets in revolt. The kiss of death for Russian president Vladimir Putin’s predecessors, dropping energy prices may not be the end of his upswing in popularity. However, as the crisis deepens and the rouble’s steady depreciation mounts, a forecasted recision and anemic 4.6% decrease in GDP would weaken him and threaten the regime’s apparent stability. Saddled with an incapacitated banking sector, which has already been bailed out despite selling off tens of billions of dollars in foreign cash reserves, there is no feasible way for Russia to rebound by 2016 given its current economic policy, even if oil prices bottom out at $48. If Putin were to move further toward self-sufficiency or even leftist practices, he might assert some control over his spiraling economy. While Russia’s troubles do not seem to be manifesting themselves in civil unrest, less stable countries, such asVenezuela, have seen multiple angry demonstrations escalate to the point of riots in the last ten months. Plagued with food shortages in the first few years of the new century, then-Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, attacked food distribution companies for the lack of supply and spitefully nationalized them. Yet, since oil is virtually Venezuela’s only export, and prices of roughly $110 dollar per barrel are needed at a minimum to finance the country’s imprudent domestic finance policies, the entire governmental economic infrastructure has collapsed. Even after desperately lobbying China for loans and other OPEC nations for decreases in production, Venezuela’s current president, Nicolas Maduro, has yet to find a reprieve in these troubled months. Naturally, the sole factor the Venezuelan economic downturn is not
“The international ramifications of dropping oil prices will continue to affect more susceptible nations until... meltdown will crush their banking sectors or severely disable them.” the market’s turn for the worse, however much a contributing factor that may be. Culpable government regulated exchange controls and the nationalization of food production industries make it such that Venezuela cannot import its shortages away. After an emergency OPEC meeting in November, at which Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Al-Naimi refused to lower his country’s production rates for the better of the group, he was quoted saying prices would “stabilize eventually.” Iran and Iraq lambasted the attitude as selfishly protectionist with blatant disregard for other interests, claiming that Aramco has since “waged an oil war” against them. Feeling the after-effects of various international embargoes and sanctions on their exports, like Venezuela, Iran and Iraq almost entirely rely on their oil supply to finance their governments. Finding themselves in increasingly volatile economic free-fall, the Iranian oil ministry has threatened to leave OPEC if Aramco continues to exercise its dictatorial dominance over smaller countries. If the Iranian ministry leaves and takes at least four other countries with it, fractured international interests would come into play, possibly even driving markets towards an ever-so slight upward trend. One vulnerable country looking to benefit from any sort of change in the tide, Nigeria, set to elect a new president in the coming weeks, has survived multiple consecutive national disasters. Having both their economy and environment ravaged by oil, 20 billion dollars worth of crude spilled over the Nigeri-
March 2015
an flood plain coinciding with terrorist group Boko Haram’s theft of an unquantified amount of oil, the country is arguably the most unstable in OPEC. Having transitioned from military rule in 1999, Nigeria is set to elect its fourth president on February 14th, but due to rampant corruption and instability, many call into question the legitimacy of the results and the efficacy of civilian rule. Influenced heavily by the increasingly powerful Boko Haram, which has wrested control of the entirety of the northeastern region, the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, maintains that the 95% of the Nigerian economy reliant on oil will eventually return to the government’s coffers. However, one would assume, considering trends in public security and the general state of affairs in the Sub-Saharan, that despite Jonathan’s almost certain reelection, Nigeria will continue down this path of turbulent inconsistency. OPEC no longer stands as a united front. Saudi Arabia sees its partners as a threat to its market share and hopes to further weaken their already vulnerable economies in order to maintain, extend its influence and strengthen its share in the market. Despite its best attempts to deal other member countries a short hand, its biggest competitor, the United States shows no signs of slowing down. The international ramifications of plummeting oil prices will continue to affect more susceptible nations, ultimately effecting the conditions of the markets of more secure countries, leading to a meltdown which will crush their banking sectors or severely disable them. HMR
53
Science and Technology
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRIVACY PROTECTION BY EMMA FORMAN
O
n Monday January 10, 2015, President Obama called for federal lawmakers to force American companies to be more open with their credit card data and other information after an online breach. He introduced the Personal Data Notifications and Protection Act and the Student Data Privacy Act. These acts are essential in protecting consumers in the age of technological expansion. Although these acts are addressing important issues, a federal law is not the best way to protect Internet privacy, as it cannot fit the varying needs of individuals and corporations from different states. Internet privacy legislation should be enacted on the state rather than the federal level. The Personal Data Notifications and Protection Act would require companies to tell their customers if their accounts have been hacked, and the act would give these compa-
nies a maximum of thirty days to do so. The Student Data Privacy Act would prohibit online companies from benefitting from information provided by teachers. This is important because the number of schools with technological devices and online programs for data entry is increasing every year. The President is also enforcing agreements with companies to make sure they give customers access to their credit scores to help customers detect identity theft more quickly. Obama showed his support for these new acts, stating that individuals have a right to privacy, and this privacy has to be protected from the government or companies. These new announcements were made in preparation for Obama’s State of the Union address. The White House is confident in the new Acts and believes there will not be much opposition from industry or advocacy organizations because the laws would not interfere too much with the function of the
54
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
groups in question. Though the aforementioned laws will help protect individuals’ privacy from large companies and hackers by increasing transparency, they could have an overwhelmingly negative impact on corporations since the legislation is federal and therefore not specific enough to address the needs of distinct interests. The details of the President’s proposals are still largely unknown, and consumers and privacy groups are worried that any federal laws might be weaker than the recently passed state laws that protect data. California, for example, passed a state law on September 29, protecting student data. This law could conflict with the federal government’s Student Data Privacy Act. Furthermore, state regulations favor specific groups of people within the state; but federal laws would be directed towards a mass group of people and therefore less targeted. State legislatures can focus on what would work best for their specific con-
Science and Technology stituents, but federal laws try to fit the entire country under a uniform set of regulations. Chris Calabrese, the senior policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said although his company is not completely against the idea of a federal law, they would need to see it in more detail, because he is concerned “about the possibility of a federal law being watered down.” The federal law would be “watered down” in order to fit the needs of the entire country. Alternatively, Jon Leibowitz, a partner at the Davis Polk law firm and a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under Obama believes the law can do no harm. He stated, “It could be the kind of legislation that protects privacy, protects consumers, and actually has a chance for getting enacted.” Cooperate data breeches have become an increasingly important issue because of recent events, such as the attacks on Sony. As mentioned previously, the proposed acts would require companies to announce the attack within 30 days after the attack has occurred. The act also makes it a crime to sell a person’s information overseas. If the companies did not comply, the Federal Trade Commission would be able to issue penalties. Other recent hacking has included those at Target, Home Depot and Neiman Marcus. All of these breaches have showed there is a lack of uniformity in companies’ informing customers once a breach has occurred. The new federal policy would enforce a uniform period in which companies must inform their customers of a data breach. This would benefit the customers by enforcing the share of information with the customers.
This would also make sure no information is being hidden from the customer. Security breaches have always been a large issue for banks. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, says the company has spent over $250 million a year on data security and only expects the number to increase. The Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group for small banks, said as a result of the Target breach, its members distributed 4 million new debit cards at a cost of $40 million. Banks and industry lobbyists are normally in favor of universal laws relating to data breaching to decrease the costs corporations incur as a result of breaches. The Student Data Privacy Act was the result of parents’ worrying about data being taken from student’s tablets and put online. Obama stated, “Data collected on students in the classroom should only be used for educational purposes to teach our children, not to market to our children.” As schools all over country use increasing the amounts of digital education products such as math textbooks and online homework portals (such as Horace Mann’s Haiku), more information is shared about the user. Even as much as a brushstroke on a tablet is collected into data and used when customizing lessons based on the academic needs and learning styles of the student. Parents are worried that information about the child’s financial status, contact information or disciplinary and academic records could be collected and later shared. As previously discussed, California has taken a stand against this by introducing an education privacy law. The law prohibits compa-
nies from collecting student data to be used for advertising and marketing. The child protection plan would aid the country, but could hinder the effectiveness of using technology in school if it is harshly restricted. Obama’s new plans seemed to be beneficial to children in the age of technological expansion. Although this is true the rules may again be too broad to protect the specific needs of companies within each state. A better solution to privacy issues would be for states to pass laws regarding issues that companies and consumers have with the lack of privacy policies currently in place or those that are already set in stone. HMR
ALTHOUGH THESE ACTS ARE ADDRESSING IMPORTANT ISSUES, A FEDERAL LAW IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT INTERNET PRIVACY, AS IT CANNOT FIT THE VARYING NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS FROM DIFFERENT STATES.
March 2015
55
Science and Technology
SHIP BREAKING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE SADIE LYE
E
veryday, upon this earth, there are numerous environmental and human rights violations, but there is one that is repeatedly unreported and left unsolved. This is the practice of, ship breaking, dismantling a large container ship for scrap products. The steel is used in construction and for other purposes. Lifeboats, seats, and lights, engine oil, and gasoline are all removed and resold for a profit. There is nothing in this process that goes to waste. One might think that this seems as if it would be a great engine for economic growth in a developing country and that it would provide many jobs for workers. It is not. The life span of a large container ship is about 25-30 years. Ships built back in the 70’s and 80’s were constructed when less was known about the harmful effects of certain materials used in the building of ships. These ships contain substances
that are toxic for the environment and for the workers dismantling them. Lots of the engines were constructed with asbestos, which is a known carcinogen. Heavy metals such as lead or mercury can be found aboard in paint, thermometers, and in electrical wirings. These things can lead to irreparable damage to the nervous system and brain. Workers are exposed to bilge water, which is the accumulation of all the polluting liquids within the ship. Sometimes this is pumped directly into the ocean. These harmful substances need to be carefully decontaminated before they can be properly disposed of. In the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, ships are broken down upon tidal beaches with no regulation. The large container ships are beached on the shore and from there are dismantled. The skeletons of ships line the coast, after having been dismantled piece by piece.
56
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
The government does not regulate or fails to enforce environmental standards or workers rights. The laborers work and live in poverty. They are exposed to all of the harmful substance listed above with no protection. These things contaminate their bodies, the bodies of their families, their food, and there environment. In Bangladesh workers earn about 1 euro a day, as they risk their lives in a horrendously unsafe environment. There is opportunity for fires as they cut the metal, for the large pieces of metal to crush them, for them to fall off the sides of the ship, an accident with tools, or from sickness. There is no worker protection, and when someone is injured and tries to sue tactics of intimidation are used to stop others from following. It is hard to get precise numbers on how many workers die yearly in this work, because the companies try and
“As we lose more and more of our coasts, reefs, forest, and wild land we should try to protect what we have left.� cover deaths up. Family members of the deceased tell stories about being afraid to collect their paycheck incase they were threaten by violence if theytried to sue or report the death. According to a source of the Guardian one worker per week dies at one shipyard in Bangladesh where there are 140 of these shipyards. According to the Guardian 250 ships are made redundant every year, and 70% of these ships end up on the once pristine coast of these countries. In Turkey and China ships are broken down with slightly more regulation, but there are certainly not enough. There are shipyards in American where the environmental protection agency enforces strict regulations on the process, but it is cheaper for the large companies to get rid of their ships elsewhere with less regulatiin and cost.. Some people argue that this industry benefits developing countries in long run because it creates work for the people of that country. There are better ways to create industry in other countries, and America should be at the forefront of helping them do this. As we lose more and more of our coasts, reefs, forest, and wild land we should try to protect what we as citizens of the earth have left. American is in a position to do this, and through proper regulation the issue could be combatted. Rich British and American companies should be prohibited from simply dumping their old ships, and letting them be improperly disposed. American and British companies could partner with an existing shipyard in a developing country to start reform: the new company might better handle the extreme situation of dismantling a ship. Through certain programs the shipyard could be taught how to handle heavy metals, asbestos, and other toxic
things. Doing this would be beneficial for the environment of the entire world, and the lives of the workers. Programs to promote worker safety could be created, and a system to increase productivity. This would increase profits for the company while decreasing risk for workers. By starting a system for this in one industry in a country, many others would follow and the economy would grow. Instead of banning the industry of ship breaking all together, the United Nations and World powers should be helping foster relationships between the ship companies and shipping companies in order to increase industry in a developing nation while simultaneously increasing workers rights and decreasing environmental concern. Starting a program like this in one area could allow for the development or transfer of the same program in another industry. This program could set an example or a standard for every other industry in the developing country. By rising environmental and workers rights standards of livings would increase and boost the entire economy. In the long run a program like this would be more beneficial for the economy and stability then letting the practice continue.
The U.S.A. and other countries around the world should have an obligation to end environmental catastrophes and human rights violations not only in ship breaking but also in other industries such a factory work or mass farmed fishing. In order to protect the planet we live on, the United States government should be taking a larger stand against environmental violations around the world. It is the global communities we need to be aware of, and not just the local. Environmental disasters have their ripple effect, and each one will add up. The Untied States have the resources to begin to end humans rights violation in the workplace or in the home. The government is severely lacking in it’s ability to preform these tack when we could be the front runner for change around the world. We have a moral obligation to help if we want to be the greatest country on earth. Putting pressure on these young governments and helping to create programs could result in massive amounts of change. Without changes in American policy the effects of environmental, social, or developmental problems big or small will affect us. HMR
SCAPPED SHIP MATERIAL IN TONS
2000 March 2015
2010 57
Science and Technology
The Efficiency of Mandatory Quarantines
Vaed Prasad
Q
uarantines have been effective in containing spread of dangerous diseases, such as the Black Plague, for centuries. During the 14th century, when ships arrived in Venice from parts of the world that were deemed “infected” with the plague, they were required to anchor away from the port for 40 days. Since then, there has been continuous debate over the legality and ethical validity of quarantines. On September 30, 2014, the CDC confirmed the first diagnosis of Ebola in the United States: a man named
Thomas Duncan who had traveled to Dallas from Liberia. According to the CDC, Duncan did not have any indicative symptoms when he left Liberia but developed symptoms approximately four days after arriving in the United States. Duncan eventually died on October 8th. A healthcare worker at Texas Presbyterian Hospital who had provided care to the patient tested positive for Ebola several days after the patient’s death. As of November 8th there have been 3 confirmed cases of Ebola, 11 contacts, and 166 possible contacts in Dallas, all
58
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV
sourced from the single man who had not experienced symptoms when entering the United States. Evidently, which such contamination available from a single person, the threat of the spread of Ebola from person to person is real. With this information it seems fairly reasonable that in order to prevent the spread of Ebola, individuals suspected of exposure to the virus should be quarantined, even though they may not demonstrate any symptoms. In the situation of Dr. Craig Spencer, a 33 year-old member of Doctors Without Borders who tested
s
Science and Technology positive with Ebola, the stress of Ebola rose within New York City. Before being treated and eventually cured from the disease, Dr. Craig Spencer took a threemile jog, rode several subway trains, took an Uber car, went bowling, and drank at a coffee stand – all possible locations were the disease could be transmitted. Fortunately, it was only a matter of days before he reported a fever and was isolated, as further public interactions could have worsened the spread of the disease. Although The Office of Emergency Management conducted tests to deduce that the coffee stand and bowling alley were not contaminated, in just a 2-day timeframe it is suspected that there was risk of transmission to objects. In a dense city such as New York, where over eight million people are populated in a small area, viruses such as Ebola tend
According to N.J. Stat. § 26:4-2, “In order to prevent the spread of disease, the state department of health, and the local boards of health within their respective jurisdictions and subject to the state sanitary code, shall have power to maintain and enforce proper and sufficient quarantine, wherever deemed necessary.” Legally, the state and federal officials have the power to quarantine any individual who they suspect may be exposed to an infectious disease. The issue, however, is the lack of clarity around when and how these laws could be enforced. For example, according to Tim Mak, the laws are unclear and do not provide appropriate guidance to questions such as: “What would be the basis for quarantining individuals? Where would they be quarantined? What recourse would they have to prove that they should be eligible for
consider their moral and ethical duties. New York Times journalist Kate Murphy posed the key question, “What is everyone’s duty to prevent transmission of infectious diseases?” The ethical thing for individuals to do when suspected of potential exposure to communicable diseases is to voluntarily take measures to ensure the wellbeing of the community. However, as pointed out by Murphy, individuals are irrational in assessing their own risks of getting sick or the risk of making someone else sick. According to Professor Lawrence Gostin, a law professor at Georgetown University, “America has gotten so focused on rugged individualism and the autonomy of the person that we forget we have a wider ethical responsibilities to our families and communities and our country.” We, as a society, need to think about the im-
“While it is important that the government provide a more transparent and relevant approach to quarantines, as individuals, we need to be proactively thinking about the impact of our actions on our communities.” to thrive. With extreme risks already highlighted from Dr. Craig Spencer’s incident in just two days, it is urgent to isolate the infected or those with exposure, and doing so is justified as it protects the greater good of the community. However, Nurse Kaci Hickox disagrees. On her arrival from Sierra Leone where she served as a healthcare worker, Hickox was quarantined in a New Jersey hospital even though she showed no symptoms. “This is an extreme that is really unacceptable, and I feel like my basic human rights have been violated,” Hickox said in response to Governor Chris Christie’s quarantine policy. After serving only a few days of the 21-day quarantine period Hickox challenged the quarantine and proceeded to her home in Maine. Whether her choice was a selfish action or an act of the preservation of civil right, this case amplifies the question: Should it be legal for the Government to force someone into mandatory quarantine even when the person is not showing any symptoms?
release? What access to communications would they be given during quarantine?” According to Scott Gottlieb, a physician and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “I’ve long been concerned about the quarantine authority because it is so broad, not easily subject to challenge, and exceedingly absolute.” In order to increase the much needed transparency, it is therefore imperative that the Federal government outlines laws for situations in which quarantines would be permissible. While 71% of Americans surveyed by the Wall Street Journal agreed that healthcare workers should be subject to a 21-day quarantine, even if they experience no symptoms, it is evident that quarantine laws that are unspecific can quickly impede on individual’s rights. In response to her quarantine Hickox said, “I’m not willing to stand here and let my civil rights be violated when it’s not science-based,” arguing that the process of her quarantine was unjust. While it’s important to recognize the civil rights of individuals, we also must
March 2015
pact of our actions and consider making voluntary sacrifices for the betterment of others. Various examples across the globe highlight that this is achievable. For example, in several Asian countries it is routine to see people wearing surgical masks in public. The common assumption is that the individuals are wearing the mask to protect themselves from infection. However, typically the reality is that the wearer is sick and is trying to protect others. It is these kinds of attitude that will help remove the debate about appropriateness of quarantines. The dialogue about the legality and ethics of quarantine requires continued effort by government and individuals alike. While it is important that the government provide a more transparent and relevant approach to quarantines, as individuals, we need to be proactively thinking about the impact of our actions on our communities. While a 21-day quarantine is inconvenient to any individual, it is far more important to think about the greater risks posed to the general welfare. HMR
59